Thanks for the data Randy. As we can see, the temperature *IS* increasing. But I don't think anyone is arguing that point anymore, right? The debate now seems to have shifted to "well yeah, g****l w*****g is real but is it anthropogenic?"

Still, I want to point something out in your data that I think is important to understand...

Look at the differences from one decade to the next... I'll draw it out for you... here's the same data converted to expressions of percentage increase from one decade to the next.



From here we can get the sum totals...
Total increase: 2.70%
Total decrease: -0.25%
Total difference: 2.45%

But the real significance isn't just that temperatures have increased by 2.45% it's the WAY it's increasing. The temperature increase for the last two decades in the dataset is significantly higher than any of the previous decades indicating an increase in the rate of acceleration.

Did you see that when you looked at that data before you posted it? I know, a lot of people glance at the numbers and see two things... The numbers appear small and there are decreases as well as increases. That makes it easy to think of the data as nominal, but when you look closer and find patterns you find more significance.

BTW, the last decade is missing from your dataset so I'm going to add it to see if that makes things more obvious. I can't find the average global mean temperature for the 2010 decade, so I will have to calculate that myself using the annual reports from NOAA.

And here it is...


Yup, still going up and it IS accelerating... exponentially. The total increase from 1880 to 2019 is 3.38%, minus the total decrease, we're at 3.14%. So now let's look at the running totals.



Now are you starting to see the picture? This is still coming from the data you provided. But now we can see that it took 100 years to see an increase of at least 1%. The very next decade it was already past 2% and one decade later we're past 3%.

This is what Al Gore was referring to with his hockey stick analogy. He wasn't wrong. Your data proves it.

Still not alarmed? Is that because a mean temperature of 58'F really doesn't seem like a big deal, especially since it took 140 years to get there from 56'F?

A few more things to explain then...

1. The median global temperature is the mid-point between the extremes across many different climates, not all of which are affected equally. So a 2% increase in the median temperature could mean the temperature drops by 2% in some climates and increases by 4% in others.

2. It's not a simple matter of how the temperature feels when you walk outside. There are certain thresholds in the spectrum where a 1 degree change makes all the difference. For instance, water is frozen into solid ice at 32'F. At 33'F it melts into liquid water. Different liquids have various, specific boiling points.

So, elements CAN be affected by a 1 degree change, which means all the complex systems built on top of them can also be affected by a 1 degree change, including weather systems, food chains, malaria zones... all kinds of stuff and the repercussions go far and wide, like how a 2% increase in global mean temp causes prolonged droughts and record-breaking heat in the westerns states which creates more flammable material in the underbrush which feeds more intense fires, which k**ls more people.

There is a huge solar wind farm north of Corpus Christi Texas. It was built with US taxpayer money, a LOT of it, and with the taxpayers providing operating subsidies for a number of years, and with the owners taking over all financial responsibility once it was operational and profitable. The owners never have to pay back the cost of building the hundreds of turbines. Guess what? I'm sure you do not have to. In an area that has ideal wind conditions for wind turbines, the company does not make enough profit to stay in business, even with zero original construction cost liability. So the government reluctantly agreed to continue the subsidies. The only other option was for the owner/operators to declare bankruptcy, and we would lose our 'investment'. As far as I'm aware, we are still paying subsidies to keep our pretty tall toys operating.
LOL. And these are the government bureaucrats that Obama/Biden wanted to guide and direct all our scientific research dollars. I expect that Biden/Harris has the same plan. No thank you. Neither wind nor solar are viable yet. Someday I hope they will be, but not yet.
I am all for alternate energy. Let's invest the money, develop it to functionality and affordability, and start using it. Let's get rid of using f****l f**ls for power generation, and reserve it for plastics and other non-polluting uses. But let's NOT put the horse before the cart. Functional and affordable FIRST.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all, you just don't agree. If it wasn't for family planning and the option to abort legally, many of those embryos terminated in the first trimester, would develop into later term fetuses and be aborted then. Many more would be born to parents that can't provide for them, or that wind up resenting them. Others would be born with defects that guarantee a torturous childhood and a hopeless life. More would be born with drug addictions because the mother is on drugs. If Republicans got their way, there would be an over abundance of neglected and abused children growing into criminals and psychopaths. For these poor souls, being terminated as an embryo would save them from a life of misery. Mercy.

That's one of the things government is good for. There's actually not much innovation in the commercial world that isn't built on top of technologies that were incubated by tax-funded programs when returns on investment were too low for private sector business plans.

Actually, the cost of sustainable energy is dropping considerably these days. And one could argue that the only reason why oil remains cheap is because of the recent flood of oil from shale, but how long will that last?

Personally, I think curbing emissions is just as important as affordability. Besides, so what if energy is more expensive? It just means we'll be forced to adapt, forced to be more creative, more resilient, stronger, better and CLEANER! No pain no gain, right?