Averages hide important details.
For the climate, a single global average temperature hides very important details.
The warming since the 1970s has not been even:
Lots of warming in the Arctic.
Very little warming of Antarctica.
And the warming in Antarctica has been in a pattern that could be caused by underseas volcanoes, but not caused by a CO2 greenhouse effect.
More warming in the coldest six months of the year, than in the other six months.
More warming at night, than in the day
In summary, the actual warming since the 1970s has been good news, unless you consider warmer winter nights in Siberia and Alaska to be bad news.
All those details are hidden by a global average temperature.
A global average temperature is not very valuable for three other reasons:
(1) No one lives in a global average temperature -- any problems people have from climate change will be from changes in their local climates, where they live,
(2) Estimates of a global average temperature are rough before World War II ... and worthless before 1900, when there were very few land weather stations outside of US, Europe and Australia, and there were very few ocean measurements in the Southern Hemisphere (not that sailors with buckets and thermometers in Northern Hemisphere sea lanes are even close to an accurate sea temperature measurement methodology), and
(3) No one knows what a "normal" global average temperature is, or if "normal" even makes sense, because our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so the climate is ALWAYS changing.
Rather than listening to climate alarmists claiming "pre-industrial" climate is 'normal', with almost no real time measurements to determine what the temperature actually was in 1750, why not make a judgement on the current climate?
The current climate is wonderful, and if it gets a degree C, warmer in 50 or 100 years, that would be even better.
Scaremongering with a single global average temperature, that not one person lives in, is not real science.
