THIS, THEN COME back and think about this:
What temperature is it now where you are? Not the “official” weather service temperature from a station which might be miles away from where you are, but… where you are? What was the low this morning, (it would have fallen right before dawn, around 5:30-7:00 AM local time)? What will the high be?
What are the “official” numbers for each of those readings?
How do all of those differ from yesterday? Tomorrow? Is there more than a 1 degree difference day-to-day in any one reading?
What are the averages for your state? Don’t worry that your state may contain as many is four or five different climate zones, just moosh them all together? Now average those three numbers. Does that provide you an accurate idea of what the weather was yesterday where you are?
Of course not. Weather and climate are essentially local phenomena. Each is the sum of myriad continua that vary widely over time and space — both ground location and altitude. To use a single number (temperature) derived from statewide averages of high, specific time, and low for three days to establish weather conditions for a specific location is… silly. Witless. Meaningless.
And yet… The warmistas want to use a single number to define the temperature for the entire planet.
Weather changes — climate changes — second-to-second (faster, even, but the measurements would rapidly degrade into noise). Neither a single, global average, NOR ANY SINGLE TREND, has any meaning for any given location on the globe. Nor is the theoretical delta — less than a degree C per century in any way significant — even for a single location on the planet, let alone for the globe as a whole.
So: what are these guys on about?