Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

One is not a global temperature measurement and the other isGlobal temperature measurements are built with frequency tables compiled using multiple local temperature measurements. Any variation in those local measurements will affect the mean temperature as a whole. We are comparing present mean temperatures to those of 1880 and beyond. As North America and Europe were abnormally cold at that time, the mean temperatures we are comparing ours against do not accurately reflect normal mean temperatures. I presume that you know what a mean is? The way you consider a mean and its component parts to be separate suggests otherwise.we had abnormally cold weather in New York earlier this year, and many people used that fact to somehow suggest that global warming wasn't/isn't happening.Funny, we had abnormally cold weather in Europe earlier this year. I suppose that the same abnormalities occurring simultaneously on two separate continents is your idea of a 'variability in the trend'? That said, I acknowledge that local weather patterns are not indicative of global trends. However, I wonder whether proponents' measure local weather trends to support their theories?I was not originally under the impression that you were skeptical of global warming altogether.Sceptical is spelt with a "c". I am sceptical of the notion that temperatures have risen above the 'normal' range. The graph I supplied shows that they have not, so far. It is not my fault if the people who originally posted it on their site misinterpreted their own evidence. I will remain sceptical until more time has past. I believe it is impossible to measure these things based on a century's statistics. As a species, we have only recently become able to measure these things, to suddenly presume omniscience is madness.So, are you skeptical about the theory or the fact?Again spelt with a "c". If you are using Mozilla firefox, a dictionary application can be downloaded. It will highlight any spelling mistakes made.To your question, I have, upon further analysis, come to the conclusion that temperatures are rising for now. I question whether this is outside the norm for the planet. The aforementioned planet has existed for billions of years and we have only been able to measure the past 400000 or so. Actually, how can any temperature be described as 'normal' for a planet that periodically experiences rapid cooling and then rapid heating? As the graph showed, we are currently at or near the apex of one of those periods of heating and it is impossible to discern our impact upon that until it is over, or until it continues for longer than usual, as the case may be. Unfortunately, as these trends can last for thousands of years, you and I will certainly be dead by the time either outcome becomes apparent.My main argument is close to yours concerning local trends not being indicative of global trends. If you replace area with time, you end up with the same basic principle, but on a larger scale. For all we know, the earth could heat up to almost inhospitable temperatures periodically, but if those periods are longer than 400000 years then we could not as yet know. I am not saying this happens, per my theory that would be impossible to know, I am simply stating that it is foolish to make assumptions on the World's climate trends based on evidence from less than a tenth of a percent of its existence.Not really.That is just a rushed and unsupported refutation.You're thinking about it in the wrong way. It's thermal expansion that's causing sea surface levels to rise. Because water is more dense than ice, it has more thermal expansivity; that is, it's volume is increasing as temperatures increase.Beyond a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius, how much can it expand by?There was a recent heatwave in Pakistan (over 51 degrees celsius or 124 degrees Fahrenheit) that emerged within the Asian warming trend.Coming from the man who says local trends are not indicative of global ones?It killed hundreds of.Of what?Don't leave it to me.Why not? I am certainly not going to rely on other people's opinions, why would you?The website you cited through the graph is almsot singularly geared towards debunking the claims skeptics "like you" make.As I said before, they have misinterpreted their own evidence. Besides, it is more useful to look at the evidence and make your own conclusion than just recycling someone else's. Even if your conclusion is wrong, because in a debate, only one side can be right, the other half have to be wrong. If everybody just believed everything they read, then we would all be incarcerated in asylums, presumably run by other lunatics, due to the sheer number of conflicting opinions we would have to agree with. My point is that you up your own mind before you join a side, not the other way round. If everything you say is true and it is becoming increasingly possible that it is, then there is absolutely no reason for me to get up in the morning, go to school, eat or effect any other of my daily machinations, because we are all going to die or live in trees, eating beans. I for one refuse to accept that. (It's amazing how much one can type when it is twelve a.m and one is running on a mix of stubbornness and caffeine!)