Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words.
Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have.
Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
Re:Warmest March in Global Recordkeeping
by soundwave106 on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @05:24PM
(#11530569)
Longer sets of data exist that are not global in scale. The longest is the Central England Temperature set, going back to 1659.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
Beyond that, people have attempted reconstruction from other evidence. For instance I found an attempt at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht...
Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound, it is apparent that there definitely is a fair bit of natural temperature variability. But the recent temperature rise in the last 50 years certainly seem like aberration, in terms of rate of change.
> Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures.
No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of temperature rise we are seeing right now are not to be expected based on our last ice age receding. The fallacy here is "made shit up and pretended it was truth".
> Also, the "record" in this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old
The record is a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to how we act today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant.
> so to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious.
Nobody is making that generalization, or using that scale of evidence. This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that they (Weather Underground) used .00000000028% of available evidence to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false.