If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month
grist.org
grist.org
I see your point, but we don't have that information and probably never will. We don't have strongly statistically significant measurements until ~1600. But we have to operate with some uncertainty to make decisions worth trillions of dollars.
We know the increases we've seen in the past century are of a much higher magnitude than what we saw in the few centuries before that. We believe this is true for at least 1000 years back (see the hockey stick curves). We know the increases in the past 100 years are correlated with human actions, especially greenhouse gas emissions. It is (IMO) common sense to hypothesize this correlation is a causation; we know the causation doesn't go the other way, and we know there are no confounding factors (i.e. the same thing that caused the heating caused us to emit way more greenhouse gases). This is where climate change skeptics attack, which is unfair because it is impossible to prove a causation. If we assume the correlation is a causation, we know the increases we have seen would not have naturally existed. And this is what matters to many scientists.
The increases are not "significant" in the statistical sense per se, they are significant in the possible effects on our world.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-...
Given the temperatures for each of the 27 x 12 = 324 previous months, the mean of those figures must be within the range somewhere....
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
An interesting anomaly is the warming between the 1860s and 1940s. Especially given the comparatively slight amount of CO2 released in those decades compared to our own.
Temperature norms may move across greater timescales than just 100-150 years. Of course, if we were to explore that, the discussion goes off the rails into talk about the "MWP," "historical reconstructions," "Mann, et al.," and other murkily useless topics for internet bulletin boards.
so, we're 12 years into this century, and he's comparing to a 100 years span. 27 years which means 15 years of the last century. selective number picking. meaningless post, move on.
This is an important topic, but "If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-[global]-average month" strikes me as a rather silly statement.
The idea that making the statement that monthly global temperature averages haven't managed to be lower than the historical average once in 27 years should be seen as utterly irrelevant bordering on deceptive because there was a cool January in my neighborhood last year is really making me ill right now.
It's not even pedantry, simply solipsism.
[1] you'll need google translate http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zima_stulecia and unless you're Russian you better grab a warm coat before reading.