How rational is expecting a single, universal, worldwide climate within plus/minus 1.5 degrees C?

Science isn't rational, it's part of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Erratic Climate Change has many future unknowns.

What is not unknown is that is primarily human caused phenomena. Old news

single, universal, worldwide climate

Climate doesn't mean it's the same temperature everywhere, it means the average temperature. If your argument is that we should expect the average to change the way we are observing from non-human activity, then...make the argument? Saying something is unreasonable without saying why isn't really making an argument.

Just for the sake of pushing the conversation forward, here's a Wikipedia page with average temperatures over time estimated with proxy data. The drastic increase since 1880 seems not to be the norm.

I'll take issue with the "primarily human caused" accusation, because the geographic record we see just in the Grand Canyon walls, and ice core samples, demonstrates a far worse environment at a time when mammals were first evolved 140M years ago, by their own record in geologic time. Volcanism, and its associated emission of toxic gasses into the atmospheres were far worse than our atmosphere today, and yet ancient mammals, which demonstrated physiology very similars to our own, survivied that toxic atmosphere without destroying the varied mammalian species, so, a human-caused catestrophic outcome for us is a bit of nonsense. We're smarter than those early mammals could ever be, and have means of adjustment to atmospheric conditions we have, such as indoor provisions. But, no. We are going to kill ourselves by A.I., or by sheer madness of anger against one another, long before our comparatively mild atmosphere does us in, which the Earth is able to cleans by itself, and without the money we insist on throwing at the clouds, which tends, instead, to line other people's non-deserving pockets, like that idiot, AlGore, who has yet to produce a teaspoon of AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. What's hew waiting for? A catchy marketing routine? Net zero..... when??? ROFL.

Just worldwide average temperature? And what makes you think there is any consistency and accuracy in the measure of that temperature, worldwide? I happen to know a bit about measurement tech. Here are my questions which I spent a career in 30 countries asking and assessing the answers:

How many measurement stations are there? 

Are they all using the same measurement equipment for the same measurement need? 

Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurements required? 

Is all measurement equipment used of an accuracy that is 10 times the required tolerance specified to assure data is valid within specified tolerances? 

How accurate and timely are all their calibrations performed and recorded on all specified measurement equipment? 

Are those who conduct the measurements all properly trained in the function of the measurement equipment used?

Are all who perform calibration of measurement equipment also adequately trained as above?  

Is the training verified as effective with follow up by the trainers? 

Do the measurement operators all use the same measurement process technique?

If any of these questions are not adequately answered, the accuracy of any measurement, temp, or otherwise, is in doubt. And, there foes the science: poof. Gone.

I saw the title of this thread and instantly recognised it as one of Faux's coping strategies...Just like the inexhaustible reserves of GOD given fossil fuels that were designed solely to keep Fuax snug, warm and mobile in the Rockies.

So, climate changed and climate changes for varying reasons and currently certain human inspired factors are recognised as affecting climate.

Hmmm, I don't really see the point in trying to deny it, other than to allay your own personal fears for the future, especially when like me you're not going to be around for much longer anyway.

And despite your fears, remedial action is slowly being taken and will no doubt continue to be done so, which, relative to global societies and their infrastructure is perhaps somewhat more prudent than burying our heads in the sand.

Even so, catastrophic weather events will undoubtedly occur from time to time just as they have always done...Which just goes to prove that catastrophic weather events will occur from time to time and there's very little that we can do about it.

If any of these questions are not adequately answered, the accuracy of any measurement, temp, or otherwise, is in doubt. And, there foes the science: poof. Gone.

That's just an argument from ignorance. The fact that measured temperatures have remained relatively consistent over time is evidence that it's being measured accurately. Is it a lot of evidence? Maybe you'd argue it's not, but it's more evidence than just asking a lot of questions. Make the argument that it hasn't been measured consistently or that the scientists are doing it wrong, if you base your case on "maybe x, y, and z" then there's an infinite number of "possible" objections you can raise.

When ignorance is bliss, it is sometimes foolish to be wise.

Would it surprise you to learn that my 1-ft thick stone-walled 4,000 sq ft home in the Rockies is powered by a 39-panel array of solars panels?

Now you've stepped back from your claim that man is a primary cause of climate change once you realized that climate was worse long before

the appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth?

Who said I fear the future? You did, but you don't know squat about me and my thinking. According to you, I am wrong, but, your first two points, rebutted above, fail. So does this claim. Sorry, you do not inhabit my head, so worry about your own.

Despite nothing about me, all of which your opinion. so far , is what's buried in sand. At 7500 feet elevation, there is no sand around here.

lots of gneiss, shist, and granite, thanks. Take any geology in school?

Finally, a true statement. Catastrophic natural events do occur. Yes, man contributes to those events, but is not the root and primary cause. Just another of a number oft causes. Is there a better source oft energy than petroleum? of course. I have never-ending faith in man's ability for discovery. We are not just curious by design; there is cause and effect thereby.

 The fact that measured temperatures have remained relatively consistent over time is evidence that it's being measured accurately.

I did not invent the list of nine detailed questions in my post #6 to determine proper measurement standards of anything using measurement tools. That responsibility belongs to the American Society for Quality, developed over 50 years ago for the CSSBB [Certification for

Six Sigma Black Belt] Primer manual. Your commentary cited above in your post #8, and that statement denies, ignorantly, 8 of the 9 standards. Well done. Hint: accuracy does not happen without adherence to standards any more than manipulative math proves 1 + 1 ≠ 2.

I'm not saying the standards don't matter, I'm saying you haven't presented an argument that the people measuring have failed to follow necessary standards. You basically said that the source might be misleading or wrong, but there are an infinite number of maybes or hypotheticals that either of us can present. You're trying to start an argument where the other side has to do all the work for you.

I'm saying you haven't presented an argument that the people measuring have failed to follow necessary standards.

Maybe there could be argument that meassuring stations built in new places would logically give different meassurements. Temperature isnt consistent anywhere. New meassuring stations are built, and of course they are going to give different meassurements. Its impossible for them to give same meassurements. If you meassure temperature, you will see that different places give different meassurement. There is a lot of variation in degrees on every 50 kilometers. I dont deny climate change, but claim that temperature meassurements can be completely accurate is logically impossible. For example, if someone built more roads around meassuring station, it would show higher temperature because roads increase temperature of surroundings during summer. If someone built new meassuring station which is closer to roads, it would show higher temperature. Temperature meassurement entirely depends on where meassuring station is built and on its environment around it, also from what materials is meassuring station built. The only thing going in favor of climate change supporters is consistent increase in temperature which happens every year, and the recent hot temperatures obviously exceed those remembered from the past. But to rely on meassurements from 50 years ago is bad argument, 50 years ago science had terrible standards in everything. Even today, science makes dumb mistakes which is the main reason people dont trust studies much anymore.

if someone built more roads around meassuring station, it would show higher temperature because roads increase temperature of surroundings during summer. If someone built new meassuring station which is closer to roads, it would show higher temperature.

Those are pretty easy things to control for, like Statistics 101...and there are plenty of articles explaining how these temperatures are measured. Tree rings and ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from in the past, and there's usually less variation when measuring average than a single data point due to the law of large numbers.

Those are pretty easy things to control for, like Statistics 101

You cant control for it.

Tree rings and ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from in the past

Questionable how much is that even reliable, but this was about temperature meassuring stations. And trees and ice likewise would suffer from same problem of environment variety which meassuring stations suffer from. There is no meassuring system which meassures entire temperature everywhere. Meassuring systems only meassure temperature in their small area. They are not omni present.

less variation when measuring average than a single data point due to the law of large numbers

Average changes when new different variables are introduced.

The average meassured temperatures in past 20 years rose by 1.5 degrees C.

Problem?

In urban areas, temperature can be up to 3 degrees higher than in rural areas during day, and up to 10 degrees during night.

How would this mess up average?

There are less and less rural areas in the world, cities are having less green surface and even rural areas are getting more roads everywhere.

So what the climate change people focus on is CO2, but the real change in temperature comes from roads and concrete. You can test it yourself during summer. Place your hand on grass, its nice and cool. Place your hand on concrete and its burning hot like fire. Thats what has great effect on average temperature meassurements.

Some meassuring stations report lower temperatures. Again, meassuring stations dont meassure total Earth's temperature, as much as survey of 1000 people doesnt meassure opinion of 7 billion people.

Bla bal bla. Want more:

If the data were out of NASA, I might be more inclined to believe it, but the governing agency of NOAA [National Oceanic & Atmospheric Organization], according to annual reports since 1997, is NOAA is overseen not by any scientific organization of scholastic repute, but by the Department of Commerce. Yahooo! There's "science" for you. As I said, just existing to line pockets with climate change propaganda. Nope I don't believe the data is anywhere close to accurate. I virtually guarantee those taking measurements are not using the same equipment, worldwide, and that's just one of the 9 criteria I gave thou. Not trained by the same techniques, either, I'll wager. Calibration? That's just pathetic.

I know, I've been three to observe how poorly that is trained and executed, even within the same organization, let alone with them scattered around the world.

If the data were out of NASA, I might be more inclined to believe it,

Okay, here's data from NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121

They can see how sea temperatures rise too (also temperatures at the poles, and using satellites to view the effect of CO2). So roads aren't really a problem.

When ignorance is bliss, it is sometimes foolish to be wise.

I like that.

Well by far the the best source of energy is the Sun, though we waste it's abundant supplies.

And oil reserves are the result of climate change, long ago.

And I clearly didn't state than man was/is the primary cause of climate change.

But I certainly don't run with the idea that mans contribution to the recent rise in average global temperature is a conspiracy theory...I accept that it is based upon sound scientific research and monitoring.

So roads aren't really a problem.

When they increase land temperature by up to 10 degrees, they are.

They can see how sea temperatures rise too

That proves my point. Sea temperatures in past 20 years rose by 0.4 degrees only, while meassuring stations on land reported a rise in temperature of 1.5 degrees on land. Thats a significant difference between rise in temperature on sea and temperature on land.

And oil reserves are the result of climate change, long ago.

Nope, regardless of climate, organic matter decomposes and becomes petroleum crude, and we have no idea how long that process takes [we estimate millions of years, but, to date, no one has proven the duration of the process], but it's been happening since there was first organic material that went to ground, land or sea, simply by death. And that process did not suddenly end just to make a convenient "climate change" argument. We do not have li tied reserves in the ground; and we keep discovering new reserves all the time. That is a change change argument of absurdity. There is no other animal on Earth that treats their dead by putting them in a box, separating them from the natural environment. Several other species mourn their dead, and some do engage in burial of a sort, but none to the degree humans do now. We used to not even use a box. What, pray tell, made you think petroleum is not organic? AlGore's "Inconvenient Truth?" Nat Geo? NOAA? Nonsense.

Climate change seems to affect land more than sea.

That proves my point. Sea temperatures in past 20 years rose by 0.4 degrees only, while meassuring stations on land reported a rise in temperature of 1.5 degrees on land. Thats a significant difference between rise in temperature on sea and temperature on land.

But it's still a rise. Also, given how heat capacity works, we should expect that land will heat up faster than the sea. So even if all we had was sea measurements, we could be estimating a significant warming effect. Even then, the most important measurements are directly looking at the effect on the poles, and that just requires accurate sea measurements.

Do you think Putin convinced Trump to build coal powered electric power plants?

I know he convinced him to overturn Roe V Wade.

The idea of coal powered electric power must have come from Xi Ping.

You know that China is working on the first nuclear fusion reactor, don't you?

we should expect that land will heat up faster than the sea

No, average temperature of sea isnt lower than that of land. Water holds temperature much better than land does.