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

So we're just ignoring heat capacity here?

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

Yeah, along with a lot of other countries, there are over 130 experimental fusion reactors spread across 50 countries, I'm pretty sure it's a race that nobody will win.

I don't believe fusion is ever going to be an economically feasible energy source.

Hmmmm. I'm well aware of the processes that brought about the formation of Fossil fuels, and that, as the name suggests they have an organic base...And certainly there will still be undiscovered resources...But to suggest that it was/is a continuous and sustainable process relative to human demand in the short term, is not a theory that is substantiated by scientific study.

Though the current climate change issue is not about geological processes and the availability of fossil fuels, but rather about the rapid process of extraction and burning over the past few hundred years, and the consequent effects of rises in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse substances.

So as I see it, the evolution of Earth processes, also includes the evolution of intellectual application and manipulation, therefore everything is natural...Billions of years of fossil fuel formation, a few hundred years of large scale fossil fuel burning and now addressing the affects of our actions...And some people will say, what the heck, which is all a part of the process.

Not sure how much human post mortem rituals were/are a contributory factor to either fossil fuel formation or greenhouse gas emissions. Though crematoria and other cremation rituals undoubtedly produce CO2...Whereas in a box or not, burial returns carbon to the Earth.

You are totally missing the point that previous to man, the Earth's atmosphere has had far more CO2 [along with other "greenhouse gasses" in it than now, simply by volcanism, and that our ancestral mammalian creatures, prev-man, but with physiological systems like ours, survived. I ask, therefore, what existential threat a lesser amount of GGs now presents? No one wants to address that question with any rational response. Just up-in-the-night climate change.

My burial ritual point was simply that modern man does not to contribute to the organic goo that is the continue production of petroleum crude.

China is working on a lot of firsts.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive". - Donald Trump

Here Are the 10 Most Popular Climate Change Conspiracy Theories

Only 3 out of ten? you're getting lazy, it's time to step it up.

So we're just ignoring heat capacity here?

Land warms faster, but also cools faster. So average isnt higher than in sea.

George Soros starting forest fires with his Jewish space lasers must contribute to Global warming.

How did our science deniers miss that?

Well, I think that box or not, human remains are never deep enough to be converted into oil...Rather, they are broken down by soil organisms and are eventually incorporated into the sub soil.

And people, or more correctly first hominids, emerged approximately 4 million years ago whereas oil deposits were formed between 70 and 250 million years ago...Just to put time periods into perspective.

Nonetheless, the current issue concerns human society in the 21st century, and the impact that more extreme climatic events will have on modern infrastructure and burgeoning human populations with their associated expectancies.

And for sure, simply in terms of species, our ability to adapt and survive is unlikely to be in question.

And if you are an ageing human, secure in a mountain hideaway, then you can probably afford to be somewhat blase about extreme weather and environmental events that might affect others in less secure places.

And let's be clear, the current issue is not relative to long term variations in the Earths climate. It concerns an increase in average global temperatures over a very short period of time, that can be attributed directly to the rate of extraction and burning of fossil fuels by humans.

So we keep on as we are and say what the heck, or we attempt to address the issue. You run with the first option, and others think the second option is somewhat more prudent...Which I suppose is typical human behaviour.

Looks like the Chinese succeeded. Trump sees U.S. manufacturing non-competitive". - Donald Trump

Not if the overall effect is a rise...if the temperature is rising overall, it's gonna rise faster on land.

if the temperature is rising overall, it's gonna rise faster on land.

No, average temperatures include both rising and falling temperatures, not just rising temperatures. Otherwise, sea would be significantly colder than the land on average.

No, average temperatures include both rising and falling temperatures, not just rising temperatures. Otherwise, sea would be significantly colder than the land on average.

Yes, but right now we're in a period of warming. If we were in a period of cooling it would be the other way around. If you and I are racing and I run faster than you, then if we're both running to the right then I will be going to the right faster. Over millions of years if we run back and forth, then sure I won't always be to the right of you. But we're talking about an overall warming trend.

Yes, but right now we're in a period of warming

No, there is still autumn, spring, winter and nights when temperatures drop much faster on land than they do on sea.

Sure, but I'm talking year round. Since heat capacity is a scalar effect, as long as the net movement is an increase, then the net effect will be greater on land. Even if the decreases are greater on land, there are more increases than decreases. Like 2*(2-1+2-1) > (2+1+2-1)

as long as the net movement is an increase

No, it doesnt matter if average temperature is 15 degrees or 20 degrees. Water still holds heat better than land does.

Very, if you redefine what a C is. Gotta ask the NIST scientists if you wanna do that.