That's not what climate is about. Also, it depends on location, in many places it was colder in 2019 than in 2018. If you're talking about some calculated "global" temperature, it doesn't exist in a valid form.
It is not possible if there aren't valid temperature measurements available for all points throughout the measured period of time, so that many temperatures are "interpolated", estimated etc.
Except that we do have a massive number of recorded temperatures across a massive number of locations in the last 100 years. Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data.
The measurements are real, and there is an established history of the models being generally correct (if not in specific details) by now. Climate study is not the new science you seem to think it is.
> Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data.
Can you point me to one such model? One that actually predicted temperatures correctly back in the 1970s and not after various recent "adaptations" like "corrected" emission data?
> The measurements are real
Yes, measurements are real. Interpolations, resulting "global" temperatures and predictions aren't.
no, a noisy measure around a globally increasing trend line went down.
I believe that the noisy measure goes up, on average, because it is (noisily) measuring a warming climate. I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead...
using the trend line, you could set odds at which the betting on a colder 2021 would be the correct bet - but it isn't 50/50, which it would be if the process were random noise.
as a professional poker player I'm not surprised by this argument, but I am saddened.
edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
> * I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead...*
Good luck with that, but you first asked about one year (next year), which is a different matter altogether.
> (edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
I completely understand your point and how you are trying to move the goalpost from an easily refutable argument to something more useful. Perhaps your "professional poker player" mind doesn't understand that recent increases/decreases in temperature averages affect next year's weather, whereas past poker games don't affect your current one.
you can, in fact, compute a mean temperature for the globe. and you can, in fact, plot a trend line over that mean. and that mean is, in fact, meaningful.
What makes such a measurement an "invalid form"?