Meðalhitinn á jörðinni allri skiptir auðvitað mestu máli.

Deilurnar um loftslagsbreytingar hafa því miður alltof mikið snúist um tölur frá einstökum stöðum eða löndum, en ekki um meðaltöl frá jörðinni allri.  

Gott dæmi um það að einblína á einstaka staði mátti finna í blaðagreinum í Morgunblaðinu í hitteðfyrra, þar sem hitinn á Stórhöfða síðustu áratuginn sýndu, að allt tal um hlýnun lofthjúps jarðar væri þvættingur, eða falsfréttir eins og Trump orðaði það. 

Einhver tæknileg atriði ollu því að síðari hluti þessa pistils fæst aðeins birtur á ensku og er beðist velvirðingar á því.

The last example of a biased perspective was when the figures and graphs of Trausti Jónsson were published here recently, which showed the evolution of the temperature in Iceland on either side of the 2000s.

The graphs showed similar warming in the first era, the 20th century and then in the last 30 years.

Between these periods there was a rather short period of cooling, but it was noted that the beginning and end of the first era were colder than the beginning and end of the second.

Thus, overall, the coldest years inside the first period were colder than the coldest years in the second period.

But the cold-hearted believers were quick to say that, overall, there had been no warming.

Now, all the computer projections of global warming up to the turn of the century show two or three regions on Earth, where the fiery red color, which is on almost the entire Earth, is not, but a light blue color.

One of these light blue areas covers the Iceland and the area southwest of the country.

As a result, it is not good Latin to make Iceland alone, let alone Big Head alone, an all-encompassing symbol for the whole earth.

The above light blue areas include arguments, which have been mentioned many times on this page and need not be repeated, which is the effect of clean and cold solvent water from melting glaciers on the waters into which this water flows.

Bráðnun jökla „út úr kortinu“