3 ms·

> And this graph is showing a range of +/- 0.56 degrees C over a period of 120 years? An measurement error of 1% across such a vast number of measurement sites,

> And this graph is showing a range of +/- 0.56 degrees C over a period of 120 years? An measurement error of 1% across such a vast number of measurement sites, with different instruments, people and systems recording them isn't only plausible, it is very likely. In fact the error could be significantly greater than that. I think we should be careful to judge metrics from other fields based on our own technical experience. There is no basis for a non-climate expert to assume whether +/- 0.56 deg C over 120 years is a big deal or not, or within margins of error or not. To think that climate scientists as a whole don't know about instrument calibration, measurement-biases, or statistical noise filtering is silly. This is like thinking scientists measure sea-level rise by putting a measuring stick in the ocean.

robomartin 5y ago
This has nothing to do with being a climate scientist. In the real world, being able to compare field measurements across an entire country going back over a century to a small fraction of a degree C is almost impossible. Why are you so eager to accept the data without questioning its validity and demanding proof? Note that I am NOT denying climate change at all. Deniers are fools. It’s very real. Zealots also fall into the fallacy of believing everything they are told, because “it’s science”. Well, science requires proof and verification. If someone is going to claim to be able to make these kinds of comparisons, they better be ready to support their claim with evidence. Believing anything anyone says isn’t science, it’s a cult. Show me where, in that entire website, they talk about and provide data on instruments and methods and you might have a point. If you can’t find this information, why do you believe their claims? Based on what? Because they are scientists? Since when is that sufficien proof?

robomartin 5y ago

This has nothing to do with being a climate scientist. In the real world, being able to compare field measurements across an entire country going back over a century to a small fraction of a degree C is almost impossible. Why are you so eager to accept the data without questioning its validity and demanding proof? Note that I am NOT denying climate change at all. Deniers are fools. It’s very real. Zealots also fall into the fallacy of believing everything they are told, because “it’s science”. Well, science requires proof and verification. If someone is going to claim to be able to make these kinds of comparisons, they better be ready to support their claim with evidence. Believing anything anyone says isn’t science, it’s a cult. Show me where, in that entire website, they talk about and provide data on instruments and methods and you might have a point. If you can’t find this information, why do you believe their claims? Based on what? Because they are scientists? Since when is that sufficien proof?