These are measurements made by satellite over land. Lower troposphere temperatures recorded by satellite have never shown the same rise in temperatures as the so-called and oft-quoted global temperatures (supposedly a combination of land and sea-based direct measurements AIUI), over the period 1975-2000.
We are going into a La Niña period, following a particularly strong El Niño 2015/16.
Those caveats notwithstanding, this comment is noteworthy "According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino." So the temperatures are flat-lining, as can be seen from the graph.
Those that fail to learn the lessons of history....
I loved the Yucatan. All those magnificent ruins prompted a question 'what happened to the people that built Chichen Itza'?
Then I got back to the hotel, and realised there they all were, serving me drinks and building more hotels.
The question then became' what happened to the people who ordered chichen itza to be built' and of course the answer was 'they killed them, when climate change destroyed their way of of life and all the human sacrifices in the world didn't work'.
And that's what will happen to people who advocate man made climate change. They will get killed. And in 500 years people will look at ruined windfarms and wonder what religious purpose they served, there being no other logical reason for their construction.
It's getting more like Russia under Stalin with every passing year all over the West today. Fortunately, the prospect of totally controlling dissent on the internet is a slim one and 'they' also have to bear in mind that those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable.
I don't have a particular view on global warming or cooling, being unconvinced either way. But you've hit the nail on the head with your comment about those promulgating either view. They're scientists with a conformable tenure and plenty of research funds and they're keen for it to stay that way, so the argument will continue ad infinitum.
There were 25,000 delegates at the recent Paris climate conference. Nice little jolly, eh?
example I could give is Bill Grieg of some uni in London who with monotonous regularity predicts that the side of one Canary island will fall off, creating a mega-tsunami that is going to wipe out most of the American eastern seaboard and more besides. As long as he can maintain tenure with 'research' funds on his scare story, he's got a nice, comfortable little billet, thank you very much.
So you're ignoring the data in the chart for this century I linked to. Not many people would disagree that there _was_ a period of warming between 1975 and 2000, but I fail to see how anyone can claim the warming has continued in this century, when it clearly hasn't. To claim otherwise is just silly.
Systematic errors - caused because your measuring equipment measures (say) 5% too high. Or even has an error "profile", being (say) 2% off up to some value and 4% above that.
Measurement errors due to (say) you having to estimate where the needle has settled on the scale between two marks on the dial.
Just because your kit is "properly calibrated" doesn't mean that the errors in the measurements it makes are reduced to 0%. It's your job as the researcher to understand your measurement instruments, know how they drift with time, temperature, air pressure, humidity and anything else. You also need to note when you made the measurements, and with which instrument (particularly if you have several).
If you are measuring several things and then combining them to get the number you actually want to report on, you need to get error estimates for each of those numbers and then combine the errors correctly to get an error figure for the final number. Results reported without an estimate of the error in the number you are reporting on are not particularly useful.
You could also look at Millikan's oil drop experiment (see ) to measure the charge on the electron and how he got an answer off by 1%, and read the section entitled "Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology" to see how his wrong number affected the results published by subsequent researchers.
Some of us are the opposite of all those examples but still don't care too much what happens , by a fortunate chance I got born in a country that along with its neighbours formed the "West" with its outlooks,advances, education and enterprise in spreading those ideas and inventions around the Globe. Admittedly along the way there have been some nasty conflicts amongst those states and countries but overall for a several hundred years the movement has been one that has improved the life of the Human beings involved. Just because other parts of the World haven't been so fortunate or their style of Governments and religions haven't let them go down the same path I'm buggered why we should start wearing sack cloth and ashes and feel guilty about how fortunate we are. All nature relies on conquest of one thing over another it's how it works. If we stop worrying about our own position and fight the battle for survival for the opposition we will be doomed. Trouble is in a way we have become too nice and it isn't politically correct to let nature take its course or even fight back. Hence do gooders fishing people out of the Med , if it got back to those who follow the waves of people attempting to get here for the benefits of a Western lifestyle that many would then see destroyed that in fact they never actually got across the flow might stop.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.