They weren't climate scientists. They were meteorologists, professional and amateur. And yes generally their instruments were very accurate even back in the 1880's. They calibrated them via the temp of melting ice and of boiling water. This establishes the readings. A mercury thermometer is a very simple and accurate device. Additionally, if some read high there were others that read low. Together this error cancels itself out and so certainly on average the millions of readings are accurate. And they all are going up. Not one or two. All.
were going up during some periods until over 18 years ago. Since then there is no warming the temperature over land records. and ocean warming is another story you have no science saying man made co2 causes ocean warming.
Yes we know. Just like you said that OJ was innocent. What little credibility you had was destroyed when you said that.
Earth's energy budget From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Earth's energy budget or Earth's radiation balance describes the net flow of energy into Earth in the form of shortwave radiation and the outgoing infrared longwave radiation into space.[2] Thus, the energy fluxes are important to understand climate change, defined by changes in Earth's energy balance.[3] Received radiation is unevenly distributed over the planet, because the Sun heats equatorial regions more than polar regions. Energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and hydrosphere, known as Earth's heat engine, coupled processes which constantly even out solar heating imbalances through evaporation of surface water, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean circulation, when distributing heat around the globe. When incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, Earth is in radiative equilibrium and global temperatures become relatively stable. Disturbances of Earth's radiative equilibrium, such as the rise of heat-trapping gases, change global temperatures in response, because of the greenhouse effect, since energy radiated back to space is in part absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules.[4] However, Earth's energy balance and heat fluxes depend on many factors, such as the atmospheric chemistry composition (mainly aerosols, and greenhouse gases), the albedo (reflectivity) of surface properties, cloud cover, and vegetation and land use patterns. Changes in surface temperature due to Earth's energy budget do not occur instantaneously, due to the inertia (slow response) of the oceans and the cryosphere to react to the new energy budget. The net heat flux is buffered primarily in the ocean's heat content, until a new equilibrium state is established between incoming and outgoing radiative forcing and climate response.[5] ... Earth's energy imbalance If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing thermal (infrared) radiation, the result is an energy imbalance, resulting in net heat added to the planet (if the incoming flux is larger than the outgoing). Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats detected accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC) in the recent decade. The estimated imbalance is 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m².[10] Several satellites have been launched into Earth's orbit that indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth, and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.[11] Today the NASA satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), are especially designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation from the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to the Earth's surface.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#Earth.27s_energy_imbalance
No, young man. You are speaking of systematic error, not random. There is no reason to expect multiple systematic errors to cancel out.
Let's provide a hint on why many recent temperature readings are inappropriately high compared to previous readings. It is because many instruments are placed at airports which are producing instrumentation errors on the high side... Here is one of many similar articles... RDU airport up to it's old tricks again A trend has emerged the last few years for Raleigh to be a heat island in the state of North Carolina. Many days in the past few years have seen Raleigh soar to a high temperature that seems inappropriately high when compared to other observation stations around the area. This occurred again yesterday. RDU's recorded high for the day was 97 which tied a record, but as you can see no one else in the state and even the southeast was as warm. http://www.examiner.com/article/rdu-airport-up-to-it-s-old-tricks-again
Oh right, you said the evidence was not sufficient. You are insane. And now we know why you are a second-rate real estate lawyer. The lowest form of lawyer that there is. Criminal law is certainly too much for you.
No piehole. I am talking about random error. Thousands of readings from multiple thermometers can be expected to have a certain deviation of random errors around the accurate mean. Get a clue.