Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
The first graph (&quot;External factors explain nearly all global temperature change&quot;) shows what appears to be temperature precisions of less than 0.1 degree C, yet reports no error bars.<p>How is it that a graph like this is even acceptable, given the importance of the conclusions? How does this study account for the inevitably poorer precision and accuracy of measurements made over 100 years ago? How are systematic errors (differences in measuring procedure, differences in time of day precision, etc.) accounted for?<p>A paper from Cowton&#x2F;Way is available, but it appears to focus on filling in gaps from lack of data at the poles:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;full&#x2F;10.1002&#x2F;qj.2297" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;doi&#x2F;full&#x2F;10.1002&#x2F;qj.22...</a><p>Where is the readily-accessible explanation for how the underlying dataset accounts for so many unknown factors?