For surface temperature “data”,
a majority of surface grids
( 5 degrees latitude by 5 degrees longitude )
have no temperature data,
or have incomplete data,
so there is wild guessing,
by government bureaucrats,
to 'fill in the blanks",
( called "infilling" )
which is required to compile
a global average temperature.
By “wild guessing”,
I mean the infilled numbers
can never be verified.
The resulting
"infilled"
global surface
average temperature
is “contradicted”
by weather satellite
and weather balloon
temperature data.
In real science
the surface data
would be "falsified".
In modern climate
junk "science",
apparently nothing
can be falsified !
The infilled surface
temperature "data"
are still used
by those smarmy
government
bureaucrats !
The surface data
are suspect
"outlier" data,
that should not
be used,
especially because
better satellite data,
with far less infilling,
have been available
since 1979.
The starting point
for the
“era of man made
greenhouse gases”,
is roughly 1940.
Since 1940,
global warming
has been
mild, harmless,
irregular
and not even “global”
most of the time
— definitely not matching
the steadier, global rise of CO2.
“irregular” =
no global warming
from 1940 to 1975,
and a flat trend
from the 2003 peak
through 2018.
“not global” =
no warming
of Antarctica
since the 1960s,
and much more warming
in the northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere,
than in the southern half
of the Southern Hemisphere,
since 1975.
The causes
of climate change
are a list of suspects,
with no one knowing
the actual causes
with any precision.
Without that precision,
a correct climate change
physics model can not exist.
That means the so called
general circulation
( climate ) models
are nothing more
than opinions
… and they are obviously
wrong opinions,
because they have led to
wrong climate forecasts
for the past three decades,
when compared with
temperature observations
from weather satellites.
It is unfortunate, and a huge
conflict of interest, that actual
surface temperature observations
are controlled by the same
government bureaucrats who
have made “climate model”
predictions of significant
global warming.
So it’s no surprise to me,
that after their many
data “adjustments”,
their surface data
show more warming
than satellite and
weather balloon data,
( both of which correlate well with each other ).
The little real science
behind “climate change”,
( infrared spectroscopy )
done in laboratory experiments,
and climate observations
since 1940 (using more accurate
UAH weather satellites after 1979)
both have similar results,
suggesting the same thing:
- Doubling
the level of
CO2 in the air,
at worst,
might cause
mild, harmless
global warming,
of no more than
+1.0 degrees C.,
over the next 200 years,
at the current CO2 growth rate
of +2 ppm per year
( ppm = parts per million )
Which all adds up to
an obvious conclusion:
Adding CO2
to the air
has caused
no harm so far,
and is unlikely
to cause harm
in the future.
If you also consider
the positive effect
of higher CO2 levels
on plant growth,
as done inside
most greenhouses
to accelerate
plant growth,
then adding CO2
to the air
is beneficial
for our planet.