How about trusting
NONE of the many
different global average
temperature compilations ?
None of them
are measurements !
They're all statistics.
There is NO global
average temperature
that can be measured !
An average of local
temperature measurements,
is NOT a temperature itself.
And a single global average
temperature does NOT
accurately represent the
climate of our planet.
No ONE number could do that !
The concept of averaging
is very common in science,
but averaging should only
be used where it makes sense.
Having a single average
may be convenient,
but all averages
obscure details.
The non-equilibrium
( always changing )
climate system we have
on our planet, can
simultaneously have local
warming in some places, and
local cooling in other places.
No physical arguments
have been made
for using a single average
as a proxy for the climate
on our planet.
Proponents of a global
average temperature have
NEVER been required
to demonstrate the
physical usefulness
of a single statistic,
compiled from samples
of local temperatures.
The scientific role of a global
average temperature is unclear,
especially considering the average
is claimed to have changed only about
1 degree C. since 1880,
which a 138 years.
That's an average change
of only 0.07 degrees C.
per decade -- less than one
tenth of a degree per decade !
In addition to a tiny change
per decade, no one knows
what a "normal" average is.
Because out of 4.5 billion years of
Earth's history, there were no
real time temperature measurements
for 99.999% of our planet's history !
No real time measurements
were available for many nations
until the late 1800s, and there were
very few real time Southern Hemisphere
measurements until after World War II.
We know it was really warm
when dinosaurs roamed the planet.
We know it was really cold
when Canada was covered
by glaciers just 20,000 years ago.
It was most likely
warmer than today,
by a few degrees C.
about 10,000 years ago,
after the Canadian glaciers
had melted.
It is at least +2 degrees C.
warmer today, than it was
in the 1690's, during the coldest
portion of the Little Ice Age,
based on real time temperature
records from England, and many
anecdotes complaining about the cold,
including some famines in Europe.
The global average temperature
is a statistic that
can be calculated
in many different ways.
Over one hundred different
averages of local temperatures
have been used in meteorology
and climate studies.
There is no way to falsify
ANY of the many existing
global average temperature
compilations.
Over a same period
one average might
show slight warming,
while another showed
slight cooling --
there would be no way
to prove that
one average was right,
and the other was wrong.
There's no way to calculate,
or even estimate, a “normal”
global average temperature.
It is even debatable whether the
current average temperature now
is better, or worse, than the
average temperature 100 years ago.
All the compilations claim
there has been global warming
since 1975, so we can assume
there WAS some amount
of global warming after 1975.
If the statistics were wrong, and
there was no warming, then there
would be cooling, because that's how
our planet changes -- a period
our planet changes -- a period
with NO change in the global average
temperature, would be unusual.
The compilation that reflects the
least amount of warming is UAH
satellite data.
UAH shows that the global average
temperature at the end of 2018,
was about the same as the global
average temperature at the beginning
of 2003 -- within the small claimed
margin of error.
( a statistically insignificant temperature change ).
The other temperature compilations,
all show more warming than UAH,
but reflect little change
in the global average temperature
from the peak in 1998,
to the end of 2018
-- 20 years later !
That should not happen
while CO2 levels increase.
But it did happen.
I prefer to not use 1998 as a starting
point for average temperature
comparisons, because 1998 had a
local warming event -- a temporary
cyclical heat release from the Pacific
Ocean called an El Nino, not caused
by greenhouse gases -- which boosted
the global average temperature.
El Nino heat peaks are included
in temperature averages, as "global
warming", so many skeptics don't
differentiate 1998 from other years
that don't have a large El Nino heat
peak.
The large 1998 El Nino heat peak
could be fairly compared with the
similarly large late 2015 / early 2016
El Nino heat peak.
No one seemed to do that, but using
UAH satellite data, the global average
temperature, at the more recent EL Nino
heat peak, was only +0.1 degree C. warmer
than the global average temperature
at the 1998 EL Nino heat peak --
only +0.1 degree C. of global warming
in 17 years !
We certainly can't trust
the surface "measurements".
They divide the earth into
5 degree latitude
by 5 degree longitude
grid cells.
In any month, a majority of grid cells
have no local temperature data, or
are missing some local temperature data.
The missing numbers are filled in
( "infilled" ) by government bureaucrats
-- using wild guesses that can never
be verified for accuracy.
For the remaining minority of grid cells,
the raw temperature data are usually
"adjusted" by government bureaucrats.
In summary, the surface temperature
compilations consist of little unadjusted
raw data -- almost every number in
the global average had been changed by
government bureaucrats, before being
presented to the public.
And they will later be changed repeatedly,
from adjustments made years, or decades,
later !
No one with sense would accept surface
temperature compilations without
suspicion of bias.
There has also been a huge drop
in the number of surface weather
stations since the 1960s, especially
in the 1990s, when the number of
weather stations in use fell by half,
in only four years.
The surface temperature "data"
presented to the public,
reflect MORE global warming
than weather balloon radiosondes,
UAH weather satellite data,
and until recently, the RSS
weather satellite data too.
But between 2016 and 2019,
RSS weather satellite data, which had
been similar to UAH satellite data,
made a huge "adjustment", apparently
to better match NASA surface "data".
see data at this link:
Below is a comparison of various
weather satellite compilations
with data from other sources:
The history of "adjustments" to
surface "data", strongly implies the
"adjustments" had been biased.
The government bureaucrats who
wild guess the infilled numbers,
and make the repeated "adjustments,
have long been predicting dangerous
global warming in the future.
We've noticed their "adjustments"
consistently create more global warming,
out of thin air, usually by "cooling" the past,
but not "cooling" the present average
temperature.
Sometimes they claim they are 'not
making any temperatures warmer',
which is very misleading ( a lie ),
because their "adjustments"
do increase the reported
global warming trend.
Now the RSS satellite "data"
are suspect too, for the same reason
-- long after the fact data "adjustments",
that created more global warming
out of thin air.
So now there's a significant
temperature gap between
surface data and
RSS satellite data
versus
UAH satellite data, and
weather balloon data.
In real science:
-- The different compilations
of the global average
temperatures would
be a problem.
be a problem.
-- To be conservative,
one might select the
compilation showing
the least warming.
-- Or one might average
all the compilations.
-- The obvious uncertainty
must be communicated
to the public.
-- Because no one would
ever know which compilation
was "right" ?
The science fraud
of "climate change"
is very different
from real science:
- The "data" compilation
that shows the most warming
is always used, and other
compilations are ignored.
-- There's not even a hint that
the other compilations exist.
-- RSS satellite data
were completely ignored,
for example, until after
the recent large "adjustment"
made them similar to NASA
surface "data", and only then
was RSS "data" 'celebrated'
in the mainstream media !
-- No uncertainty
is communicated
to the public.
( Even the 30+ years of
grossly inaccurate computer
game temperature predictions
are ignored,
and the basic formula
used for climate models,
developed in the 1970's,
is NEVER changed,
in spite of decades
of wrong predictions.
I know I've mentioned
this a hundred times here,
but the general public
has no idea
what's happening,
because wrong
predictions are
never discussed !
The public may not even realize
that in real science, wrong
predictions falsify your theory ! )
Here at the Honest Global
Warming Chart Blog,
I challenge claims by all
temperature compilations
that their margins of error
are only +/- 0.1 degree C.,
or less, not that any of them
even bothers to mention
these tiny, hard to believe
margins of error, or includes
them on any of their
temperature charts !
The fact that data
are haphazardly collected,
with changes in measurement
instruments, and the numbers
and locations of
the measurements,
is discussed here.
The huge amount
of wild guessing ( infilling ),
and arbitrary "adjustments"
to raw data, is discussed here.
The years, and even decades,
after the fact "adjustments' to data,
that almost always increase global
warming, out of thin air, challenge
the integrity of surface "data" compilers,
and now the RSS weather satellite
"data" too !
Today we'll move to a higher
level of thinking, about physics,
rather than a global average
temperature statistic:
-- There is no such thing
as a global temperature.
-- It is not a temperature
that can be measured.
-- A global average
is meaningless in physics --
it makes no sense
for a planet that is not in
thermodynamic equilibrium.
-- No one should care
about the "average temperature"
of the oceans, because almost no one
lives on the oceans !
-- In fact, no one lives in the
average temperature of our planet !
-- So, why should anyone care,
unless they were brainwashed,
to believe that ONE climate
number is most important,
for reasons never explained,
( because there is no honest
explanation ) !
People should care
about their local climate,
about their local climate,
the length of the
growing season,
and the productivity
of our farmers.
Rich folks should care
if the valuation of their
ocean front mansion
falsl due to rising sea levels !
An out-of-equilibrium
climate system does not
have only one temperature.
A global average of
local temperature data,
sampled from a
non-equilibrium field,
is not a temperature,
it's a statistic.
The average temperature
does NOT drive the dynamics
of the atmosphere and oceans,
which are caused by gradients,
or diferences, in thermodynamic
intensities.
In plain English, local weather
depends on temperature
depends on temperature
differentials.
Such as the temperature differential
between the tropics, and the poles.
In fact, greenhouse
warming should REDUCE
that temperature differential,
making weather milder,
which HAS happened in
the Northern Hemisphere,
but NOT in the
Southern Hemisphere.
An average of
local temperatures
could be insensitive
to climate change.
Local climate depends on
temperature gradients,
so it's possible that
a global average
could change,
without significant
changes in
local dynamics.
And it's also possible
that significant local
climate changes
could happen, with a
constant global average.
Local climates are not
well represented by a
single global average
statistic.
We have a mismatch
between several
different compilations,
mentioned earlier,
and no one knows
which global average
is accurate
-- it's possible
all compilations
are inaccurate !