Before my second
"Harry Read Me.txt"
ClimateGate tenth
anniversary article,
which is next up,
here's what I think about
surface temperature data:
Based on the hacked
eMails, and understanding
what Harry the
computer programmer
was actually doing:
I have no confidence
that the global average
surface temperature
number released to
the general public
is an accurate global
average, or even close
to being accurate.
I have low confidence
the bureaucrats would ever
release their raw temperature
data, and the "adjustments"
they made, to outside
scientists for review.
There is so much
adjusting and
infilling missing data
that global average
accuracy is impossible.
The number released
to the public could
easily have a
margin of error of
+/- 1 degree C.,
especially before 1920,
when there was little
data outside of the U.S.,
Europe and Australia.
(see charts below)
The long term
trend start point
of 1880, could
easily be off by
one degree,
yet the smarmy
government
bureaucrat
"scientists"
claim a very
unbelievable
+/- 0.1 degree
margin of error.
And then they further
insult our intelligence
by claiming one year
was warmer than the
prior year by just
a few hundredths of
a degree C.
I doubt if
the real margin
of error after
World War II
is less than
+/- 0.5 degrees C.
Even if
+/- 0.1 degrees C.
was an honest
margin of error,
a few hundredths
of a degree C.
are meaningless.
No human on our planet
has demonstrated an ability
to predict the future climate
-- yet our government
bureaucrats and politicians
make scary predictions
anyway, all stated with
undeserved confidence !
Bureaucrats should be able
to keep track of real time
(as it happens) temperature
measurements, to create
an accurate historical
temperature record
-- historical data that
DOES NOT REPEATEDLY
CHANGE OVER TIME.
Unfortunately,
describing the
climate of our planet
with a single number
is more difficult than
you would think.
Especially when
government
bureaucrats
and politicians
are in charge !
A single global
average temperature
is not very useful.
Not one person
actually lives
in the global
average
temperature.
A single global
average
temperature
tells us nothing
important in the
short run, other than
the climate is
always changing.
A single number
obscures very
important details:
(A)
Since 1975,
there are significantly
warmer winter nights
in Alaska, and a lack of
Antarctica warming.
Both climate details
are good news.
(B)
Now imagine ther was
significant warming
of Antarctica, and colder
winter nights in Alaska.
If that had happened,
both climate details
would have been
bad news.
Either (A) or (B)
could happen within
the exact same global
average temperature !
That's why temperature
details are much more
important than a single
global average
temperature.
But for government
bureaucrats, obscuring
those climate details
seems very important.
Until the use of
weather satellites
in 1979, there was
insufficient coverage
of Earth's surface,
with no hope
of calculating
an accurate
global average
temperature.
Almost no Southern Hemisphere
coverage between 1880 and 1920,
and insufficient coverage there
until about 1950:
To calculate a global average
temperature, the surface
of our planet is divided
into thousands of grid cells.
For a given month,
a majority of grid cells
have no temperature data,
or are missing full.,
or partial, data
from one, or more,
weather stations.
All missing data
MUST be filled in
(aka "infilled")
with wild guesses,
for grid cells that
have no data
or educated guesses,
based on historical
relationships with
nearby weather
stations that
did have data.
Of course
any guesses
used for infilling,
give bureaucrats
a great opportunity
to write fiction !
The hacked emails
from the Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) ,
at the University
of East Anglia in
Great Britain,
brought us one
infamous file:
"Harry Read Me.txt".
The entire text file,
247 pages long,
chronicles a computer
programmer's frustration
with source data quality,
and database quality,
of an important CRU
temperature database.
Climate alarmists have
claimed we don't know
exactly what Harry's
database was used for,
or whether it was
typical of all CRU
databases.
I'm going to live dangerously
and say the climate alarmist
excuses are lame.
CRU temperature records
are used to support
the global warming theory
that CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels
are warming the planet.
Lab experiments,
using infrared
spectroscopy,
do suggest more
CO2 in the air
should cause
some warming
in the troposphere.
Weather satellites,
by the way, do
measure warming
in the troposphere,
where the greenhouse
gas warming that
would affect surface
temperatures occurs,
with the big advantage
of a very constant
environment for the
measurements.
The lab experiments
are closed systems,
where the air used
is artificially dried.
In the real world,
there are likely to be
feedbacks, currently
unknown, and the
greenhouse gas
effect of CO2 also
overlaps the greenhouse
effect of water vapor,
the primary greenhouse
gas, which varies a lot
in the atmosphere, but
never averages zero.
As a result, no one knows
how the CO2 lab experiments
relate to the actual atmosphere.
I have no problem assuming
CO2 causes some warming,
because I like warming.
There is zero evidence that
CO2 causes anything more
than mild, harmless warming.
I wish we'd get somewarming
here in southeastern Michigan !
I also know we are lucky
to live during an interglacial
-- the Holocene interglacial --
a relatively short period
with a warm, pleasant climate,
within an ice age.
It's cold for 85% to 90%
of a typical 100,000 year
ice age (a cycle caused
by changes in planetary
geometry) -- eventually
getting so cold the last
time that Canada was
entirely covered by ice
20,000 years ago.
Which is why hockey has
become so popular in Canada
-- the entire country had been
one giant hockey rink !
(heh heh)
Local weather station
temperatures are
very interesting.
I have little interest in
surface temperatures,
after they are combined
into a so called global
average temperature.
Harry's frustration
with the database
quality made me
even less interested
in a surface global
average temperature
ten years ago !
Today I prefer secondary
evidence of global warming,
such as tide gauge data.
The only problem that could
happen from global warming
is accelerating sea level
rise from melting glaciers.
Fortunately, we have data
on the past 20,000 years
of sea level rise, and even
more accurate data for the
past 150 years.
There is no sign
of accelerating
sea level rise starting
after global warming
ramped up after 1975:
Which means there is
absolutely nothing
to worry about
concerning the climate.
Claims of an existential
threat are self serving lies.
The climate on our planet
does not get much better
than today for humans ...
although a little warmer
would be even better
here in Michigan, USA.