Another climate change rap

We can be confident the global average temperature has been rising since the Little Ice Age centuries. The coldest decade appears to have been the 1690s, during the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity.

The warming since the 1690s could have been +2 degrees C. But the surface global average temperature statistics were not accurate until the use of weather satellites in 1979.  Weather satellites measure in a consistent environment, where the greenhouse effect actually happens. Their coverage is near global.

I am confident the people living in the 1690s would have been thrilled if they had the milder climate that we have today.

The most important problem for surface global average temperature accuracy is the lack of global coverage. 

 

There were very few land weather stations making real time measurements before 1890. Especially few in the Southern Hemisphere. From 1891 to 1920, there were still far too few Southern Hemisphere weather stations. Poor land based surface coverage is shown in the charts below:

The moving chart above compares the surface weather stations on land in 1880 (very few stations) versus 2020. Even in 2020, there is far too much "infilling" -- government bureaucrats wild guessing temperatures for surface grids with no thermometers (white spaces), or weather stations (red doys) missing some temperature data. This is not accurate enough data for real science. 

 

Data from weather satellites, since 1979 (UAH), has near global coverage with far less infilling -- only small areas over both poles -- so should be reasonably accurate.

For ocean temperatures, there have been many changes of measurement methodologies since 1900, with no experiment that I know of testing all the methodologies in one location, to see how their temperature readings differ. 

 

I've been looking for such a study since 1997 -- perhaps someone can give me a URL ?   (send to EconomicLogic@Yahoo.com) 

 

 

 Ocean surface coverage has been insufficient until ARGO floats in 2000.  https://argo.ucsd.edu/

 

 

CO2 concentration measurements seem accurate after 1958, but the use of air in Antarctica ice core bubbles before 1958

    is not accurate. 

 

There is little doubt that burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels in the past 100 years. 

 

The plants on this planet are thrilled by that CO2 increase. If that added CO2 caused any global warming, which is a reasonable assumption, but not a proven fact, that's good news too.

Few people realize the "global" warming measured by satellites since 1979 has been far from even. 

 

The most warming has been in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night. 

 

Think of warmer winter nights in Alaska, since 1979. Some people would call that an "existential" climate crisis. I believe moat people living in Alaska see their actual climate change as good news.

Here in Michigan, most of us are thrilled that our winters are not as cold as they were in the 1970s. And we'd like more warming.

 

 

There is no correlation of CO2 and average temperature before the 20th century, based on climate proxy studies. In fact, ice core studies show temperature peaks happened  BEFORE the CO2 level peaks, by hundreds of years, on average.

The claim that CO2 controls the climate is new, unproven, and applies only to the years after 1975.

There have been 4.5 billion years of climate change from natural causes. Climate alarmists have arbitrarily decided natural causes of climate change no longer matter. 

 

They assert their claim, but make no attempt to prove it, or explain it. People with doubts or questions are character attacked as "science deniers". That's strong evidence that climate 'alarmists' practice junk science.

Real science is never settled. 

Real scientists are always skeptical. 

Real science is never a popularity contest.