GHCN V4 Data Show That ONLY 277 Stations Have Temperature Data Since 1880

Hi, everyone.

Almost certainly you’ve seen the temperature charts put out by government agencies like NASA and NOAA going back to about 1880 and often shown by our mainstream media.

However, as some climate realists include Tony, Mr. Joseph D’Aleo and Mr. Anthony Watts have already explained, humans don’t have enough thermometer data to truly estimate the Earth’s temperature change since 1880.

I tweeted about this, and again let me show you the map from NASA’s website.

I bet anyone who hasn’t been indoctrinated seeing the animation would feel the same way.

In addition, climatologist/former NASA researcher Dr. Mototaka Nakamura wrote that over the last 100 years “only 5 percent of the Earth’s area is able show the mean surface temperature with any certain degree of confidence.”

I’m sure that 5 percent area data cannot offset the 95 percent remaining area with no data. If climate alarmists noticed that, what percent of them would continue to believe the AGW hypothesis, I wonder.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to GHCN V4 Data Show That ONLY 277 Stations Have Temperature Data Since 1880

  1. GeologyJim says:

    I believe it was Roseanne D’Arrigo, tree-ring specialist, who famously testified before Congress, “If you’re going to make cherry pie, you’re going to have to pick some cherries”

    And the fewer the cherries, the easier it is to pick the “right” ones – like Yamal or strip ark bristlecones (heh-heh)

  2. Gamecock says:

    Also note that ocean temps are still not known. 71% of the earth’s surface, and we have no data even today.

  3. Weum says:

    The first time I saw the NASA animation showing the spinning colored globe go from blue to red I immediately thought about your earlier statements saying the data for 95% of this animation is just made up.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

    But this is NASA MO: cherry pick variables to warm present and cool past.

    This is the key article that points out how IPCC reduced water vapor and increased co2 importance in their algorithms.
    In my opinion, all of the cherry picked edits used to edit NASA temp history used this same method of taking a variable and reverse engineering the result they want. In this instance they transposes the importance of water vapor with CO2, but most of the time they find a variable over emphasize it.

    NASA edited variables

    Time of day of measurement – they have to guess at time and temp change to fix this used to both warm the present and cool the past
    Water bucket temp variation. Ship change size, buckets are wood or metal. I would think wind and colder temps would change a bucket temp measurement more than the engine warming the surrounding waters. Used to cool the past
    Satellite locations variation used to warm the satellite data
    Biggest lie of all, changing from interpolated world temp to a grid where there is almost no information of past temp records in 95 percent of the grids.
    Slow and distributed editing of individual temp stations data to warm the present and cool past.

    Now comes the hard part. You know that blue to red globe animation is made up. We need a graphic artists who shows how each edited variable changes the data and the remove each NASA edit one by one until the globe turns blue again. I know you were focusing on the lack of data in the original post, but it’s both, lack of data and cherry picked over emphasis of variables that they use to lie. You can also use this to display raw data, which is flat lined ( globe stays blue) vs edited data, which is sloped (globe turns red.)

    Fight fire with fire. Fight blue globes turning red with red globes that turn blue. I’d like to see that.

  4. gregole says:

    It belies the entire concept of “saving the planet.” Those words alone indicate a vast generalization. Save it? We can’t even measure the temperature over time. Amazing to me is this line of so-called logic?

    1) the “planet” is getting hotter
    2) Mankind is causing it
    3) Said heating will destroy the planet

    We don’t even know if, or how much hotter it is; nor have we the slightest idea of precisely what temperature it should be. We certainly do not know with any degree of certainty what causes the earth and its atmosphere to heat or not.

    Climate crisis? No. Like Covid we have a data crisis.

  5. D. Boss says:

    And, we can’t even get real honest data from people supposedly on our side! Spencer continues to generate and post gibberish from satellite data showing an ongoing rise in lower tropospheric temps.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/

    Now compare this nonsense (I’ll explain below why I dismiss the downlooking IR instrument’s data) to an ongoing average of 100,000+ global surface and ocean stations:

    http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR1mhZfsFG7WnZYOjTznx_Yvy-_MguXETmvV-cioDlJGGsEqNoWppwAMrUo

    Notice the average from 2015 to present in Spencer’s chart vs what the actual surface readings are globally for the same period.

    Spencer’s chart, while probably admirable work given the limitations of taking IR temps from ~200 miles above the surface – you cannot believe it has tenths of degree resolution or accuracy!

    Furthermore, think about judging whether your car is about to sustain serious damage from overheating (warping cylinder head for example) by measuring it’s temperature from a hundred miles away with an IR instrument? You gonna trust that to determine if you need to shut it off, or risk a $5,000 repair bill??? Of course not.

    The Temperature.Global data is primarily from METAR data – which is for pilots and aircraft operation and safety. In other words get this wrong and people can die!

    The problem with all the eggheads who do all this climate crap, is there is no consequence for being wrong, including Spencer’s work. An Engineer or a Pilot has serious consequences for being wrong, and hence do not trust garbage like models or remote sensing crap to make judgements.

    Here is another stark analogy – when you fly, the most critical instrument is the altimeter. Especially when landing. How does it work? By measuring the air pressure! BUT the ambient air pressure at any given location can change. As a pilot you have a knob on every altimeter, both mechanical and electronic to input the local ground station’s air pressure to correct your altimeter’s reading with respect to mean sea level.

    If you get this wrong – you could think you are at 1600 feet, and your airport is actually at 1425 feet above sea level, but with the wrong Altimeter Setting (the actual ground station pressure in inches of mercury or millibars) you could be at 1500 feet, and you end up with a hard landing at best, or a controlled flight into terrain accident (ie crash).

    Would you trust some egghead to measure the ground station pressure for pilots, from 200 miles out in space over the actual instrument at the control tower, or local weather station?

    Like I said, so called climate scientists have no “consequences” motivating factors to their being wrong – so you cannot really rely on anything they say about “forecasting” ! The best weather forecast is a crap shoot a few days out at best, so how can anyone with half a brain believe they can accurately forecast decades or centuries ahead?

  6. czechlist says:

    Data crisis.
    I have had a bit of experience in the calibration of thermometers and attempting to measure and maintain consistent homogenous temperatures in manufacturing facilities such as CMM and clean rooms as well as calibration laboratories. IMO measuring the temperature of an entire planet accurately to even 1 degree Celsius is preposterous. Just the combined uncertainties of the thousands of required measurements certainly precludes an accuracy of less than 1 degree C. I do not argue any climate nor temperature changes. I only question the accuracy of the reported measurements.
    A man with one watch knows the time. A man with two watches cannot always be certain.

  7. nfw says:

    Come on Mr Heller, gummints and their brains trusts are very clever, they can extrapolate. Or what we call, make it up.

    • Peter Carroll says:

      Oh, that word “extrapolate” is just so out of date.
      The latest I’ve heard is, “parameterize”.
      Google it. The definitions are mind blowing.

  8. Not to mention the 1880 thermometers were way less accurate – mercury thermometers as well .
    0.5 deg would be the most they would have been aiming for

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *