The Silence of the (Climate) Data

I've posted before (a long, long time ago) about how many weather stations have been tracking temperature.  The whole Global Warming panic is based on world wide measurements, but the measurements are surprisingly (shockingly?) sparse.  The problem is worse, though - the weather stations are very strongly clustered in the Northern Hemisphere, specifically Europe and the United States.  But we're told this is a global temperature.  Just how global is "global"?

Short answer: not very.

This is the foundation of the whole Global Warming narrative. Then a huge layer of statistical manipulation is layered over it to attempt to hide the data quality and quantity issues. Kriging, interpolation, homogenizing, “the reference station method” of making up a number based on a temperature up to 1200 km away. None of this can fix the real problems with the underlying data. They can only burry it under a layer of bafflegab.

How bad is it? 

These are the months of data, that is not a missing data flag, for each wmo number in the Antarctic region (country starting with a 7). Note that the very first one has 10 years of data, that’s all. 120 months. THE longest is 1356 or about 113 years, then the next is 1212 months, or 101 years. Long for a human lifetime, nearly nothing in geological time scales and climate cycles. Most of the rest are around one human lifetime or less.

Even worse, these are surface stations (South Africa, Argentina, Chile, and Antarctica).  Almost all of the southern hemisphere south of 45° is ocean.  How many readings are in the climate database from ship reports?

Fourteen.

This is a great example of why I put MUCH more trust in the satellite climate data - it's a true global measure.  And it doesn't show essentially any warming in two decades.