As satellites technology advances, there is more climate data to be studied and averaged together for a global temperature. Before said technology, could you really have summed all the data points on the earth on a 24/7/365 basis?
More Data Points = More Increases in Temperature data?
As you go back in time, without top notch satellites and super computers, can you really add up all the temperature data points on the earth that also include the North and South Poles and also all the ocean data, surface and deep blue, which is really hard to come by?
Moreover, the log records of shipping companies do not even break the surface of the ocean data needed to get a global temp, as 24/7/365 deep blue bottoms of the oceans temps are still hard to get, even today!
Hence, can you really have an accurate Global Temperature before say 1990 or 2000? Or before 24 / 7 / 365 satellite data?Lastly, any climate change illustration with the year 1900 or 1850 could be highly inaccurate.
The atmosphere is miles high and moving very quickly.
Can satellites really get a detailed and accurate temperature of all the elevations of the atmosphere that is miles and miles thick?
Getting an accurate global temperature is really, really hard and even today, it's not possible, at least not to be precise. The atmosphere is miles and miles high, and the oceans are miles deep. That's a lot of data points to get on a 24 / 7 / 365 basis.
Moreover, do you know the accuracy of those tree ring soil samples and ice samples in degrees of Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Doesn't the earth spin around really fast? And if so, doesn't that shake up the hot and cold air, and also the hot and cold water like you see at Starbucks and those fancy hot drinks?
The Earth is a really big place and has land, water and air that is constantly moving and changing that has to measured 24/7/365 with various types of thermometers and visual and IR sensors that has only recently been invented. And this not to mention that the Earth is orbiting around the sun and that also has to be taken account of.
Even today with satellites, to state a global temperature is really a work-in-progress or shot in the dark.
For example, the surface temp of the ocean from satellites is not an accurate measurement of the ocean as the ocean is miles and miles deep. And there is a lot of ocean and deep underwater ocean currents to be measured 24 / 7 / 365.
NOTE: Statistically, more data collection will naturally result in more extreme points of data compared to that of say 50 years ago as the Earth is a very big place.
Furthermore, with more data collection and more data capturing methods and devices, this again will statistically and naturally widen the bell curve of total data captured as compared to 50 years ago with less data collection.
Average Earth Temperature of say 50 years ago is basically a total guess.
Who is going to read a story about climate or some
strange effect of climate if it's "boring"?
While Cherry Picking only the sensationlized stories is another thing, it's another to even write a story in the first place.
Hence, who is really going to write
a story that's boring...
e.g. "it was really, really cold, and nothing happened."
Is the above example sentence really going to get people to pay for books or magazines? Or is the above going to get companies to pay for advertising? No, it's not. And hence, all the "sensational" stories on climate change are mainly, "sensational", this, as opposed to "accurate".
