4 ms·

Here's a raw table in .txt format from NASA https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt h

by foltik 9mo ago

Here's a raw table in .txt format from NASA https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...

doktor2un 9mo ago
[flagged]
- foltik 9mo ago
  Hah. Shall I present it to you on a silver platter then? If you read the NASA page, they explicitly cite GHCNd, a raw surface temperature and precipitation dataset that goes back quite far. There's many other similar datasets you can find if you're willing to look. Check out the readme for the csv format description, and /by-year for the raw rows: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
  - genewitch 9mo ago
    picked four stations at random[0] and it's just precip numbers, no temps, no humidity, no insolation, etc. are you sure you linked what you think you linked? [0] /by-station and then unclutched my scroll wheel and spun it for arbitrary amount of time, re-engaged clutch and clicked what was under the cursor. repeated 3 more times. i did a fifth, where the one i was looking at was identical to the fourth one, but had a 1 in the least significant portion of the station ID instead of a 4, in case it was like, "4" is precip, "1" is temps, and i happened to click "4" 4 times in a row.
    - foltik 9mo ago
      Quite a scientific data analysis you've done there. NASA must be completely mistaken!
      - genewitch 9mo ago
        HAHA you're completely right! or, and this is just some advice: don't tell strangers to look up data, link the data, and it not be what you said it was. If i promise you punch and pie, you'd be pretty upset if it wasn't.
tonymet 9mo ago
That’s not the raw data. The original recordings were made by merchants on parchment. They measured the volume of water in a wooden box, to set the buoyancy for their loads
- foltik 9mo ago
  What are you even talking about. They had weather stations with mercury thermometers and wrote down temperatures in a logbook.
  - magicalhippo 9mo ago
    For the interested, here[1] is an article on an attempt to recreate and verify measurements made during the HMS Challenger expedition in the 1870s. It was recently done so the full results aren't out, but one aspect they noted was that the traditionally-created hemp rope stretched about 10% so temperatures were taken at slightly deeper depths than expected. This can be used to calibrate the data from HMS Challenger. [1]: https://www.oneoceanexpedition.com/article/checked-150-year-old-measurements https://www.oneoceanexpedition.com/article/checked-150-year-...
    - tonymet 9mo ago
      I appreciated your comment because more discussion will better help everyone understand the various tranches of surface temperature observations. I did a quick review, and appreciated the article because they were clear about how their methods different from the recordings. For one using different pressure sensors, and they mentioned the depth differential they measured would lead to variability in the ocean temp readings.
  - tonymet 9mo ago
    Not on the ocean, and not covering even 1/1000% of the coverage we have with satellites on the surface

by foltik 9mo ago

doktor2un 9mo ago

[flagged]

foltik 9mo ago
Hah. Shall I present it to you on a silver platter then? If you read the NASA page, they explicitly cite GHCNd, a raw surface temperature and precipitation dataset that goes back quite far. There's many other similar datasets you can find if you're willing to look. Check out the readme for the csv format description, and /by-year for the raw rows: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
- genewitch 9mo ago
  picked four stations at random[0] and it's just precip numbers, no temps, no humidity, no insolation, etc. are you sure you linked what you think you linked? [0] /by-station and then unclutched my scroll wheel and spun it for arbitrary amount of time, re-engaged clutch and clicked what was under the cursor. repeated 3 more times. i did a fifth, where the one i was looking at was identical to the fourth one, but had a 1 in the least significant portion of the station ID instead of a 4, in case it was like, "4" is precip, "1" is temps, and i happened to click "4" 4 times in a row.
  - foltik 9mo ago
    Quite a scientific data analysis you've done there. NASA must be completely mistaken!
    - genewitch 9mo ago
      HAHA you're completely right! or, and this is just some advice: don't tell strangers to look up data, link the data, and it not be what you said it was. If i promise you punch and pie, you'd be pretty upset if it wasn't.

tonymet 9mo ago

That’s not the raw data. The original recordings were made by merchants on parchment. They measured the volume of water in a wooden box, to set the buoyancy for their loads

foltik 9mo ago
What are you even talking about. They had weather stations with mercury thermometers and wrote down temperatures in a logbook.
- magicalhippo 9mo ago
  For the interested, here[1] is an article on an attempt to recreate and verify measurements made during the HMS Challenger expedition in the 1870s. It was recently done so the full results aren't out, but one aspect they noted was that the traditionally-created hemp rope stretched about 10% so temperatures were taken at slightly deeper depths than expected. This can be used to calibrate the data from HMS Challenger. [1]: https://www.oneoceanexpedition.com/article/checked-150-year-old-measurements https://www.oneoceanexpedition.com/article/checked-150-year-...
  - tonymet 9mo ago
    I appreciated your comment because more discussion will better help everyone understand the various tranches of surface temperature observations. I did a quick review, and appreciated the article because they were clear about how their methods different from the recordings. For one using different pressure sensors, and they mentioned the depth differential they measured would lead to variability in the ocean temp readings.
- tonymet 9mo ago
  Not on the ocean, and not covering even 1/1000% of the coverage we have with satellites on the surface