Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still a small window (time period) of data.I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?
We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.
Well, there's that.
However in recent times we have a lot more data.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."
Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.
"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."
"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."
"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."
So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.
However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.
However interpreting what you're reading is important.
Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.
Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.
The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.
Damn! You are missing the point.Still a small window (time period) of data.I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?
We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.
Well, there's that.
However in recent times we have a lot more data.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."
Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.
"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."
"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."
"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."
So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.
However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.
However interpreting what you're reading is important.
Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.
Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.
The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.
Yes, it is.
And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.
It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.
Damn! You are missing the point.Still a small window (time period) of data.I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?
We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.
Well, there's that.
However in recent times we have a lot more data.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."
Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.
"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."
"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."
"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."
So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.
However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.
However interpreting what you're reading is important.
Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.
Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.
The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.
Yes, it is.
And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.
It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.
I understand what you are saying. However, the point I tried to make is that the calculation for average temperature in 1917 is probably quite different than the calculation of average temperature in 2017, which has little to do with what you are saying.Damn! You are missing the point.Still a small window (time period) of data.I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?
We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.
Well, there's that.
However in recent times we have a lot more data.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."
Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.
"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."
"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."
"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."
So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.
However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.
However interpreting what you're reading is important.
Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.
Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.
The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.
Yes, it is.
And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.
It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.
No, I'm not.
I'm looking at your point and then making what I see as relevant points.
Do you understand what I'm saying and why?
I understand what you are saying. However, the point I tried to make is that the calculation for average temperature in 1917 is probably quite different than the calculation of average temperature in 2017, which has little to do with what you are saying.Damn! You are missing the point.Still a small window (time period) of data.Well, there's that.
However in recent times we have a lot more data.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."
Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.
"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."
"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."
"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."
So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.
However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.
However interpreting what you're reading is important.
Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.
Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.
The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.
Yes, it is.
And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.
It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.
No, I'm not.
I'm looking at your point and then making what I see as relevant points.
Do you understand what I'm saying and why?