Talk:Temperature record since 1880

Newer data

The reference to the data pointed to ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat which did not match the data in the table. It looks like they changed their procedures and might have had an error on the site earlier this year. I copied in the relevant entries, but did not resort the rows. 2006 looks out of place with the NCDC data. If there is a reference for the middle column, maybe it should be added. If not, it should be removed. Drf5n (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat , the recent top twenty in order are:

2005    0.6185
1998    0.5658
2002    0.5430
2003    0.5352
2004    0.5254
2006    0.5066
2001    0.4839
1997    0.4519
1995    0.3892
1999    0.3861
1990    0.3644
2000    0.3555
1991    0.3210
1988    0.3051
1994    0.2762
1987    0.2580
1996    0.2564
1981    0.2397
1983    0.2396
1944    0.2147

Doing this again on 2008-01-28, I get the table below Drf5n (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2005    0.6058
1998    0.5768
2002    0.5575
2003    0.5566
2006    0.5524
2007    0.5499
2004    0.5332
2001    0.4939
2008    0.4869
1997    0.4618
1995    0.3991
1999    0.3953
1990    0.3701
2000    0.3632
1991    0.3239
1988    0.2886
1987    0.2867
1994    0.2820
1983    0.2715
1996    0.2586

Sortable

The table should probably be sortable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, like Wikipedia:Sortable_table Drf5n (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NASA's Data Irrelevant?

[1] Showing 2005 isn't the hottest year ever, and is in fact, quite a cool year by comparison. I'd say NASA is a reputable source.Sk8tuhpunk (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The NASA data you point at says "Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly", and is not global. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.70.10.66 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a strong disagreement between Global data and US data, shouldn't that be reflected in an article entitled "Temperature Record since 1880"? And a further question, why is it especially this data series that was chosen, and where is the description of the plurality of data series and how they correspond to each other?158.143.136.254 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I really don't see why this article can't be a part of instrumental temperature record. --bender235 (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of value to merge. I think this merge will probably happen, so I'm going to cut the big pic to make it easier. Rv if you like it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As new data emerges to a drop in the global mean and true instrument temperature records discount "scientific" temperature methodology, it is time scientists do the honest adjustments to embrace actual applied fact and stop following theory over reality, after all, is that not truly the definition of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.136.217 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge will happen soon... William M. Connolley (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)