Note!!!!!! If this post is coming off too snarky or condescending, or grumpy, I’m sorry, but, believe it or not, I had a very hard time getting people to understand what I did.
Well, I’ve been meaning to do this for some time now. Last night, I saw a similar graph, in which I was credited for showing them how(Thanks Lat!!!). That was
pretty really cool! I don’t remember the fellow I helped. But, there have been many who asked me about this.
In response to the fellow’s graph, there were some familiar questions about it. As readers would note, I’ve added a Celsius graph! Yeh, I don’t know why the rest of the world has to be different, but, there, that’s for them! As I recollect, that was the biggest question/complaint to the graph. I’m happy to oblige, even though I was very late in doing so.
As to the boring graph format, and whatnot, I’m sorry. This was done with Open Office. If anyone is taking a poll, I’m against it. But, I’d have to kickstart my old PC with MS Office on it, and I’m busy right now.
After re-reading my last post, I realize I was probably too inebriated to be properly blogging. Fortunately, there’s no jail time for said infraction. And, fortunately, I’m only on my 4th or 5th beer, so, I’m good for now!
As to the other questions ….. and people interested in this graph need to pay attention ….. I’ll try to answer them as best I can. Some of the questions which I’ve tried to field in the past seemed …….. well, ….. instructive as to some of the people engaged in the climate debates.
The Provenance: Let’s start with the provenance of the data. IT’S FROM GISS!!!!!! NASA!!!!!! HANSEN’S BOYS!!!!! And, yes, they’re still Hansen’s. It’s from his babbling bs that they get their data base. The data is here, at this link. —– https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt This isn’t data I pulled from my arse. I didn’t mix or mingle anything. I simply pulled the data from GISS. It’s the same GISS data every one else uses from GISS, both warmists and skeptics. Specifically, I only use one column from their table, the annual temps, January through December. I’ll put a graphic up so there won’t be any confusion.
That column!!! Right there with the red around it!!!!! That’s what I use.
The Methodology: This leads me to another great question, what methodology did I use? Honestly, I don’t know how to put this in any simpler terms. I will do my best to detail this.
The table above is in anomalies. That is to say, the values stated are what NASA/GISS believes deviated from the norm. The base period they used to establish their notion of a norm is 1951-1980, as stated at the link cited. I didn’t pick this base period. GISS did. I’m using GISS’ numbers. GISS believes the average global temp for said time period was 14 deg C, or 57.2 deg F. They’ve stated this in many places and times. Here’s one of them. (Note their uncertainty).
So, in order to get a real temperature, rather than an anomaly, we simply add the anomaly to the stated norm; GISS’ stated norm. The values listed are in 1/100ths of a degree Celsius. So, we have to divide the values by 100 to get them in proper degree format. For the Celsius graph, then, we simply add that value to 14 to get a view of the actual temperature, rather than the anomaly. For the Fahrenheit, it’s much more complicated. You actually have to multiply the anomaly value by 1.8 to convert it to Fahrenheit. I know!!!!! It’s wild, wacky, and hard!!!! But, really, that’s what sciency and math people do! For those skeptical of a skeptic, simply scroll down to the bottom of the page at the link, and you’ll find those exact same instructions!
The next thing I do, I ask the graphing program of choice to graph the data. I did the hard trick of verifying that the graphing program I used, each time, did indeed graph the data properly.
Error Bars: I don’t know how many times I was asked about error bars, or had people tell me it wasn’t a proper graph without error bars.
Let me be as diplomatic as I can possibly be about these “error bars”. ……….. There are no f’n @%#$&%*(J%($%$#$%&#$%$!@#^%$#&#$%!%#$%$~$# error bars for simple math!!!!!!!
I’ll do my best not to repeat. I am dividing real numbers. I am adding real numbers. I am multiplying real numbers. There are no error bars to be had when dividing by 100. There are no error bars to be had when adding real numbers. There are no %$%&%$*$#%@^ error bars to be had when multiplying a real number by 1.8. THIS ISN’T HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!! Quick!!!! Someone tell me what the error bars should be for 2+2?
If there were to be any error bars, we’d have to use GISS’. Seeing that the average alarmist has no doubt these numbers are entirely correct, there’s no point in plotting any potential error, even though they themselves admit there could be a 2 degree F variance in the baseline value. And, even though these numbers change constantly. Yes, their evaluation of our historic data constantly changes, always, always to show more warming in recent years.
The Point: Yes, I know these graphs do not pick up the minutia of variances of some peoples’ perception of what the global average temperatures are. That’s the point. I thought it well to put out a graph of data into something the average person can relate to. The hyperbole given to the climate issue is a huge ado about minutia. These graphs demonstrate the supposed global warming of over the last 135 years as normal people can relate to it.
Disclaimer: I, in no way, manner, shape or form, endorse the values GISS has stated. I don’t believe them to be any more real than the tooth fairy or unicorns. They weren’t real to start with (by their own admission) and they’re not real today. The notion of a global average temperature, even in the abstract, is very suspect. In actual application, it simply isn’t possible to have one, not today, certainly not yesterday, and we won’t tomorrow.
People must understand what a “temperature” is. It simply describes a movement of heat, or better, energy. A temperature doesn’t describe the movement, though. Energy moves omni-directional. An increase in temperature in a given place, or even a given plane, may describe a loss in energy for the whole, rather than an increase. It may not even describe an energy change at all, for the whole, but, rather a movement of energy from one place to another, or from one plane to another.
The fact is, these people have less coverage, globally, than is not covered and isn’t a concern for most of the lunatics. It’s simply a metric they manipulate and use to scare people. The supposed temperature of the globe isn’t real, it is impossible to determine. The hyperbole and concern isn’t real. It is simply misanthropy and self-loathing. These graphs were made to help demonstrate these thoughts.
PS My thanks to Ron Van Wegen for helping correct a spelling/near homophone error in the post!