Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Here's a raw table in .txt format from NASA

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...





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

What are you even talking about. They had weather stations with mercury thermometers and wrote down temperatures in a logbook.

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-...


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.


Not on the ocean, and not covering even 1/1000% of the coverage we have with satellites on the surface

[flagged]


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/


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.


Quite a scientific data analysis you've done there. NASA must be completely mistaken!

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: