Climate Basics

[baileyn45]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country and the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

 

[Natural Citizen]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Don't forget to factor in all of the bombs being dropped all over the middle east. And now they're talking nukes? Pffft.

 

[baileyn45]

[

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country anThe satellite d the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

It's the surface temps I consider suspect. The current network is a joke, the past network is unknown. The satellite data has it' s'own issues, it's also useless historically.

My issue is that, as of 2019, no one can tell me the average temp of planet Earth, no one. To claim otherwise is asinine. There is not one human being that could possibly tell me the average temp of my home state of Ohio, the average temp of the continental US, the average temp of the northern hemisphere. No one has even close to the data to make such claims.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country anThe satellite d the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

It's the surface temps I consider suspect. The current network is a joke, the past network is unknown. The satellite data has it' s'own issues, it's also useless historically.

My issue is that, as of 2019, no one can tell me the average temp of planet Earth, no one. To claim otherwise is asinine. There is not one human being that could possibly tell me the average temp of my home state of Ohio, the average temp of the continental US, the average temp of the northern hemisphere. No one has even close to the data to make such claims.

Quite frankly speaking, WE DON'T KNOW... And any one pontificating about this making this assertion is laughably ignorant of the facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

[

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country anThe satellite d the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

It's the surface temps I consider suspect. The current network is a joke, the past network is unknown. The satellite data has it' s'own issues, it's also useless historically.

My issue is that, as of 2019, no one can tell me the average temp of planet Earth, no one. To claim otherwise is asinine. There is not one human being that could possibly tell me the average temp of my home state of Ohio, the average temp of the continental US, the average temp of the northern hemisphere. No one has even close to the data to make such claims.

Actually, the satellite method is pretty elegant and much simpler than the 15,000 thermometer version... Because the surface coverage is uniform and fully populated by the 12 Weather sats in different orbits.. I personally believe that it could be an accurate reading of the entire surface to much better than 0.1 DegC.

Much more accurate than trying to measure the "yearly oil output"...

This satellite fleet covers your state of Ohio at least twice a day with about a 45 Km (28 mi) resolution.. It also does a uniform job on urban/rural, valleys vs mountains, ect... And it's not affected by placing a temperature station next to an air conditioning unit or asphalt parking lot...

The CLAIM is each reading is accurate to 0.03 DegC.. But that's not the accuracy once you average the entire globe. And the same is true for the land based systems...

I see no reason to doubt the satellite versions myself...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..

 

[baileyn45]

[

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country anThe satellite d the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

It's the surface temps I consider suspect. The current network is a joke, the past network is unknown. The satellite data has it' s'own issues, it's also useless historically.

My issue is that, as of 2019, no one can tell me the average temp of planet Earth, no one. To claim otherwise is asinine. There is not one human being that could possibly tell me the average temp of my home state of Ohio, the average temp of the continental US, the average temp of the northern hemisphere. No one has even close to the data to make such claims.

Actually, the satellite method is pretty elegant and much simpler than the 15,000 thermometer version... Because the surface coverage is uniform and fully populated by the 12 Weather sats in different orbits.. I personally believe that it could be an accurate reading of the entire surface to much better than 0.1 DegC.

Much more accurate than trying to measure the "yearly oil output"...

This satellite fleet covers your state of Ohio at least twice a day with about a 45 Km (28 mi) resolution.. It also does a uniform job on urban/rural, valleys vs mountains, ect... And it's not affected by placing a temperature station next to an air conditioning unit or asphalt parking lot...

The CLAIM is each reading is accurate to 0.03 DegC.. But that's not the accuracy once you average the entire globe. And the same is true for the land based systems...at

I see no reason to doubt the satellite versions myself...

You should doubt such things. Satellites are somewhat less reliable than than balloons as far as the atmosphere Elegant or not, from what I've read satellites are virtually useless as far as ground temps. Surface temps from satellites over the ocean have enough problems, over land it's much worse. What's more disturbing is what constitutes the surface network. It's scary sad.

 

[baileyn45]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..




View attachment 279970

I'm going to guess that that is today. Now compare that to 1920, 1820, 1020. Apples to orange, apples to bricks, apples to ,,,,,

 

[SSDD]

Of what practical use is an "average" temperature of a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures might span 200 degrees or more?

 

[harmonica]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

 

[SSDD]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

You probably should care...but are apparently unable to figure out that every thing you buy, including the power necessary to run your AC and heat costs you more because that average temperature has been manipulated, and used to push the climate change agenda, and has resulted in taxes, and regulations, that have driven up the cost of doing business...and resulted in increased prices across the board...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..




View attachment 279970

I'm going to guess that that is today. Now compare that to 1920, 1820, 1020. Apples to orange, apples to bricks, apples to ,,,,,

Read it..


Look at the number of years in service on the bottom.. it's what you are saying.


.

 

[harmonica]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

You probably should care...but are apparently unable to figure out that every thing you buy, including the power necessary to run your AC and heat costs you more because that average temperature has been manipulated, and used to push the climate change agenda, and has resulted in taxes, and regulations, that have driven up the cost of doing business...and resulted in increased prices across the board...

there are a lot more $$$$$ things to care about than utilities costs--like TAXES
.....taxes/etc will screw up your life more than climate change...taxes can ruin an economy/standard of living/etc
..illegals/mass immigration are ruining the US more so than climate change
..Obama enabling criminals is ruining the US more than climate change
...etc

 

[tycho1572]

There’s a reason why most people ignore the crazy climate change predictions from democrats ....

Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions.....
An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.

Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending "cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere." That claim came from an "international team of specialists" cited by The New York Times in 1978.

Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that "another ice age" was imminent. "Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest," the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that "Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast."

In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."

Some of the more dire predictions came from Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who famously urged population control to mitigate the impacts of humans on the environment. Ehrlich, in 1969, warned that "everybody" would "disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years," The New York Times reported.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Ehrlich, warning of a "disastrous" famine," urged placing "sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water."

Those predictions were made around the time former President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, the U.S. has adopted a series of environmental reforms aimed at limiting emissions.

Years after those initial predictions, media outlets and politicians continue to teem with claims of apocalyptic scenarios resulting from climate change.

Earlier this month, leading Democratic presidential candidates held a town hall on the issue and warned about the "existential" threat posed by a changing climate. Before the end of the month, 2020 candidates are expected to have another climate forum at Georgetown University.

CEI's report came just before the U.N. Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, an event that promises to "spark the transformation that is urgently needed and propel action that will benefit everyone."

It also came a week after Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that Miami would be gone in a "few years" because of climate change. She was responding to critics of her ambitious "Green New Deal," which seeks to reach net-zero emissions within just decades.
Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions

 

[mamooth]

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well..

No, they haven't. UAH, run by a denier shill, recently massaged their algorithm so that it reads far colder than anything. It now disagrees bigly with everything, including weather balloon data.

The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The satellites don't measure surface temperature. They measure a mixture of tropospheric temps. And they use a very complex model with a lot of fudge factors to tease temp out of microwave measurements, so they are correctly regarded as the least reliable data.

It's just common sense that, if you want to measure surface temperatures, you measure temperatures at the surface. You don't measure a mixture of mid-tropospheric temps and then try to invent a model to make that into surface temps.

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country and the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

And if you remove 90% of those measurements at random, the results won't change. The coverage is massively redundant. You could get accurate global averages with fewer than a hundred data points.

This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.

It's not debatable that the adjustments make the warming look smaller. Under your conspiracy theory, the scientists all conspired to fix the data to make the warming look smaller. Why would they do that?

More if ya want it.... LOL....

What you forgot to do is show how any of the adjustments were wrong. All you did was proclaim that since you didn't like the results, you feel they have to be wrong.

 

[SSDD]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

You probably should care...but are apparently unable to figure out that every thing you buy, including the power necessary to run your AC and heat costs you more because that average temperature has been manipulated, and used to push the climate change agenda, and has resulted in taxes, and regulations, that have driven up the cost of doing business...and resulted in increased prices across the board...

there are a lot more $$$$$ things to care about than utilities costs--like TAXES
.....taxes/etc will screw up your life more than climate change...taxes can ruin an economy/standard of living/etc
..illegals/mass immigration are ruining the US more so than climate change
..Obama enabling criminals is ruining the US more than climate change
...etc

And you are blissfully unaware of how the climate change scam has increased the amount of money you pay in taxes...you are...aren't you?

Do you live in a bubble?

 

[harmonica]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

You probably should care...but are apparently unable to figure out that every thing you buy, including the power necessary to run your AC and heat costs you more because that average temperature has been manipulated, and used to push the climate change agenda, and has resulted in taxes, and regulations, that have driven up the cost of doing business...and resulted in increased prices across the board...

there are a lot more $$$$$ things to care about than utilities costs--like TAXES
.....taxes/etc will screw up your life more than climate change...taxes can ruin an economy/standard of living/etc
..illegals/mass immigration are ruining the US more so than climate change
..Obama enabling criminals is ruining the US more than climate change
...etc

And you are blissfully unaware of how the climate change scam has increased the amount of money you pay in taxes...you are...aren't you?

Do you live in a bubble?

I paid less last year

 

[SSDD]

who cares?? we have air conditioners and heat

You probably should care...but are apparently unable to figure out that every thing you buy, including the power necessary to run your AC and heat costs you more because that average temperature has been manipulated, and used to push the climate change agenda, and has resulted in taxes, and regulations, that have driven up the cost of doing business...and resulted in increased prices across the board...

there are a lot more $$$$$ things to care about than utilities costs--like TAXES
.....taxes/etc will screw up your life more than climate change...taxes can ruin an economy/standard of living/etc
..illegals/mass immigration are ruining the US more so than climate change
..Obama enabling criminals is ruining the US more than climate change
...etc

And you are blissfully unaware of how the climate change scam has increased the amount of money you pay in taxes...you are...aren't you?

Do you live in a bubble?

I paid less last year

And you would have paid even less if the climate change scam wasn't causing taxes to increase.

 

[flacaltenn]

The satellites don't measure surface temperature. They measure a mixture of tropospheric temps. And they use a very complex model with a lot of fudge factors to tease temp out of microwave measurements, so they are correctly regarded as the least reliable data.

It's just common sense that, if you want to measure surface temperatures, you measure temperatures at the surface. You don't measure a mixture of mid-tropospheric temps and then try to invent a model to make that into surface temps.

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't fuck with them but every third year or so...

It's not debatable that the adjustments make the warming look smaller. Under your conspiracy theory, the scientists all conspired to fix the data to make the warming look smaller. Why would they do that?

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse.. You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...