Talk:Global temperature record

message: (William M. Connolley 22:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page creation 

message: There are no temperatures in the article. The title needs to be changed to reflect the content (maybe 'temperature anomaly record'). If actual temperatures (in degrees Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin) are available, maybe a new page with the original title could be created.
---
Years later I come here looking for the same thing. Finally found an explanatory NASA page https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html giving the Surface Air Temperature (SAT) global average as around 14 C. That's 287 K without a suppressed zero. So a 1 degree Celsius anomaly is about 0.3 percent. 
Rairden (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it's about 15% of the range of a typical medical thermometer. On the other hand, a 0.3% percent in average ocean depth is more than 10m. Even relative measurements are relative.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Temperatures on this page (despite the title) 

message: I created a page on the geologic temperature record in order to provide a place for a deep time perspective for changes in Earth's climate.  Right now it is pretty qualitative and not well-documented, but at least it is a start.  Dragons flight 07:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
: Paleoclimatology ? — SEWilco 08:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several points. The paleoclimatic record of the last 540 million years, which covers the time during which multicellular organisms have been abundant and most of the time (600 My) during which there has been enough oxygen in the atmosphere to sustain animals. During that time, we are currently at the near absolute minimum observed CO2 levels, perhaps even dangerously so. When you do not examine the record of relevant to life temperatures, insolation, water vapor, CO2, and oxygen and it its place misrepresent short term trends by including regression lines for transient phenomena, the predictive value is very low, the correlations are false, and the conclusions erroneous. 216.197.221.91 (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geologic Temperature Record 

message: Is there a article about high and low temperature records? the highest and the lowest? or Avg hi and avg Lo? Not just the data of the record itself ... J. D. Redding 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature records?

message: The US National Academy of Sciences looked into the Hockey Stick controversy and advised that strip bark trees are not temperature proxies.  Since all trees more than 600 years old are strip bark trees, Loehle reconstructed temperature going back 2,000 without using tree ring data.  He found the MWP to be consistent at the 18 sites he studied all over the globe and found the MWP was 0.3C warmer than the late 200th century.  RonCram (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And E&E is still not a WP:RS --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E&E is a peer-reviewed paper.  It is ridiculous to claim it is not RS.  Loehle's reconstruction is beginning to get media attention.RonCram (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is your evidence that E&E is PR? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll argue the paper is RS.  If you check the website you will see the Editorial Advisory Board of over 50 names and organizations.  The research submitted here goes under much scrutiny, and all sources are checked before publication.  If you read the instructions to the authors you will get an idea of what has to be done to publish with this paper.  Also if you check the paper again there has been an add on in January of 2008 suggesting new evidence.  These findings should be doubly checked and posted on wiki as an alternative to other research findings. Infonation101 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Jancovici, Jean-Marc. How do the present temperatures compare to the past ones? Jean-Marc Jancovici, 2004. "It is remarkable that over the last 400.000 years, the maximum of the yearly average of the temperature exceeded the present values by just 1 to 2 °C (average temperature on earth was then 16 to 17 °C compared to 15 °C today) ; the last time that we reached such values was 130.000 years ago." 16–17 °C
(1600 AD) James Hawley:Jean-Marc Jancovici 
15 °C
(November 2004)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.94.141 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Loehle paper

message: Would it be possible to update the temperature record graphs to reflect more up-to-date information?  I keep reading that global temperatures haven't risen in quite some time, and it would be nice if this page noted that. Zoomwsu (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture :de:Datei:Erdgeschichte.jpg, might be more suitable for Paleoclimatology.  I don't think it really needs to be translated: how many different possible meanings can words like "Praekambrium", "Warmklima ohne Eis", and "Eiszeitalter" have?  Having said that, that graph lacks a temperature scale.  --TS 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: On the substantive question, for up to date temperature records it's probably better to consult the primary sources than to rely on an encyclopedia, which tends not to be concerned with the very recent past.  --TS 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Update Graphs?

message: The graph on the upper right is bassed on reseasrch that has been shown to have significant flaws http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
It leaves the impression that the the Medival Warming Period was coldder than today. There is not a scientific consensus to support this notion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markllo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph on the upper right shows the instrumental temperature record and starts in 1880. The Medieval Warm Period (if it existed as a global phenomenon) was around 800 years earlier. The :File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png figure, on the other hand, shows 10 different reconstructions, only one of which has been the subject of Wegeman's criticism - and that criticism is by no means accepted unanimously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, most of the other reconstructions share one or more of the same flaws for which the original hockey stick was criticized by Wegman and others. For instance, if the scientific consensus as reflected in the NAS/NRC studies includes that the MBH reconstruction was flawed by the inclusion of strip-bark samples (eg, the bristlecone pines), you can't appeal to other studies that get their shape from the exact same strip-bark samples as evidence the flaw "didn't matter".  --Blogjack (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The graph now shown is from the PAGES2K data set. Is there any substantive criticism of it, or any other alternative? Skierpage (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: I stumbled upon a video describing an apparent bug in NASA's temperature record. The original blog post with the findings can be found here:
I wanted to verify the claim so I checked out a climate change advocates response:
In addition: NASA apparently fixed the data with the following record:
I tried finding an official NASA response, but couldn't find it. Can someone compile this issue into the wikipedia article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.240.170 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Y2K Bug Causes Skewed Data?

message: This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.  
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been excluded from the pending changes trial because there is lack of disruptive activity here that would justify applying any type of page protection here. 山本一郎 (会話) 02:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: The source for the graph
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Says
"(Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)".
The info on the image pages says 1961-1990.
Also, how come it gives 2005 as hottest when pretty much everywhere else (including other graphs on this page) give 1998?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.248 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980 or 1990 

message: This page says not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum
While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures.[4]
And in our article on Temperature record it says otherwise:
 The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century,
Isn't that inconsistent?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.87.247.31 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how you average temperatures for "the 20th century". It ended with Earth's global mean temperature over 0.6°C higher than it was at the start; is it better to take an average or take the ending temperature averaged over 1 or 2 decades? So far the 21st century has been much than the Holocene maximum seems a fair statement, but I would want it from a climate scientist. Skierpage (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it warmer then today? 

message: Global Average Surface Temperature redirects to here. This seems incorrect, given the fact that nowhere on this page is there a measurement of the global average surface temperature, past or present. There is ample discussion of changes in that measure over time, but no actual discussion of that measure itself. It seems to me to be a failing, if this article doesn't at least represent the title of the article and of all articles that redirect here. Whether Global Average Surface Temperature should cease to redirect here, and potentially be it's own page (assuming someone populated it with information), or whether the information should be included on this page is to me fairly arbitrary, thoughts?
I personally think this article is itself mis-titled. It isn't about the temperature record, it's about historical temperature trends. It has trends, but no baseline. I don't think anyone could determine what the recorded temperature was at any time or place by use of this article, without external research, which defeats the purpose of this entry. This entry seems less encyclopedic and more appendical to the theoretical article that belongs under this name. AaronMP84 (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Average Surface Temperature 

message: "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability"
by B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist, Clim. Past, 8, 765-786, 2012
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html (with link to full text)
doi:10.5194/cp-8-765-2012
*"This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License."
This interesting new reconstruction has a number of findings that challenge the current IPCC consensus:
* Our reconstructions indicate – in agreement with the results of Moberg et al. (2005); Ljungqvist (2010), and Loehle and McCulloch (2008) – that the first millennium AD was generally significantly warmer than the second millennium AD. The 17th century was the coldest century during the last two millennia and most of the LIA seems to have been colder than during the Dark Age Cold Period ca. 300–800 AD. [end quote]
The meat of the study is in Figures 5 & 6 (p.11 of PDF).
Published 4-18-12. Early days, but should be considered for our article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do please explain what "findings that challenge the current IPCC consensus" - since none of what you are quoting is outside of what our article currently writes - nor afaik in any way contradictory to anything in the AR4. Be specific - you can quote the relevant sections from the AR4 while you do it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012, new NH temp reconstruction for past 2000 years 

message: Rohde's old GISTEMP plot shows just one estimate of the recent global temperature record, when there are now at least five.  It also shows only annual values when all five series provide monthly data.  Plotting annually loses important context above the variability inherent in the temperature record (for example, the 1998 El Niño spike).  Some other series provide more coverage (start earlier) and use more modern (arguably better) interpretation methods (Berkeley Earth, Cowtan & Way).  I propose to replace Rohde's plot with a version of :File:Global_monthly_temperature_record.png showing the five recognised instrumental series (including GISTEMP) without the reanalysis and satellite series (which are not relevant in this context).  An svg version is in preparation.--Gergyl (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lede image 

message: I would propose moving and renaming this article as . The current title  is ambiguous; it could refer either of the subtopics  or ; it could also be mistaken for , by readers searching for records of extreme temperatures. 
The title should be WP:PRECISE and unambiguous enough to fully define the scope of the article. In this case, the topic is not the record of any arbitrary set of temperatures, but the record of global average temperatures (in atmosphere and oceans) over as much time as such temperatures can be measured or inferred. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was a good move, Sangdeboeuf. I had made a similar suggestion for instrumental temperature record. I felt the word "global" should also be added there. My proposal is shown here but was rejected. Perhaps we can ponder together if the title instrumental temperature record needs to be changed? EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: It would be nice if there would have been more information in this article regarding thermometers since there is one line and then a reference to another article. As well, it could be improved if the article had a simpler layout with less large paragraphs and run on sentenceSchneidl12 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring global temperature record 

message: Can this be renamed the "Global temperature anomaly record" ?
Since no one has taken the time to put in the base values since it was first written and requested, the revised name would tell people this page has no temperature readings at all, just deviations from some arbitrary baseline values which are different based on the data set chosen. 2600:6C67:867F:DC44:C0B3:4AC0:D225:B6D7 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 

message: I came to this article today because User:ASRASR had pointed out the following to me: "But what about the existing article (Global temperature record) - Can't this and the instrumental temperature record be merged? Uses the same graph in the lead." I think a merge might not be needed but the scope of the article had to be clarified. To start with, having the same images in the lead is not good so I have changed that now. Also, I felt that the article would be better off going from the oldest to the most recent time period. So I have changed the ordering. Also, I have used the excerpt function for the section on "instrumental temperature record". I hope this will make it easier for readers to find their way around. I think that most people searching for global temperature stuff really want to know that part that our GHG emissions are causing. So most likely what they actually want to know is the content that is here: instrumental temperature record. For that reason, I have also added a hatnote. I have also started to build up the lead but more is needed. EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've made some changes to set it apart from [[instrumental temperature record]] 

message: The "Ice cores (from 800,000 years before present)" section should mention that ice cores define "the present" as 1950, i.e. they end before the ~0.9°C of warming in the instrumented temperature record since then. The chart :File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
doesn't say this, you have to visit the Wikipedia page for its data European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica to see the mention "age (years before 1950)". I've requested the change on its talk page and for now put "1950" in the image's caption.
The definition of 1950 as "today"/"the present"/the time for "ago" seems common in paleoclimatology, e.g. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/cvterms?termId=133 says calendar year before present
: an age unit of years, calibrated to actual years if derived from radiocarbon dating, before present with present defined as 1950 Common Era. Times after 1950 CE are expressed as negative values.
Somewhere I read a reference explaining that snow takes time to compact to form ice cores, so they're not a good proxy for temperatures in recent decades, but alas I can't find it.
If this applies to every section of the article, it should be mentioned in the introduction, otherwise each mentiom of "present" and "ago" needs the clarification. A lot has happened since 1950. -- Skierpage (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice core temperatures end at 1950! 

message: All of the graphs plot the "temperature anomaly" but this term does not seem to be defined anywhere.  I gather that it is the temperature with respect to some reference time period, but this should be explicitely explained (and perhaps linked to from the graphs, since they appear on multiple pages).
—Steven G. Johnson 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Temperature anomaly is relative to the Earth's pre-industrial average temperature, which was remarkably stable for several thousand years. This article explains it for the 2015 Paris Agreement, from that: "The treaty did not define a particular preindustrial period, though scientists generally consider the years from 1850 to 1900 to be a reliable reference; this time predates humans’ use of fossil fuels and is also the earliest period when global observations of land and sea temperatures are available. During this period, the average global temperature, while swinging up and down in certain years, generally hovered around 13.5 degrees Celsius, or 56.3 degrees Fahrenheit." Similarly, a 2016 FAQ from the IPCC says "This IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report." This should probably be added to the article. I haven't found the IPCC definition of the temperature, this is a relevant paper -- Skierpage (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi User:Skierpage, it wasn't clear to me which changes you want to make. Maybe just go ahead with them, although do keep in mind that when it comes to IPCC info this is probably more relevant for this article: Instrumental temperature record. It's important not to create more overlapping content than necessary. EMsmile (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @EMsmile Yes, I'm not sure where to put the information in what article. But the instrumental temperature record covers specific years in the Common Era calendar; it doesn't have the problem of a missing technical definition of what "ago"/"the present" mean and the 73 year mismatch of 1950 with people's understanding of "the present" as "this year." In this article it feels like it's a preface (prefatory?) remark. -- Skierpage (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Skierpage, we don't normally do "preface" remarks but we could add a section on terminology or definitions perhaps? This could be useful. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please define "temperature anomaly" 

message: "Gradual changes in Earth's climate of this kind have been frequent during the Earth's 4,540 million year existence and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways." I'm at a loss tp know the meaning of "and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways.", can anybody help? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the descriptions relates to continental drift over long periods of times. —RCraig09 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've attempted to improve the wording now. Hope I got it right. Pinging also User:Dragons flight who wrote that section in the first place. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need elaboration or citation for following wordings 

message: "Temperature estimates relative to 1950 from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica. The present (1950) is on the right side of the graph." The current wordings are difficult for me to understand. Thank you. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewording of caption  —RCraig09 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anybody help rephrase the caption for <nowiki>[[File:EPICA temperature plot.svg]]</nowiki>?