Study: ‘No Change’ In Global Temperatures for 100 Years
In the early 1900s, the globally-averaged distribution of calculated surface temperature estimates ranged between 14°C (57.2F) and 15°C (59F). For 1991-2018, HadCRUT, Berkeley, and NASA GISS also estimate today’s global temperature is about 14.5°C (58.1°F).
Scientists estimating Earth’s surface temperature has been an ongoing pursuit since the early 19th century.
A new study (Kramm et al., 2020) suggests the generally agreed-upon global temperature from 1877 to 1913 from dozens of calculated results was about 14.4°C (57.9°F).
Problematically, HadCRUT, Berkley, and NASA GISS also indicate 1991-2018 had a global surface temperature of about 14.5°C (58.1°F).
This would suggest there has been “no change in the globally averaged near-surface temperature over the past 100 years.”
Image Source: Kramm et al., 2020
Read more at No Tricks Zone
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kenneth,
You began: “In the early 1900s, the globally-averaged distribution of calculated surface temperature estimates ranged between 14°C (57.2F) and 15°C (59F). For 1991-2018, HadCRUT, Berkeley, and NASA GISS also estimate today’s global temperature is about 14.5°C (58.1°F).”
Contrary to this statement is the historical fact that in the 1900s the air temperatures measured at about 1.5 meters above the earth’s surfaces were being used to estimate (as a proxy) the surface temperature.
If you go to https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn you will find the first US government project which measured, and reported, measured surface temperatures. And it was only begun near 2000. And if one compares these surface temperatures with the measured air temperatures one will see that air temperatures are not a good proxy for surface temperatures.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom O
| #
Your point?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
Figure it out.
Have a got day, Jerry
Reply
Eduardo F
| #
Tom O, Jerry Krause means that NOAA and NASA have been tampering, Uuuuups! “homogenizing” temperatures since a long time ago.
Reply
julian
| #
Reflecting Jerry. All of the surface of the planet receives and looses energy in a cyclical fashion. A good measure of the mean temperature requires some component that gains and looses energy slowly, where over time a steady state is achieved. The gas atmosphere is not a good medium for this. It gains and looses substantially each day, by the hour or minute. An averaging would require a lot of measurements to be sure of being accurate. The gas atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates heat in three dimensions.
The upper surface of the land gains and radiates heat from a surface. The oceans absorb energy in 3 dimensions but looses it as a surface radiator. If one goes underground there is a layer about 5-6 metres below surface where the temperature remains constant at all times. This is presumably a balance point between gain and loss and would be a climatic medium. The ocean has a similar point at about 50 metres depth but because of convection effects it doesnt represent an average of temperature so much as an average of maximum density (= a baseline average minimum temperature). Both land and sea would provide a better proxy for long term climate determination. Unfortunately there is no large spacial or temporal record for these yet.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Julian,
The temperature of the atmosphere is a meaningless measurement since has little correlation to the energy of the molecules, which is what is being radiated. Thermometers are designed and calibrated using liquid water where there is a constant number of molecules transferring energy to it. Any change in energy will be reflected int the temperature (except with water where its opercular properties cause variations between heating and energy.) In a gas when energy is added the gas expands and the number of molecules (mass) changes causing the reading not be just a measurement of energy change. If one looks at a graph of the temperature of the atmosphere (decreasing in troposphere, increasing in stratosphere, decreasing in mesosphere, then increasing in thermosphere) it is clear that the readings have little in common with the energy coming from the sun which decreases with increasing distance.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Julian,
Rather than responding to your comment here, I suggest you refer to the article titled ‘An arctic Warming Anomaly?’ Revisited’ and its comment6s (which is presently on page 2). For I do plan to write a promised comment there which will describe some my experiences upon which I base some of my claimed knowledge.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply