We’ve done it already. The sloping green line in each graph, or ‘Manhattan’, has been added by the Talkshop. Of course it’s the same data, but the presentation is noticeably different. In the first one from The Conversation the green slope line is at 45° to the horizontal, and in the second one from NOAA (the creator of the graph) the same line is a more modest, although still quite steep, 35°. Is someone trying too hard to impress?
– – –
Graph 1
Source: The Conversation
https://theconversation.com/ice-storms-january-downpours-heavy-snow-no-snow-diagnosing-warming-winter-syndrome-221956
Graph 2
Source: NOAA
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202313
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
OB, I know a graphs looks technically impressive but there is no way “scientists” could have recorded the temperature of oceans or land 150 years ago and produced a statistic called “global” temperature (an intrinsic variable). Let’s agree this is all BS. I accept there has been some apparent warming since the “little ice age” but comparative measurements to present (to decimal point K, F, C) are impossible.
There is an intrinsic problem in my last comment which was meant for “intensive” reading. Those of us familiar with metrology and statistics will know temperature is an “intensive variable”. Measuring the temperature of air 2m above land surface will give a large diurnal component as well as pressure component (Everest/Death Valley plus barometric variation) and then there is the problem of instrumental error. Max-min average anomalies are just that: Anomalies. There is no measuring station in the world to my knowledge that still collects data as they 100 years ago (then now comparison). 70% of the surface of the globe is ocean. Waves and tidal heights vary by more than 2m in most places. Measurements used by “climate scientists” here are calculated (guessed). More interesting is their idea of heat content of oceans. If you were to make a guess at average temperature of all oceans you might start around 4C and then start to think how to deal with the complexity of sea ice and thermocline. My point: How do you measure a global temperature?
OB if this appears twice can you delete one please.
Coincidentally the apparently steep part of the temperature rise starts at the same time as the introduction of satellite data, ca. 1979. That then gets used to predict an indefinite linear increase due to CO2, but before that CO2 was apparently having little or no effect, contrary to IPCC theory.
Ramping up the Manhattan angle to 45° only makes the contrast with pre-1979 even more stark.
Neither is genuine data. Start at the 1930s to 1960 when the arctic was low ice.
The green ‘Manhattan’ line shouldn’t be straight across the maximum temperatures, it should follow the ‘temperature average’ from 1880 through to present day.
However, as Stephen says, these ‘global temperatures’ are open to skepticism. Arguments about the ‘bucket collection’ of water from ships to log ‘surface water temperature’ is an ongoing discussion.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
I’m always impressed by a line that touches none of the data points!
It’s essentially fraudulent. If the 20th century is your average, you can’t start the line until 2001, as the poibts prior to that are in the average. And then it should pass through the majority of data points, from around 0.72 to 1.70F. So warming this century is around half what they claim.
Dearest ‘oldbrew’.
We can’t take ‘maximum temperatures’ to form an ‘average’ for the determination of ‘Global Temperatures/changes’! This is ‘weather’!
However, ‘changes’ in global ‘extremes’ of ‘temperature’ could be the basis of a new thread. Myself, this should lead with humidity and rainfall (inclusive of ‘virgil rain’, which confounds energy transfer between ‘surface/atmospheric’ energy transfer by ‘terms’ of ‘rainfall’ [rain that evaporates before ground-fall] and is mostly causational to local anomalies of weather events).
This ‘phenomenon’ (virgil rain) could well be an indicator to ‘global warming’ should it be more prevalent.
Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
As per the intro: ‘Of course it’s the same data, but the presentation is noticeably different.‘
The green lines are just to illustrate the differing angles of the slope from the same start and end points, nothing more.
So, you’re ‘highlighting’ the ‘changes’ in ‘extreme events’ here?
If this is so/true, this illustrates a marked change in the behavior of Earth’s atmosphere.
Kind regards Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
Och, I’ve been keeping away from all this sort of stuff, BUT but but again, as Teecher used to say, TELL! us …. it’s the SCALE that shouts out. Put it on Kelvin and start at the origin – whadda ya see? a “nothing” wobbly line going nowhere IMHO. Where’s the HEAT here today / yesterday, and never mind the FOEHN effects Currents of AIR unseen to the naked eye, Still WATERS run deep stuff…. but in the bath you an certainly feel HOT/COLD currents until it has mixed. … Sometimes question the perceived wisdom & knowledge of Air & Wind currents ability to transport heat around the globe, Air especially with its SP Heat and etc. from a local perspective. ….
Swallow the Book, talk the book: I have given up listening to that talk !
saighdear says: February 3, 2024 at 8:33 am
“I have given up listening to that talk !”
You shouldn’t saighdear. This site needs all inputs of knowledge to improve ‘all’ of our/its (Tallbloke’s) knowledge/database. 🙂
Please say your ‘individual disagreement ‘ made within this thread. 🙂
Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).