On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 18:28:02 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 13:49:44 UTC+1, wrote:
Missed being the warmest by 0.1C. The world continues exceptionally warm:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

Are you sure that you are not confusing your brain with one of your tonsils and would the correct answer be yes?

I suppose if I was a gentleman I would appologise for being spiteful to an idiot, knowing full well he has no defence against a miserable ******* of my ilk.
What the problem is for someone hooked on a dataset of statistics based on one or two periodical looks per set hour of the day is that any period covered is likely to have missed a hot spot.
Then there is the problem of parallax. If the heights of the early meteorologists varied the glass reading will have varied slightly.
And when we get to the differences of fractions to decimal point, the routines for recalibrating the temperatures in Farnheit and Centigrade considers how many decimal places?

That is before we get to the resetting of sites to suit the demands of the European Communisty. Let us take the new errr um... data as gospel.

What the idiot has suggested is that there has been no remarkable change in
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index since 1880, some two decades after the start of the science of meteorology.

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980 sources: GHCN-v3 1880-07/2019 + SST: ERSST v5 1880-07/2019 using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing