<blockquote>
<p>I assume is an annual temperature change relative to the previous year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, that would be called the rate of change. &quot;Anomaly&quot; means the difference from some reference temperature.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T06:53:30.153Z
But if take the numbers (anomalies) as differences to the temperature of 1880 (say, this is the reference), adding them to 1880 temperature should give me the exact temperature of each year?
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T17:49:32.297Z
Yes. It is explained in their [FAQ](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/).
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-27T18:28:24.823Z
2021-02-27T18:28:24.823Z
Keith McClary
<p>Wherever I look, I find &quot;Temperature Anamolies&quot; which I assume is an annual temperature change relative to the previous year.</p>
<p>If I wanted to find the exact temperatures (based on NASA's accurate forecasts and estimates), can I get them somewhere?</p>
<p><a href="https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt</a></p>
<p>The above link shows the temperature change but if I add them up, the current global temperature comes out somewhere near 21 degrees as opposed to 14 degrees figure I often see everywhere..</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-27T16:04:58.777Z
You need first to find the temperature of the reference period, in this case, it is 1951-1980 (as mentioned on their website) then add it to the anomalies, e.g., 1920's anomaly is -0.6 and 1951-1980 mean value is 14 then 1920's temp is 13.4°C. I have checked [their](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) website only anomalies are provided. I will give it a look again.
ahmathelte
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-27T17:33:15.027Z
Re *... but if I add them up ...* **What???** That makes absolutely no sense. Voting to close as a nonsense question.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-27T17:33:39.070Z
I’m voting to close this question because this question, as written, makes no sense.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-27T18:41:13.647Z
We may do well to be patient with questions.  Some may come from youth or people where English isn't their first language.  Others may just make foolish or naïve mistakes... I certainly have made enough in my day.  The question makes sense, he just didn't understand how things work, and while it may not be a common question, the next person to make the same mistake may find this and be helped :-)  They are showing an attempt to learn themselves, likely without any formal education on the topic, and more credit to them!
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T06:49:11.323Z
@ahmathelte Which website? The link I provided only has some data, and in 3 columns, "Year", "No Smoothing" and "Lowess(5)". There is another website "https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php" where the data is more readable (they claim that the temperature didn't change much until the 1910s (13.73 degree celsius) and increased to a mere 14.31 degrees in 2000s. How can i reconcile both sets of data? What i don't understand is the metric, used in the NASA website data, is that anamoly a difference from the 1880s temperature (which was 13.73 degrees)?
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T06:49:14.197Z
I want to have a simple set of 2 columns, stating the most accurate estimate of global surface temperature from 1880 to 2020, to make a case for global warming. An increase of 0.3 degrees just doesn't make a compelling case and I for some reason can't reconcile the NASA "Anamoly" data with the actual temperatures.
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T06:51:51.520Z
@David Hammen "Adding them up" means adding the differences with the actual "previous year" temperatures to get the current temperature. Its not a nonsense question, it means how to get the actual global surface temperature data instead of the cryptic "anomalies" which are not comprehensible to the main audience. If i ask you to plot, most accurate estimates of global surface temperatures from 1880 to today, what would you plot? I want to show that there is a rise in 3 or 4 degrees in merely 140 years, which was unheard of pre-industrialization era.
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T06:52:29.480Z
@JeopardyTempest nice patronizing lecture, but does it mean I can get the question open again?
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T09:32:41.000Z
@Abhay the reference period is 1951-1980, which means the anomaly is Year. X temperature minus reference period average temperature. for the website click on "their" in my first comment :). The reference period can not be on year only since it doesn't represent the average climateology.Therfore, 30 years is common period used to repeent the average clmate.
ahmathelte
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T09:48:22.430Z
... I tried my best to defend your basic misunderstanding to those who wanted the question closed. Suffice to say you've worn out my positive grace at this point and proven me wrong. Reopening questions, like anything, is voted upon by those who've proven successful here by putting in effort and giving useful contributions to understanding, typically those who interact in scientific discourse in open and humble ways. Kindness goes a lot further than attitude. If your goal is bellicose debate rather than to get a straightforward question answered, you won't find many bites here. Have a good day
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T10:53:13.397Z
@Abhay Re *I want to show that there is a rise in 3 or 4 degrees in merely 140 years, which was unheard of pre-industrialization era* -- You will not be able to show that. The temperature change over the last 140 years is "only" 1.2 degrees Celsius or so. That alone remains unheard of.  Even more unprecedented is that almost all of that change (about 1 degree Celsius) occurred over the last 45 years. One degree doesn't seem like much, and it's not. The issue is what things going will look like in 2100. (continued)
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-28T11:01:06.383Z
Excluding magical intervention, the warming we are seeing now will continue over the next few decades as the Earth has not yet reached equilibrium with regard to all of the greenhouse gases humanity has pumped into the atmosphere, and with regard to all of the changes humanity has made to the landscape. The climate in 2100 will be rather inhospitable if humanity continues to add greenhouse gases at the current rate. The actions (or inactions) we take now will affect our children, our children's children, and our children's children's children.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-01T06:46:26.883Z
@ahmathelte:- "Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means", I went there, and Every month from every year has a number. Is the anamoly taken from an average of any particular month or average of all months from 1951-1980? I added temperatures separately but wasn't able to get 0 (if the reference is 29 years, then sum of anomalies for those years should be 0). Only for January alone, I am getting the sum as 0. Below is the spreadsheet where I have done the basic sum. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GSQq6j22JypkR3xmg-ekrtG1fxQk8o_vHOnNk_WULms/edit?usp=sharing
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-01T06:50:04.360Z
@David Hammen Probably the distribution of that 1.2 might be uneven. Amongst colder regions (Northern Hemisphere in general), it might be skewed heavily while amongst the other areas, the trapped heat might be lesser. Then we probably need better metrics for making this concept understandable to the general audience. Maybe the effect of the temperature rise on glacier melting (cubic metres of ice, melted by x degree change or y cubic metres of co2 trapped)
Abhay
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-01T06:51:31.187Z
@JeopardyTempest no offence intended. I merely mentioned that your comment was "nice" but "patronizing". I also feel that scientists should not act all uppity if they cant make concepts known to the general public. I feel, if x can't explain something to y despite multiple PHDs, his understanding is faulty.
Abhay
<climate-change><temperature>
How to get the exact temperature from 1880 to 2020?
Abhay
# How to get the exact temperature from 1880 to 2020?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-27)

Wherever I look, I find "Temperature Anamolies" which I assume is an annual temperature change relative to the previous year.

If I wanted to find the exact temperatures (based on NASA's accurate forecasts and estimates), can I get them somewhere?

<https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt>

The above link shows the temperature change but if I add them up, the current global temperature comes out somewhere near 21 degrees as opposed to 14 degrees figure I often see everywhere..

**Tags:** climate-change, temperature

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You need first to find the temperature of the reference period, in this case, it is 1951-1980 (as mentioned on their website) then add it to the anomalies, e.g., 1920's anomaly is -0.6 and 1951-1980 mean value is 14 then 1920's temp is 13.4°C. I have checked [their](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) website only anomalies are provided. I will give it a look again.  
> **username_2**: Re *... but if I add them up ...* **What???** That makes absolutely no sense. Voting to close as a nonsense question.  
> **username_2**: I’m voting to close this question because this question, as written, makes no sense.  
> **username_3**: We may do well to be patient with questions.  Some may come from youth or people where English isn't their first language.  Others may just make foolish or naïve mistakes... I certainly have made enough in my day.  The question makes sense, he just didn't understand how things work, and while it may not be a common question, the next person to make the same mistake may find this and be helped :-)  They are showing an attempt to learn themselves, likely without any formal education on the topic, and more credit to them!  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Which website? The link I provided only has some data, and in 3 columns, "Year", "No Smoothing" and "Lowess(5)". There is another website "https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php" where the data is more readable (they claim that the temperature didn't change much until the 1910s (13.73 degree celsius) and increased to a mere 14.31 degrees in 2000s. How can i reconcile both sets of data? What i don't understand is the metric, used in the NASA website data, is that anamoly a difference from the 1880s temperature (which was 13.73 degrees)?  
> **username_0**: I want to have a simple set of 2 columns, stating the most accurate estimate of global surface temperature from 1880 to 2020, to make a case for global warming. An increase of 0.3 degrees just doesn't make a compelling case and I for some reason can't reconcile the NASA "Anamoly" data with the actual temperatures.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 "Adding them up" means adding the differences with the actual "previous year" temperatures to get the current temperature. Its not a nonsense question, it means how to get the actual global surface temperature data instead of the cryptic "anomalies" which are not comprehensible to the main audience. If i ask you to plot, most accurate estimates of global surface temperatures from 1880 to today, what would you plot? I want to show that there is a rise in 3 or 4 degrees in merely 140 years, which was unheard of pre-industrialization era.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 nice patronizing lecture, but does it mean I can get the question open again?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 the reference period is 1951-1980, which means the anomaly is Year. X temperature minus reference period average temperature. for the website click on "their" in my first comment :). The reference period can not be on year only since it doesn't represent the average climateology.Therfore, 30 years is common period used to repeent the average clmate.  
> **username_3**: ... I tried my best to defend your basic misunderstanding to those who wanted the question closed. Suffice to say you've worn out my positive grace at this point and proven me wrong. Reopening questions, like anything, is voted upon by those who've proven successful here by putting in effort and giving useful contributions to understanding, typically those who interact in scientific discourse in open and humble ways. Kindness goes a lot further than attitude. If your goal is bellicose debate rather than to get a straightforward question answered, you won't find many bites here. Have a good day  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Re *I want to show that there is a rise in 3 or 4 degrees in merely 140 years, which was unheard of pre-industrialization era* -- You will not be able to show that. The temperature change over the last 140 years is "only" 1.2 degrees Celsius or so. That alone remains unheard of.  Even more unprecedented is that almost all of that change (about 1 degree Celsius) occurred over the last 45 years. One degree doesn't seem like much, and it's not. The issue is what things going will look like in 2100. (continued)  
> **username_2**: Excluding magical intervention, the warming we are seeing now will continue over the next few decades as the Earth has not yet reached equilibrium with regard to all of the greenhouse gases humanity has pumped into the atmosphere, and with regard to all of the changes humanity has made to the landscape. The climate in 2100 will be rather inhospitable if humanity continues to add greenhouse gases at the current rate. The actions (or inactions) we take now will affect our children, our children's children, and our children's children's children.  
> **username_0**: @username_1:- "Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means", I went there, and Every month from every year has a number. Is the anamoly taken from an average of any particular month or average of all months from 1951-1980? I added temperatures separately but wasn't able to get 0 (if the reference is 29 years, then sum of anomalies for those years should be 0). Only for January alone, I am getting the sum as 0. Below is the spreadsheet where I have done the basic sum. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GSQq6j22JypkR3xmg-ekrtG1fxQk8o_vHOnNk_WULms/edit?usp=sharing  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Probably the distribution of that 1.2 might be uneven. Amongst colder regions (Northern Hemisphere in general), it might be skewed heavily while amongst the other areas, the trapped heat might be lesser. Then we probably need better metrics for making this concept understandable to the general audience. Maybe the effect of the temperature rise on glacier melting (cubic metres of ice, melted by x degree change or y cubic metres of co2 trapped)  
> **username_0**: @username_3 no offence intended. I merely mentioned that your comment was "nice" but "patronizing". I also feel that scientists should not act all uppity if they cant make concepts known to the general public. I feel, if x can't explain something to y despite multiple PHDs, his understanding is faulty.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-02-27. Score: 2

> I assume is an annual temperature change relative to the previous year.

No, that would be called the rate of change. "Anomaly" means the difference from some reference temperature.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But if take the numbers (anomalies) as differences to the temperature of 1880 (say, this is the reference), adding them to 1880 temperature should give me the exact temperature of each year?  
> **username_4**: Yes. It is explained in their [FAQ](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/).  

---

