Kingy's graph (above) displays global temperature anomaly (divergence from 'normal' temperature) against a 50 year reference period (1850-1900). For anyone interested in gauging the veracity of this graph, here are three things to consider:
1) Does the period from 1850-1900 represent 'normal' temperature? If so, why?
2) Can we trust thermometers and data entry from 1850 to 1900 to be able to precisely determine what our normal temperature should be?
3) Have there been any local changes in sites where the data was initially recorded?
For Kingy's sake, (although I'm pretty sure he's a bot) let's assume that the global temperature from 1850-1900 was perfect, that the thermometers (and those holding them) were flawless, and that the recording sites are as pristine in the year 2000 as they were in 1850-1900...
So, according to the data, it's clear that the earth is 1.5 deg C warmer in 2025 than it was in 1850-1900. But, wait a minute, why are we comparing single years against a fifty-year reference? If we use a fifty-year reference period as our 'perfect normal' temperature, doesn't that mean that we've taken the mean of said fifty years, effectively CONVERTING A RANGE OF "PERFECTLY NORMAL' TEMPERATURES INTO ONE "PERFECT TEMPERATURE"?
Yes. That is what we've done. We've converted 50 years of ranging global temperatures into one temperature. And then we've labelled it as 'Normal'.
This is silly.
Anyway, according to the data, we're 1.5 deg C above 'perfect'. For perspective, here are the temperature ranges for Australian capital cities:
Brisbane has the smallest range. In 24hrs, it's range was > 5x the global temperature anomaly for 2025....
Perspective.
