Climate change... Much ado about nothing?

It wouldn't - my assumption would be that such a tool would allow you to change the location.

But if we've gone up a degree or two over the past century or so wouldn't that be blatantly obvious in the data? Most but not all would plot as a gradient of around 1 or 2 in a 100. It would surely be that obvious?

If on the other hand, we were trying to prove that average temps increased but only by 0.01 of a degree, then I would agree it would not be obvious and significant statistical processing would be necessary to prove it. But 1 or 2 degrees? Come on - it would be absolutely blatant (hence my suggestion of a site that allows "playing" with the data in the manner I suggested.

I've stood back from this since your first post along these lines, bar pointing you to one set of date to look at. I stood back because I was basically incredulous. It is called GLOBAL warming and CLIMATE change for a reason. Looking at the temperature at ONE place on ONE day of the year for 100 years - which was your proposal first time round and second time - and thinking that would give you some insight is just crazy. What if it did show increasing temperature over time - would that demonstrate global warming ? No of course it wouldn't. If it didn't show that, would that invalidate global warming theory ? No, of course it wouldn't. Its ludicrous. One location on one date over 100 years is 100 data points. Its a nothing. Make that 10 different locations. Not just your back garden, but your friends up the road and some of their friends. That is still only 1000 data points. For individual locations, on a specific day. That is called "weather" variation, not global warning and climate change. And heh, with global warming and climate change, some places are probably going to get colder and wetter. Better make sure you don't pick those as your specially self selected locations.

So now you are beginning to concede that perhaps that isn't sound and so not what you meant. So it needs to be over many places and dates. Oh, look, that's precisely what scientists have been doing for the last couple of decades, but churning through huge amounts of data, from large number of places, with more computing power than you will ever be able to muster. 

Here you go, here is some data that has been visually rendered: climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/  Its from NASA. Its not about a single location (Cape Canaveral anyone?), but rather its on global temperatures. Gives quite an interesting graphic showing the temperatures around the globe from around 1880. No doubt some of it has to be by extrapolation since there wouldn't have been measuring stations at every possible location on the planet. 

I've done no personal checks on whether they have used 'accurate' data, nor whether their extrapolations are valid. But since there are literally 10's of thousands of people working in this domain peer reviewing work, strangely I'm not sure I can meaningfully contribute to that analysis. However, I'm sure if you look at 100 years worth of temperature measurements from Greenwich for precisely March 15th - or perhaps the 16th would be better - you'll be in a good position to either confirm or repudiate it. 

There was another one I saw today/yesterday about artic/Antarctic ice area (actually it was in the economist today I read it). There is shed loads of this stuff out there. But since I'm not in a position to go measure the ice myself I'll obviously disregard it - its bound to be bogus. 

If you view the Climate Time Machine sequence for Global Temperature, in bracknellboy's link, running it through from 1884 to 2022, I think you'll see exactly that effect... yet not just in the UK but right around the globe. 

Just to throw in a bit of data:

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/

Pick a random weather station (location) in the above link. Look at the min/max temperature for a random month with the 'climate period' set to 1991-2020. Change the 'climate period' back to 1961-1990. and that min/max temperature will be about a degree colder.

It's completely unscientific and probably not the exact set of data you want but the met office is showing a rise of about a degree over the last 30 years in all the selected places I chose. Can you find a weather station that is showing colder monthly temperatures 30 years ago?

Thanks for looking and yes its a bit simpler than I was hoping for. I'd also rather use random times (the same random time through the years) rather than local min/maxima although accept both should likely show the dramatic 1 or 2 degree increase.

Thanks and I appreciate your efforts but this graphic has been set up to prove a point hasn't it? It isn't a tool to allow easy navigation through the raw data.

I'm starting to feel an opportunity here. So long as I pretend I'm fully in the "non denier" camp, I could set up a site with that data and some nice navigation tools then sell the ads. Or something....

On a specific day of the year ? No, I probably wouldn't. At least not in a way that would be statistically meaningful. Why? Because of WEATHER. There is greater variation in day to day temperatures due to weather than there would be year to year variation for a given specific day of the year over even quite an extended period. 

Today 8th August its 18 oC (max) and hissing down with rain where I am. Tomorrow its forecast to be 23 oC and sunny and the day after that 25 oC (max) and sunny. That's a change of 7 oC in 3 days - actually 48 hours. Should I expect that last year the 8th August was also 7oC colder than the 10th August ? No, because its driven by weather, not the seasonal change (over 3 days.....), nor by climate change. I could just as well expect it was inverted i.e. 7oC hotter, or 8 oC colder, or indeed the same temperature, as 10th August that year. 

Meteorological data for a single location on a single day of the year even over say 100 years is a largely uninteresting and unilluminating thing I would suggest. The noise in the data due to weather is almost certainly going to outweigh the trend, and any trend one might discern has a good chance of being an entirely spurious correlation. There are of course places in the world where this may well not be quite so true, but in a place like the UK it certainly is likely to be. There may a handful of special places in the world where it might be mildly interesting e.g. where there are very stable weather patterns and they represent planetary extremes, but even then I'd suggest a specific day of the year is not terribly helpful.

Of course if you start looking at monthly max/min temps, then that starts to change. Because then each of your data points is itself driven by a data pool, and the effects of day to day weather patterns are smoothed. Expand that to be multiple points etc. across a region, and then regions across.....