The premium says little without the quota
Every report of a bidding exercise quotes the price. The number that produced it — how many certificates were on offer — is published in the same file and almost never appears beside it.
The global temperature series is not a thermometer reading. It is an anomaly against a baseline, assembled from land stations and sea-surface measurements, and knowing that is what makes it readable.
Reviewed 2026-08-18 Authority: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
The chart on this site’s data page has a single line for each year from 1880 onwards. It is one of the most reproduced graphs in existence, and it is routinely misread, because the number on its axis is not a temperature.
Absolute surface temperature varies by tens of degrees between a polar station and an equatorial one, and it varies with altitude, with local geography and with how the station is sited. Averaging raw readings across the globe produces a figure that depends mostly on which stations happened to report that year.
So the record does something else. For each location, it establishes a long-term normal over a fixed reference period, then reports how far each year departed from that normal. Departures are comparable in a way absolute temperatures are not: a station in Svalbard and a station in Singapore can both be half a degree above their own normal, and those two halves can be meaningfully averaged.
The consequence is that the y-axis is a difference. A value of plus one degree does not mean anywhere was one degree; it means the surface, taken as a whole, sat a degree above the reference period.
The series used here references 1951 to 1980. Another analysis may reference a different period, and its numbers for the same year will differ by a constant. Nothing about the trend changes; the shape of the line is identical, shifted up or down.
This is worth knowing mainly because it explains apparent disagreements between records that are in fact reporting the same thing.
The version charted here combines land air temperature with sea-surface temperature. That combination is not a technicality. The ocean is most of the planet’s surface, it has far greater heat capacity than land, and it warms more slowly, so a land-only record runs warmer and noisier than a combined one. Any statement about global surface temperature has to say which it is using.
Two reasons, and neither is decoration.
The first is that the record is the leading indicator for sea level. Water expands as it warms and land ice adds volume as it melts; both are downstream of the surface temperature series. For a country whose coastline is substantially reclaimed and whose water supply depends on managing rainfall against saltwater intrusion, that is a planning input.
The second is that the series is a good example of a general problem in reading data: the axis label carries most of the meaning, and it is the part people skip.
The figure on the data page is drawn directly from the published annual means, not redrawn from an image, so the shape on the page is the shape in the dataset.
Because absolute temperature varies enormously between stations and a global average of raw readings would depend mostly on which stations reported. A departure from each station's own long-term normal is comparable across places, so anomalies can be averaged where temperatures cannot.
The series charted here uses 1951 to 1980 as its reference period. A different baseline shifts every value by a constant and changes none of the shape, which is why two records can quote different numbers for the same year and still agree.
Yes. The version used here combines land station data with sea-surface temperature measurements, which matters because the ocean is most of the surface and warms differently from land.
Thermal expansion and ice loss both raise sea level, and the temperature series is the leading indicator for each. For a country whose coastline is largely built, the record is a planning input rather than an abstraction.
Matched from the archive.
Every report of a bidding exercise quotes the price. The number that produced it — how many certificates were on offer — is published in the same file and almost never appears beside it.
Researchers borrowed the mathematics of epidemics and applied it to mass killings. The estimated window of raised risk is thirteen days.
An ocean currents map is really two maps printed on top of each other. Wind drives the top few hundred metres; density drives everything below.
The question was reasonable in 2016. The system launched, grew to three areas, cancelled one of them, and is still running on a month-to-month contract.
A Dutch sculpture festival built rooms out of compacted sand and let people sleep in them. CNN noticed. The organiser was already fully booked.
Metal prices peaked in 2011 and fell for years. Iron ore lost 77 per cent from its high. The mistake was reading a structural shift as a cycle.
Start here
COECertificate of Entitlement Topics HDBHousing & Development Board Topics MRTMass Rapid Transit Topics ERPElectronic Road Pricing Topics The dragon ants of New Guinea, and what X-rays found insideScience Stories The premium says little without the quotaTech Stories What a contagion model found in US mass-shooting dataWorld Stories The biggest dam in the world, explained: tallest vs largestTech Stories