Here's a raw table in .txt format from NASA

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...

That’s not the raw data. The original recordings were made by merchants on parchment. They measured the volume of water in a wooden box, to set the buoyancy for their loads

▲

foltik 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What are you even talking about. They had weather stations with mercury thermometers and wrote down temperatures in a logbook.

	▲	magicalhippo 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For the interested, here[1] is an article on an attempt to recreate and verify measurements made during the HMS Challenger expedition in the 1870s. It was recently done so the full results aren't out, but one aspect they noted was that the traditionally-created hemp rope stretched about 10% so temperatures were taken at slightly deeper depths than expected. This can be used to calibrate the data from HMS Challenger. [1]: https://www.oneoceanexpedition.com/article/checked-150-year-...
	▲	tonymet an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not on the ocean, and not covering even 1/1000% of the coverage we have with satellites on the surface

▲

doktor2un 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

foltik 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Hah. Shall I present it to you on a silver platter then?

If you read the NASA page, they explicitly cite GHCNd, a raw surface temperature and precipitation dataset that goes back quite far. There's many other similar datasets you can find if you're willing to look.

Check out the readme for the csv format description, and /by-year for the raw rows:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

▲

genewitch 5 hours ago | parent [-]

picked four stations at random[0] and it's just precip numbers, no temps, no humidity, no insolation, etc.

are you sure you linked what you think you linked?

[0] /by-station and then unclutched my scroll wheel and spun it for arbitrary amount of time, re-engaged clutch and clicked what was under the cursor. repeated 3 more times. i did a fifth, where the one i was looking at was identical to the fourth one, but had a 1 in the least significant portion of the station ID instead of a 4, in case it was like, "4" is precip, "1" is temps, and i happened to click "4" 4 times in a row.

	▲	foltik 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Quite a scientific data analysis you've done there. NASA must be completely mistaken!