One of the fun things to do is to compare different charts of what the earth's temperature history is according to various sources for that history.
Watch history change from the IPCC Assessment Report 3 to IPCC Assessment Report 4. The thermal history of our planet, meaning the temperature in 1880 changed from 2001 to 2004. And they say that the present can't affect the past!
As you look at the pictures remember these are GLOBAL average temperature, and the climatologists are whipping the past's temperatures around like bulls toss china in a china shop. And remember both pictures are anomalies with respect to 1961-1990, so there is no change in the base for the calculation (which is a wonderful trick for the climatologists to pull--change the basis so you can't do a proper comparision but here they didn't do that.)
Let's start with the light blue arrow and work from past to the present. The peak in the AR4 report is about 1870, no earlier than 1869, but it is about 1865 in the lower report. The gray arrow shows a tempearture of -1.5 in AR4 but -.2 in AR3. A warm front must have passed through the CRU between 2001 and 2004 and changed the temperature in 1880.
About 1887, the AR3 report of 2001 shows a deep trough with no upward inflection. The temperture in that trough is -.5 C from the 1961-1990 average. But WOAH, look above, in AR4 the global temperature average has changed by 3/10ths of a degree--
One can't change the average without changing the input, and what you may have seen in my previous post are some of the changes in temperature due to changes in how they 'correct' the temperature.
The olive green arrow around 1910 has about a -.4 C anomaly in AR3 but a -.5 in AR4. Once again, a cold front came though the CRU in 2003 and changed the temperature in 1910. I think the physicists need to talk to the climatologists about what is really wrong with General Relativity. The climatologists certainly have figured out how to send information into the past.
The bright green arrow shows a spot of cooling in 1918 in AR3 but--gone in AR4. Must have been a piece of undigested cheese.
The black arrow shows the anomaly (1961-1990) in 1940 to be about zero in AR3 but above zero in AR4.
And about the time that this skeptic was born, the orange highlights that the first years of my life saw a cooling in AR3 but a warming in AR4. No wonder I am so conflicted.
Now lets compare data WITHIN the reports, from AR3 Scientific Basis compared with the Technical Summary.
To get these two pictures I went to here
And then selected The Scientific Basis and on the right, you will see chapters. I chose Chapter 2 and went to page 107 where I copied Figure 2.1a. That gives me the black and white graph in the upper part of the picture immediately above.
Then I went back to the same site. This time I took the Synthesis Report and chose English which then brought up another page with chapters on the right side. I chose on the right the Technical summaryWG1 and went to page 26
Figure 2 is again a plot of the temperature anomalies. Both are basis 1961-1990.
In the orange circle above you don't see quite the cooling above from the Scientific Basis as you see in the Synthesis Report. The climate changes even during the writing of these things--how fascinating. Also compare the highest peak in the 1880s in the orange circle with the height of the peak in the black circle on both graphs. In the above Scientific Basis report the 1880 peak is higher than the 1900 peak. but below in the Synthesis report of the same IPCC you see that the two peaks are about the same height. And look at the difference in what goes on in between those two peaks on the two charts.
The light blue highlighted area shows again that the 1917 cooling is in one of the pictures but not in the other. It seems that different fortune tellers predicts the history of the world slightly differently. Changing history is a really bad thing to do unless it is the old Soviet Empire or Earth.
Look at the bright green area. In one it is higher than 0 in the other it is below. Climatologists even in the same IPCC study can't agree on what the historical temperatures were. Yet we are supposed to believe all is settled, that pro's can't make mistakes, that we are not supposed to challenge those professional god-like climatologists, but simply sit at their feet while they tell us what to do. They are incapable of error and of being challenged, so we are told.
The height, relative to surrounding years is different in the 1960 warming and the 1970s low is flat in the upper but slightly rising in the lower picture
The two pictures use two different basis years, the upper uses 1961-1990 but the lower uses 1901-2000 for the anomaly calculation. It should only shift the data up or down, so I can't, in this comparison use absolute values of number, only relative numbers. What you will see is that these two temperature histories, one from the IPCC and the other from NOAA do not show the same history--history has changed (or as I prefer to say, they don't know what the H happened in the past).
With the red arrow there is a different slope to the cooling between IPCC
In the IPCC report the coldest period was 1890, NOAA says it was 1910. Which was it, 1890 or 1910?
The green arrow in the lower graph marks 1918 cooling in the above. Below their smoothing takes it out, but the IPCC puts it in. But I want you to notice the relative pattern of the years 1917-1919. 1917 is medium 1918 is coldest and 1919 is warmest.
Now go back to the graph they produced in 1998.
History has changed 1917 is warmest, 1918 is still coldest but 1919 is now
The climatologists don't know what the temperature record is.