Most of us climate skeptics know how variable history is. By that I mean that the historical temperature records of the world change with each passing year. Instead of getting plots of observational data, we get plots of something else, God only knows what else, but the changes to the observed temperature record are all called corrections.
Well I used that against a global warming advocate I am currently debating. He made the very big mistake of sending me two pictures of the temperature record for Malye Karmaku, Russia, one from GISS and one from appinsys.com. He claimed that the records were compatible. I saw vast differences in the temperature history from these two pro-anthropogenic global warming sites. He didn't bother to actually look at the data. Here are the comparisions of the temperature records for several towns downloaded from two different temperature record sources, both claiming to use the global historical climate network data. Clearly they are using different editions of the climate record. But note how history changes between these two sources.
If you enlarge the pictures and they are too big for your browswer, set the little 100% at the lower right of Internet explorer to 50%.
Let's start with Malye Karmaku. In all that is below, the top picture comes from GISS, the lower picture is data downloaded from appinsys.com, hereinafter, called The Magnificent Plotting Company
Now in the Upper GISS picture, one can see basically 4 pts in the purple circle. In the upper they are approximately -5,-6, -7.6, -5.5. But in Magnificent Plotting Company graph, they are approximately -4.5, -9, -9, -5. What is the true value of the temperature at Malye Karmaku in the years 1896-1900? It seems that two global warming advocating sites can't give a straight answer to that very simple question. In fact they are changing history. What was observed and reported is not what is being plotted.
No look in the red circle we have approximately -3,-3.8, -2.8, That is GISS. But in the magnificent plotting company we have -4.5, -3.5, -3.1. Once again, who can tell us what the real temperature was during those years in the 1920s? It seems that climatologists don't know what the temperature was in the 20s but they all assure us that global warming is settled science.
There is a dogleg in the GISS temperature in the 1950s but not in the Magnificent Plotting company. And a W shape in the Magnificant plotting company in the late 1950s which isn't to be found in the GISS data. Where oh where did the W go??? Might make a good song.
Now lets look at the green circle.about 1980 the GISS has one point in the circle at about -7.4 deg. The Magnificent Plotting company has 2 pointss both about -7 degrees. There is clearly a problem. No one seems to know what the temperature was, but they are sure that it has changed.
Now lets look at Dudinka, Russia. Here is the picture, GISS is in the upper part, the Magnificent Plotting Company data is in the lower part.
We start in the purple circle GISS says that the first year in the record was about -8.0 average temperature. The magnificent plotting company (MPC from now on) says it was -8.8--which is about the amount of 100 years of supposed global warming). In the green circle MPC says the temperature was -13 C but GISS doesn't use that year (approximately 1924). In the early 1940s we see 3 points in the red circle of the GISS (upper plot). They have the temperature of -6, -8.1 and -7 (all temp readings are approximate). The MPC has -6.6, -7.2 and -8.1, in that order and in the brown circle we have 3 points in the GISS (Upper picture) they are -11.5, -9.8, -9.6 and in the lower they are -10.8,-9.3, -10.3.
Will the REAL temperature please identify itself?
What about Salehard, Russia?
In the GISS plot the first point, about 1882, is at -7.5 in GISS but in MPC it is -7.1, not much of a change, but a change. Also note the two drop downs in the 1900s in MPC but only one in the GISS and another drop down in 1995 in MPC but not in GISS. In the green circle, that year, I believe 1960, is -6 in GISS but -5 in MPC. That change is worth more than 100 years of the supposed global warming, all happening between two of the data sources.
Question, if the climatologists don't know what the temperature was in Salehard in 1960 to within a degree how can they be sure that the globe has warmed by that much?
Ust'-Cil'Ma, Russia is another study in lunacy of the climatologists.
The record starts with two temperatures in the GISS of -2.2 and -3.2 C, they are -2.3 and -4.1 C in MPC. The 1920s pattern of temperature movement is entirely different with some values going positive in the MPC but none in the red circle going positive in GISS. In the blue circle we have in GISS -4.5, -4 C but in MPC we have -4.6 and -2.7 C for the same two points respectively. 1942 warms dramatically from GISS to MPC. Must be a warm front between these two editions of the global historical climate network (which may not really be historical at all). What is the REAL temperature???
Finally, let's look at Turuhansk, Russia. Same issue.
Turuhansk has two points around -5 C in the red circle on GISS but in MPC the two points are -3 C Once again miraculous warming going on that year, just from charting and or changing data source. In the dark dark blue circle around 1910 note how different are the patterns in the two charts. The low is about -10.5 in the MPC but only -9 C in GISS. In the light purple circle there is a -8.5 in GISS but nothing is used for that year in MPC. In the yellow circle we have 3 dots. In GISS they are -3.5, -4.5, -4.5 but in MPC they are -4, -4.4, -5. And in the brown circle in GISS we have the triplet (I am counting the one dot that fell really low and outside of the GISS brown circle) -4, -6, -3.5 but in MPC we have -4, -4.5, -3.8.
If different versions of the climatologist's data change this much, how in the heck can we know that the earth is warming? My strong suspicion is that the climate is only warming in the minds of the climatologists. The data, whatever the raw observational data says, is never shown.
They call it the Global Historical Climate Network, but it appears that history changes depending on the source of your data. Will the REAL temperature please stand up?