I ran into an interesting web site. This happens a lot when I’m doing a “Google Train” and taking an idea step by step though various questions. This time, it was a question stimulated by Adrian Vance. He had challenged the notion of “cold wet” in the record of the USA West with a “cold dry” Europe Dark Ages model. OK, I wondered, does anyone have a “temp vs precip” graph from those kinds of times?
Several creative google terms later, I found this wonderful place:
That graph will give you temperature and precipitation for 300 BC to 250 BC. From a dropdown you can pick any 50 year period you like from 600 BC to 2000 AD. Which I did. ALL of them.
The interesting thing to me was that they all looked rather the same. Mostly precipitation is in sync with temperatures. Sometimes leading a bit, sometimes lagging. Until you get to 1900. Then it suddenly goes screwy. First temperatures plunge, while precipitation does not. Then it rockets up, while precipitation does not.
I can think of no rational mechanism for the sudden departure of precipitation from it’s relationship to temperature that would work of opposite sign in just such a cycle.
Interestingly enough, that is the point when the temperature data swaps over to using GISS data… Just saying…
With that, I’m going to just include a batch of the graphs here and you can decide if they call GISS liars or not. I’m not going to put them ALL in, but I’ll start with a random sample of 250 BC and a ‘cherry picked’ 1100 AD that has an interesting temperature excursion on it, just to show what the most outrageous outlier from the pre 1900 record looks like.
So what do you think? Does that GISS temperature data look kind of ‘odd’ or ‘cooked’? Or can CO2 have an opposite sign in different halves of a century?
OK, there’s a lot of work to do here, too. I’ve no idea who runs this site or if they have an agenda. I’ve no idea what the data source is for things NOT labeled as “GISS”. Is the early data subject to a location bias and the GISS data global (so suddenly past relationships don’t hold… but that, too, means GISS ‘has issues’, just different issues). And it just cries out for a “same source of temps” graph for 1900 to date.
So there is, IMHO, a bit more work to do before it’s proof of “Liar!” instead of just proof of splice artifacts. But it does point to a very interesting line of Forensic Investigation ;-)