Comparing ‘data’

A tweet annoyed me! Oh dear, this always leads to an eating up of time as I research & plot. I know I shouldn’t bite but when I’m exceptionally busy at work its inevitable I want to distract myself. This time it was a crudely drawn graph posing as ‘history’.

And the usual pile-on of lukewarmers & fake sceptics appear. As the graph was SO crude and full of distracting words a mash up of this against actual measured data was messy. Here’s where the time consumption begins!

The graph comes (H&M) from “Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann” (though it appears that Harris probably isn’t a climatologist at all – here & here) and can be found here & purported to be ‘based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas.’

The graph shows a timescale going back to 2400BC but with no x-axis scale, apart from a reference to 58.3F in 98 & 57F as ‘normal’ and a prediction for 2019 to be considerably colder, then 2038 being as hot as the peak of 1100BC…. it didn’t look very convincing to me. So I dug out the Holocene records from here, based on this paper.

Result 1 – 2500 year records – shows pretty clearly how wrong the peaks in Harris’s graph are. NB. the largest peak & largest trough on H&M were used to scale the two graphs, as it had no defined x-axis apart from the points at the very end. (see note at the end on comparison).


Result 2 – past 1000 years, shows Harris & R.Mann bizarre predictions to larger scale.


Result 3 – with slightly more detail, trying to show the complexities of the data record v crude sine wave (& perhaps failing to do so!)


I can understand the desire to show an oscillating pattern to support a theory but H&M is pretty hopeless when it comes to accuracy.


I made this more emphatic graph as a result of the usual twitter convos – it went like this;

So, just for completeness, here is the ‘match’:


Here is the copied plot, marked white for clarity:


And for completeness, this is why the graph needed to be redrawn:


And now the twittersphere has gone quiet, will report back if further comments appear.

UPDATE: Paul Carbrook has responded, to keep the above information specific to the H&M graph I have responded to his comments on a new page.







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s