Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 15:23:48 EST

Let's see how incompetent the climatologists are at even having the same temperature history inside a single IPCC assessment report. I went to

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/
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 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sy6DtMkk7wI/AAAAAAAABAI/jdIdYHGEmyA/s1600-h/weatherAR3comparison.jpg

Keep that picture up with a 75% zoom on your browser.

Then I went back to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/
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 anomalise. Both are basis 1961-1990. But look at the differences seen in the plot I just had you upload from blogspot.

In the orange circle above you don't see quite the cooling above from teh 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 taht 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. As I said earlier to Rich, changing history is a really bad thing to do.

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. Isn't that right Rich? They are incapable of error and of being challenged?

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

I know how bloody-minded it is to actually nit-pick these things, but if they can't even know what happened in the past, how can they know that the world is warming as they say--especially since they put 69% of their thermometers next to heat sources. The vaunted New Zealand weather service has their thermometer on a hot roof top where energy escaping from the building will heat the thermometer, not to mention the hot sun. Don't they know that roofs are really hot places and not particularly good spots for thermometers?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/niwa_building_weather_station.jpg

I think you will see in this picture a couple of heat exchangers near the thermometer. How incredibly unscientific of them, and Rich has yet to respond to the quesiton of whether or not hot roofs and A/C heat exchangers are good for climatological measurements. Are they Rich?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 15:24:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 15:24:13 EST