[asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 20:28:54 EST

On Dec 20, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Glenn Morton wrote:

> 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?

Yes, the god-like climatologists with that specialist capability called "reading comprehension". More on that later. First of all why quote TAR which came out in 2001 when AR4 came out in 2007? But anyway, let's dive in here. Here's the figure that Glenn references:


Figure 2.1: (a) Annual anomalies of global average land-surface air temperature (oC), 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990 values. Bars and solid curve are from CRU (Jones et al., 2001). Values are the simple average of the anomalies for the two hemispheres. The smoothed curve was created using a 21-point binomial filter giving near decadal averages. (b) As (a) but smoothed curves only from NCDC (updated from Peterson and Vose, 1997) thin solid curve; GISS (adapted from Hansen et al., 1999) thick dashed curve; SHI (updated from Vinnikov et al., 1990) thin dashed curve to 1999 only; Peterson and Vose (1997) thin solid curve. Thick solid curve as in (a). Two standard error uncertainties are centred on the CRU curve and are estimated using an optimum averaging method (Folland et al., 2001) [RDB Note: Folland et al can be found here http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001GL012877.shtml] and include uncertainties due to urbanisation but not due to uncertain- ties in thermometer exposures. The NCDC curve is the weighted average of the two hemispheres according to the area sampled, which accounts for most of the differences from the CRU curve.

John, note the different averaging techniques and how it gives a slightly different answer with both averages inside the error bars. Now to the graph from the technical summary.


It's caption:

Figure 2: Combined annual land-surface air and sea surface temperature anomalies (C) 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990. Two standard error uncertainties are shown as bars on the annual number. [Based on Figure 2.7c]

So we go back to the graph referenced by Glenn. Uh, wait a minute!!! Glenn referenced Figure 2.1a and the report referenced Figure 2.7c. At least Glenn didn't expunge the incriminating evidence in his picture and if he was going to refer to Figure 2.1 it should be Figure 2.1b. Glenn apparently has trouble reading captions. What's Figure 2.7c?


Figure 2.7: Smoothed annual anomalies of combined land-surface air and sea surface temperatures (C), 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990, for (a) Northern Hemisphere; (b) Southern Hemisphere; and (c) Globe. The smoothed curves were created using a 21-point binomial filter giving near-decadal averages. Optimally averaged anomalies (Folland et al., 2001) - solid curves; standard area weighted anomalies (adapted from Jones et al., 2001) - dashed curves. Also shown are the unsmoothed optimum averages - red bars, and twice their standard errors - width denoted by black "I". Note that optimum averages for the Southern Hemisphere are a little warmer before 1940, when the data are sparse, than the area-weighted averages. However, the two types of averaging give similar resoults [sic] in the Northern Hemisphere.

Figure 2.1a that Glenn referenced is the simple area average from Jones et al 2001 and as we see from the caption to Figure 2.7(c) corresponds to the dashed curves. It's a match. What about the technical summary graph? It matches the optimal average calculation from Folland et al 2001 and the solid curve. No history was changed. Just two different ways to make the calculation. That's how the IPCC process works. Multiple groups do the calculations. All of them get included. There isn't only one answer and to assume there is -- particularly without error bars -- is patently silly. Still the answers are within the error bars of each other indicating the correctness of the different analyses. For the technical summary they needed to chose one approach. Interestingly enough the evil climatologists in their technical summary chose to show the technique which shows less warming! They were supposed to cook the books. What a bunch of incompetents. :-)

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

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 20:29:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 20:29:16 EST