3

Climate Change Liars – Lying with graphs

by Whaleoil on July 15, 2010

from Jo Nova

The world is warming alarmingly right? It is if you believe the alarmists and useful leftwing idiots. They present all sorts of graphs like the infamous and fasle “hockey stick”. One of their favourites is to produce hotspot graphs like the one below.

In Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data (March 2008) Sherwood et al combine both windshear and temperature data to reconsider the radiosondes yet again. The Scientific Guide to The Skeptics Handbook and others use the graph from the top left corner of this paper (Fig 1 here) to suggest that the hot spot is not missing, or that the “fingerprint” was found. Sure enough, it’s a cute graph. Looks “hot”, right?

Sherwood 2008 models vs observationsFig 1. Sherwood 2008: observations (top two) vs models(bottom two). (Note the scale!)

Peek closely at the scale of the graph. Note the color of zero – that’s right — if there was no global warming in the entire atmosphere, no change, nothing at all happening, the Sherwood interpretation would look like one giant hot-spot.

When Climate Scientists stop lying and dullard politicians like Nick Smith stop believing them then I’ll stop calling them liars and dullards. They keep getting caught with their pants around their ankles and hanging out of the back of a goat and yet they keep telling us they aren’t rooting goats. We all know a goat-rooter when we see them. They look like Climate Change Scientists telling us the planet is warming.

Tagged: • • • •

Related posts

  • jimbob

    I never thought of Nick Smith being a goat.

  • panzerboy

    So colouring the zero change data as red is final undeniable proof that AGW is a big con?
    Cheap Shot.
    If you bothered to read the PDF you’d see less trivial targets of possible criticism such as …
    “use of an underlying model to impute missing data values”
    and
    “We omitted 20 hPa and above because of insufficient data, and 1000 hPa because of the poor quality of the data”
    So why not pick on that rather than an arbitary and meaningless assignment of colour to temperature?
    Theres probably more manipluation (to expose :-) ), its mostly over my head & I gave up reading after page 3 (of 15).

    For information on the theoretical Tropospheric hot-spot see http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
    “there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It’s hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there’s still much work to be done in this department.”

    and related
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

    BTW Hows the Northern Hemisphere heat wave working out for you? After the snow storms of the northern winter were good enough to convince you AGW is a hoax.

    Jeremy Thomson

  • billhicks

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10659071 nick smith wont like the climate OF change when the general public wake up to this make believe tax on carbon.