|Fig. 1 SLC Nain (PSMSL stn #1029)|
The other graphs (Fig. 3 - Fig. 8) show each relevant depth level as individual lines on individual graphs.
Those individual lines had been displayed as a combined whole (one bowl of spaghetti) in Fig 2.
This should tell us something about the thermal expansion myth (TEM).
In yesterday's post, I alluded to a software module that will travel each of the ups and downs in each of the depth levels, to determine what the net effect is, ultimately, of each change in temperature.
I mean, this is what we want to discern when analyzing the bottom line impact of all of the changes.
I developed a beta software module that works well enough, so, I ran the data on these particular graphs.
That beta module came up with:
warmer = 15 , warmer = 15 , warmer = 15 , warmer = 13 , warmer = 13 , warmer = 16That is, there were 87 temperature changes within the 6 layers, but, in the end, the net ups and the net downs equaled out.
colder = 16 , colder = 16 , colder = 15 , colder = 14 , colder = 15 , colder = 11
warmer - colder = 0
Like I said, that is an hour's worth of (beta) work.
A few more hours of work, and the exact calculation of the net degree of temperature change (over decades) will be coded.
I am so charged up because they have spouted this stuff without ever having first taken sufficient note of the data foundation upon which such a magnanimous assertion rests.
So, while I am chastening the warming science commentariat, I will also clue them in.
NOTE: I am not directing this at scientists, I am directing it toward the warming science commentariat, or as the mob describes their commentariat, "da mouthpiece."
In this case I am addressing the one which claims to speak for the scientists.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.