Memorandum submitted by G R Ryan (CRU
As any scientist knows, comparative sampling
is only valid if the samples being compared are from exactly the
same medium or, where that is not possible, the differences are
determined and factored into the comparison. Thus one does not
compare for geochemical purposes a sample of stream sand with
a sample of nearby laterite.
I would have thought, therefore, that the IPCC,
when erecting its models, would have observed this rule. But it
As a city grows, so does the ambient temperature.
I experienced a very convincing example of this in England in
1977. I was staying with relatives in the country and went into
the City for a meeting. Coming out onto slushy cold streets was
not much fun. But when the train was stuck in snowdrifts on the
way to where I was staying in Surrey was less fun. The Met Office
explained that the snow did not reach the ground over London,
and had melted into rain, because of the warmth of the city.
Thus to compare temperature readings from the
same thermometer in the same location after the host city has
grown both outwards and upwards by several orders of size over
the decades has no validity at all.
As any resident of the tropics knows, the sea
can rise up to a metre at the centre of a low pressure system
that has become a cyclone. Furthermore water, like most substances,
expands as the temperature rises, and contracts as it cools. Thus
one would have thought that when sea levels are being measured
there would automatically be kept a record of the atmospheric
pressure and water and atmospheric temperature at the time of
the reading, so that the levels can be adjusted to a common base
I can find no record that that is the practise,
which makes statements about sea level changes suspect to say
If these are examples of the IPCC's sampling
protocols not much faith can be put in their conclusions.