[asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 17:08:58 EST

Probably to my regret, I have come back for a while. Randy's email
intrigued me as I think it shows that he is ignoring the underlying physics
of CO2 in the atmosphere.

> Randy wrote:
> I would be delighted if Glenn joined the discussion on this list. I have
> high regard for him and like his focus on the data.

Thank you for the kind words.

> As for the data in the link you provide here, it is certainly impressive
> to see the temperature trends of each state for the last 100 some years in
> October. What are we to infer from the fact that less than a handful show
> warming? Since warming cannot be detected in these states for October,
> there is no global trend? That looking at less than 2% of the global
> surface area for 8.5% of the time and failing to see a trend invalidates
> the trend seen by considering 100% of the earth's surface for 100% of the
> time? I think I'm missing something. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

This is quite fascinating to me given the physics of greenhouse gases which
I think you ignore here.

1. The fact is that CO2 is evenly distributed throughout all the atmosphere.

What are the implications of that? As an analogy let's consider you in your
automobile in summer and in winter on two equally sunny days. Let's assume
that it is 80 deg outside in the summer and 30 deg outside in the winter.
Everyone knows that if you roll up the windows, the temperature in the car
rises because infrared can't get out of the car and so the car must radiate
at a higher temperature causing the peak frequency of the emitted spectrum
to rise so that the requisite quantity of energy CAN get out of the car.

Further let us assume that the same solar energy can enter the car in both
winter and summer. This can be accomplished merely by adjusting the time of
day so that the incident radiation on the vehicle is the same in both cases.
We can also assume that we start with the windows down and the car
equilibrated to the exterior temperature.

Now, what do we expect when we roll up the windows? We expect that the
temperature will rise at the same rate in both cases (barring minor
conductive differences). The greenhouse effect is RADIATIVE. It works at
the speed of light there is no lag time between when the windows are rolled
up and when it begins to heat.

But when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere not only is it often claimed that
there is a lag in time between the additon of the radiation-blocking CO2 but
that it doesn't affect the world equally everywhere at every time. Yet I
know of no car that wouldn't be affected similarly in any month of the year
to the situation I describe.

Randy claims:
>That looking at less than 2% of the global surface area for 8.5% of the
>time and failing to see a trend invalidates the trend seen by considering
>100% of the earth's surface for 100% of the time? I think I'm missing
>something. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Such an objection is like saying that 2% of the cars won't warm when their
windows are rolled up on a sunny day. Randy, do you believe that you would
be so cavalier if you got in a car on a hot sunny day, rolled up the windows
and the car cooled? Would that event have no surprise for you? Your
objection above is like what I suggest here--that you lack surprise at a
violation of the physics of CO2 which blocks outgoing radiation no matter
what month it is in the atmosphere.

Would you not equally be surprised and dismayed, if I, who have been to
Tibet, made the claim that in Tibet, cars never heat up if their windows are
rolled up? Wouldn't you think me mad? Since you ask for enlightenment, I
would like enlightenment as to why you find no October warming over the US
for 100 years to be UNSURPRISING.

If my logic is flawed, then please specifically show what assumption I make
is wrong. Do you not think CO2 works all the time (i.e. works some months
but doesn't work others)? Do you not think CO2 is spread evenly throughout
the atmosphere? Do you think CO2 works differently in different geographic
regions? While I don't think CO2 behaves this way, it is the only way I can
see that you can logically dismiss the amazing fact that CO2 doesn't seem to
work in October in the US and that makes my view of your dismissal of what
you call an 'impressive' work, which seems not to have impressed you.

> I think one of the common problems with arguments from both skeptics and
> advocates of global warming is using a limited subset of space and/or time
> of the global data.

This is an interesting objection. Which of course raises an interesting set
of questions. In order to believe the global warming conclusion, one must
first one must assert that the data is accurate--i.e. can be replicated.. I
contend that it can't. To attempt replication of the temperature I compare
two towns a few miles apart. I take care to see that they are not
elevationally different. I started this expecting that they will have quite
similar temperatures, I found that they don't. I find seasonal variations
which clearly can't be due to CO2 working in one town and not the other 20
miles away. In the picture linked here

Note that each winter there is as much as a 20 degree F difference between
the two towns. Guess what, Randy, this data is data used by the US
historical Climate Network which is input to the IPCC milarky. Both towns
are in Mississippi.

Or consider these two towns.Montevideao and Milan Minnesota. There is both
a bias and a systematic seasonal change throughout the year.

In the above linked picture, I took 100 or so years of daily temperature
data for the two towns. I subtracted each day's temperature, and then
averaged Jan 1 for each year, jan 2 for each year, etc. There is a 3 degree
minimal difference between the two towns yet global warming is said to have
only warmed the earth by 1.1 deg F. Yet, we can't measure temperature
between two towns less than 16 miles apart with any greater precision than 3
degres F. The temperature changes with the seasons--probably due to heat
sources near the thermometers.

  Now, I have compared temperatures from around the world, so my work is not
of such a limited extent as your initial objection claims. Here is a
picture of two nearby stations in China (most Chinese stations are about 80
miles apart. These are annual temperatures, not daily temperatures. I took
care to be sure that these stations are in the eastern part of China where
the elevation differences are minimal. Note that the data reported to the
IPCC says that between two towns 87 miles apart there is a 15 deg C ANNUAL
difference in temperature. This is about 300 miles south of Beijing. Note
that station 131 says it had an average yearly temperature below freezing.
This never happened in that part of China. One has to be in Tib et to see
that kind of temperature.

So Randy, please explain where I go wrong here. Why is the data I think is
bad really good and useable for the IPCC???

I would also point you to Russian yearly temperature records, which don't
show the warming that the GISS shows for Siberia.

Indeed, there seem to be fewer and fewer degree days above zero in Siberia
as the years go buy.

I know you might be tempted to say, well this is only the US and China and
Russia, For Antarctica see

there is no strong warming trend there either.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 17:09:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 17:09:17 EST