Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Bill Powers <>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 17:38:20 EST


Permit me a few comments on what you've said below.

1) The Oct temperatures in US are useful data, but they cannot be the
whole picture. CO2, as you say, ought to be in effect in Oct, as well
as any other month, but there are also likely to be many other factors
that influence local temperatures, including ones that are local and not
of a global nature. We would have to be able to substract the effects
of these to see the effect of CO2 alone. If the other effects happen to
dominate the local weather in these states, we could not take these
locations to be representative of the global temperature.
2) It seems that you are saying that temperature measurements fluctuate
widely, even for geographically close and similar locations. If the
terrestrial global temperature was only based upon such "representative"
samples, then global warming would be suspect. Here it seems that we need
to appeal to what we know about statistical sampling. We would, of
course, require some knowledge of the temporal and geographical variance
in the temperature. We would have to presume that the sampling is
unbiased. It seems, however, that it would be possible to validate a
sampling set. I don't know whether these studies have been done.
3) Isn't it so that global warming is not merely based upon temperature
samples at specific locations, e.g., satellite albedo measurements?
4) Do you deny that global glacial loss is accelerating? If you do not,
how do you account for this?



On Sun,
13 Dec 2009, Glenn Morton wrote:

> 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 with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 17:38:46 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 17:38:46 EST