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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 22:26:43 EST

Replies for Bill Powers, and Murray Hogg Iain Strachan
Bill Powers wrote:

> Glen:
>
> 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.

Are you saying that the entire US is having a local effect? Ok, I agree
that we must subtract local phenomenon before we can see the effect of CO2
alone. No doubt. So, tell me how you subtract the impact of the local air
conditioner seen in this USHCN station.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SbqiDJkiaTI/AAAAAAAAAB4/sYCMQ7wNBzA/s320/WEatherFort_Morgan_CO_overall+copy.jpg

Who keeps records of when it was on warming the thermometer?

And of course there are urban heat island effects which can be as much as 15
deg F difference in temperature within a few hundred yards. Please tell me
who subtracts these very nonlinear effects seen in the picture below for
Atlanta. http://www.zunis.org/Atlanta%20micro-climates-2.gif
Picture from http://www.zunis.org/atlanta_urban_heat_island_resear.htm
Of course the picture of the next day's urban heat island will be different.
So, please tell me how to fix the data.

 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.

45 out of 48 states? You are aware aren't you that many stations went into
the average for each state? I am gobsmacked by the apparent claim here that
the same local problem affects ALL the cities in each of the 45 states. Is
that your claim? Please explain how this connection works.

And while you are at it, please explain why we shouldn't consider the
warming as local effects? You have a one-way street--cooling must be local
but you ignore the possibility that the warming might be local.

> 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.

Sampling is only as good as the data going into it. If I say that the US has
5 trillion people, and the UK has 1 person, and China has 16 trillion
people, you can average away but your answer will be wrong because the data
going into the average is crap. We also know that statistical sampling gives
us a measure of the noise in our data. When I compare two nearby towns day
by day, which involves tens of thousands of daily difference measurements,
the standard deviation is almost always greater than 3 deg F. Now, if that
is the noise level in the data, then to claim that the world has warmed by
1.1 deg F +/- 3 deg F is quite silly. The SD also includes the possibliity
that the world has actually COOLED.

> 3) Isn't it so that global warming is not merely based upon temperature
> samples at specific locations, e.g., satellite albedo measurements?
Ah yes, albedo. It is going down you know and it is going down in
sufficient quantity to account for the supposed CO2 warming. Let's go back
to Sagan's nuclear winter paper. I do this because the issue of global
warming wasn't an issue then. Thus he didnt say what he said in order to
help or hurt global warming.

Simple climate models (31) suggest that if the global albedo changes from
its value of 0.30 by 0.01, a surface temperature
change of ~2 K will result." Carl Sagan, Owen B. Toon, James B. Pollack,"
Anthropogenic Albedo Changes
and the Earth's Climate", Science 206(1979),p. 1367

So we have a simple albedo vs temperature relation. So, what has happened
to the earth's albedo?

"The global CERES observations show a small decrease of ~2 W/m^2 in
shortwave reflected flux, equal to an albedo decrease of 0.006. These
results stand in stark contrast to those of Pall2 et al. (4), which show a
large increase of 6 W/ m^2 or an albedo increase of 0.017, as shown for
comparison in Fig. 1." Bruce A. Wielicki,et al, "Changes in Earth's Albedo
Measured by Satellite," Science, 308(2005),p. 825

"We correlate an overlapping period of earthshine measurements of Earth's
reflectance (from 1999 through mid-2001) with satellite observations of
global cloud properties to construct from the latter a proxy measure of
Earth's global shortwave reflectance. This proxy shows a steady decrease in
Earth's reflectance from 1984 to 2000, with a strong climatologically
significant drop after 1995. From 2001 to 2003, only earthshine data are
available, and they indicate a complete reversal of the decline.
Understanding how the causes of these decadal changes are apportioned
between natural variability, direct forcing, and feedbacks is fundamental to
confidently assessing and predicting climate change."
E. Palle´, P. R. Goode, P. Montan~e´s-Rodr?guez, S. E. Koonin2, " Changes in
Earth's Reflectance
over the Past Two Decades, Science 304(2004), p. 1299

A decrease in albedo means more heat absorbed. The amount noted by CERES is
60% of that claimed by Sagan to cause a 2 deg K change in temperature. If
the problem is albedo, and not CO2 then why should we worry about CO2. We
should be working on the albedo problem.

> 4) Do you deny that global glacial loss is accelerating? If you do not,
> how do you account for this?

Sure some glaciers are receding. But I want you to be aware that 5000 years
ago during the Holocene climatic optimum, there were no Alpine glaciers,
Southern Norway was devoid of glaciers, Southern Alaska was devoid of
glaciers, Antarctic Ice shelves were melted 80 km further south of their
present locations at latitudes which have yet to start melting even now.
The seas, were 2 meters higher then than they are now. Source:
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/04/holocene-denial-syndrome.html

We have yet to move outside of the variation in climate seen during the
history of mankind--even if one is a YEC!

Hi Murray

>Whether the assumption is correct or not is moot, but it appears to be
>this: the global temperature >system is as simple as the temperature system
>in the interior of a car.
>
>Perhaps this is not altogether the case?

The global weather system is not simple. The outflow of radiative heat IS
simple. Radiation is not affected by atmospheric circulation as radiation
works at the speed of light, not the speed of the wind which is much slower.
Radiation cares not which way the winds are blowing. You are conflating
global CIRCULATION models, which ARE complex with simple radiation escape.

Just for your information, my first YEC article eventually brought an
admission from ICR that the water vapor canopy was untenable. It took 10
years. That work was based on radiative heat transfer through a greenhouse
gas (in that case, water), so I have some experience in that area and know
that that problem is simple. Calculating wind currents isn't

I frankly find the 'global temperature is complex' to be one of those
psychological escape clauses. If you can say that anything I present is too
complex, therefore you don't have to pay attention to anything I present,
you have a perfect out to every single argument anyone can present.
Epistemologically it is no different than when a YEC is presented with a
problem which he can't solve, claims a miracle by God to escape the problem.
I would say that if the system is so complex that no objection can be
entertained, then it is too complex for you to claim to know that the
temperature of the world has risen. The system is either simple enough to
understand or not, for both sides.

One final thing, Please explain why CO2 doesn't work for 100 years to warm
Octobers over the US??? Everyone wants to avoid that very very big problem
by totally ignoring it or as Randy did, minimize its areal impact. If we
are going to discuss data, it should go like this. I post data, you tell me
why the data is wrong, specifically either observationally, theoretically or
logically. Saying it is complex is not one of the above. Claiming
complexity is nothing more than proclaiming a miracle.

In climate progress, Iain probably correctly, chided John Wally for not
reading Michael Mann's defense. I have read it. And a couple of things
stand out for me.

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review
process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at
Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board.. Mann
claims:
" I support the publication of "skeptical" papers that meet the basic
standards of scientific quality and merit."
http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails

Such self-serving on his part

>>>From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review
process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at
Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it
isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own
department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a
mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite
'purpose').
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt<<<
And he tried to keep the BBC from publishing skeptical views
>>>Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great
job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be
appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up
here?

mike<<<
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt

Clearly he was trying to deep six alternative views.

One final thing. I posted on my blog tonight on a climate model they ran for
AR4. The output data was in one of the emails. I plotted it. Guess what, it
shows cooling but what was published in the AR4 shows something entirely
different. Wonder why? http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com or for just that
post
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/12/climatological-hot-air-and-hypocrisy.html

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 22:26:53 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 22:26:53 EST