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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 07:07:39 EST

For Murray Hogg and Bill Powers

>>>I wasn't actually arguing that your position is wrong, far less
>>>conflating global circulation (is your keyboard broken?) models and
>>>simple radiation escape. What I was doing was pointing out what I thought
>>>the assumption might be.

As regards explaining why everywhere but North America has cooled (presuming
to be the case) - well, if it's so simple then I'd invite you to go ahead
and explain it. "Miracle" is, remember, not an option.<<<<

I think the explanation is that editing adds half a degree. If you take the
final output of the GISS (Goddard) dataset and subtract from it the raw
temperatures, you find that much of the supposed warming came merely from
editing.
This is that subtraction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sh7ntlYGwEI/AAAAAAAAAXY/9GQ6qdOqSEQ/s400/weatherRawVsSanitizedUStempDifferences.jpg

It is from
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/05/homogeneity-how-fast-one-is-pulled-over.html
which is worth a look at the homogeneity filter

What that picture effectively says is that thermometers in 1900 were
excellent and read temperatures spot on, but thermometers today read the
temperature too cold and need warming up. Does anyone actually beleive this?

For Bill Powers

>> ) I know that this is a very "emotional" issue for you. <<<<
First off, lets not be condescending. Condenscension does not help us stay
focused on the facts and is beneath you. I am pugnacious as everyone knows.

>>>You come into
the room expecting to be stabbed in the back. So your adrenoline is
running high and your responses sharp. Speaking only for myself, I am
not fully persuaded of AGW. I've been skeptical for years because of my
experience with running and developing complex physics codes. But I am
listening and learning from others. You come armed with a quiver full
of arrows. So your situation is different. I only council that you not
presume everyone is attacking you or your positions.<<

I challenge anyone and anything, including those who say things wrong who
support my position. I have no idea what you beleive about AGW because I
have no experience discussing it with you.

>>>2) It seems to me that the albedo issue is important for global climate
warming. With global albedo measurements, we can estimate the amount of
energy that is being absorbed by the terrestrial system. This, however,
does not immediately translate into temperatures. In order to translate
this into global temperatures we would need an estimate of global heat
capacity, which likely will change with a changing terrestrial
environment. Nonetheless, albedo measurements are an independent and
global measurement that can support global climate change. Whether CO2
is essentially responsible for the change in albedo is a secondary
question.<<<

While I agree with this, I would point out that the heat capacity of dirt
and air is not changing with time, so I can't figure out how you think that
the heat capacity changes with a change in terrrestrial environment.

>>
3) From what you have said, apparently in opposition to what I have
said, I take it that we are in agreement, i.e., my attempts to summarize
(in part) what you are saying have been confirmed by your responses, which
is only to say that either I said it badly or that you misunderstood what
I was saying.<<<

It didn't sound like a correct summary to me. In fact it didn't sound like a
summary to me but I will take your word for it.

>>>To be more explicit, you believe that the temperature data has
>>>significant
variance. This is, of course, not something new. I was simply rehearsing
how science has tried to deal with such problems, both statistically and
by seeking "independent" confirmation.<<<

Yes, the variance and noise in the data is very high; much higher than the
proclaimed warming.

>>>>I would suggest that you indicate by what means we might resolve the
problem. What would you do to determine whether there is global warming,
and at what rate?<<<

We need to build a worldwide set of temperature stations that actually match
the siting recommendations--thermometers not on cement or roof tops, not
within 10 meters of heat emitting buildings, etc., and for petes sake not
next to air conditioner exhaust fans. Even rural areas are hampered by
that. Riverton Wyoming, where I started my geophysical career years ago has
2 air conditioner exhausts near their thermometer.
Riverton Wyoming:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1_VmjCpiI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/zHd5inydsss/s400/weatherWYRiverton_closeup_95-97_airconditionera.jpg

St. Ignatius MT (another rural area)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1-1FMr53I/AAAAAAAAAlI/GcvI9h3iZ9M/s400/St_Ignatius_AC_discharge.jpg

Urbana OH
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1-UFgmF2I/AAAAAAAAAlA/JFDN1f0QzlM/s400/weatherOHUrbanaThermometer.JPG

69% of thermometers in the US are next to heat sources like this. And
people believe the temperature they give is indicative of the climate. What
a laugh.

I would like to see what Randy and Rich think of putting a thermometer in
such settings. Specifically how do they think they can correct the
temperature output from such a thermometer when no records are kept of when
the AC is on?

I really do wish the ASA would get a modern forum software where pictures
can be posted rather than linked to.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 14 07:08:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 07:08:00 EST