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

From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 08:45:54 EST

I suggest that most of the solar heat of the planet is held in water,
certainly not the air, perhaps not even the soil. The latent heat
required to melt ice and vaporize liquid water would also be heat sinks
that would keep terrestrial temperatures "low" despite increased
decreased albedo. It ought, too, to be noted that the heat capacity of
"dirt" is very sensitive to water content.

Let me just ask a question about a terrestrial temperature. What do we
mean when we speak about a terrestrial temperature? Do we mean an
equivalent black body?

One last question. It appears that you agree that glacial ice is
decreasing, perhaps even rapidly. You just don't believe this is certain,
unambiguous evidence of global warming. So let's lay that issue aside.

Do you believe that the apparent rate of glacial ice melt, esp. in the
northern hemisphere and in the Himilayas is "alarming"? Do you think that
this bodes very badly for a large fraction of the world's population.

I have read recently that, on a national level, there is grave concern for
the possible loss of significant fractions of the snow melt from the
Sierras, a source that supplies most of Southern CA and much of the San
Leandro Valley. Do you have an opinion on these prospects?

Let me emphasize the importance of your being on the list for those who
are still looking for answers. I can and have asked such questions of the
group. While I value the opinion and expertise of those on the group in
being able to address such questions, it is always helpful to have a
diverse perspective, esp. when it comes to interpreting data. Much is
written in science regarding various models and the interpretations and
implications of the data. But little is written regarding the taking of
data and the methodology involved in making the raw data usable. There is
little glory in this. Hence, it is valuable for us to have access to
someone who has such experience. The same might be said of physics codes.
Little is written by those who actually construct the codes and test the
codes. As a theoreticain, with next to no experience, in the practice and
toil of gathering empirical data, I, for one, appreciate the council.

Thanks,

bill

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Glenn Morton wrote:

> 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 08:46:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 08:46:33 EST