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

From: John Walley <>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 13:39:07 EST

"Everything lines up to the same answer whether from computer models, surface data, satellite data, radiosonde data, or species migration. Complaining about specific stations is just complete nonsense." This has been my precise objection to AGW, the results are the same no matter what the data is. In the case of the Hocky Stick graph, even random noise generates a hockey stick. Selective use of certain tree ring data generates a hockey stick. All these "homogenized" stations end up generating a hockey stick, even if they didn't when they were raw. And of course all the models do as well. I accept that all the various lines of analysis converge on the same result but that is what the skeptics have suspected all along. I reject that looking at the individual data sets is nonsense, in fact that is precisely what is needed. I think what we are seeing from level of scrutiny at least on the individual stations and the hockey stick in general is quite the opposite of nonsense, that the consensus is nonsense and it is now being unravelled. I suspect that is we looked at all the other data sets at this level of detail we may find the same result. John   ________________________________ From: Rich Blinne <> To: Bill Powers <>; Randy Isaac <> Cc: asa <> Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 11:02:51 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bill Powers <> wrote: >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? > > Before I address the main question I'll address this one first. The current consensus is at least in the Southern Sierra the snowpack is holding up. (John Cristy was not published on this not because people wanted to deny the results but rather we now have 4 years of studies that say what he concluded.)  The Rockies are a different story. Lakes Mead and Powell are half full and there is a 50% chance of being empty in the 2020 time frame. The last time it was this warm in the U.S. we had ghost forests because the pine bark beetle was not killed off in the Winter. A pine bark beetle infestation was predicted in 2001 because of global warming and we have it now with a vengeance. It looks like we're headed for a complete loss in the pine forests here. This exasperates the water supply problem because of run off from the forests that are more susceptible to wild fires will pollute the water supply to the Western U.S. Also in the Rockies we are losing
 species due to the elevator effect such as the pika that used to be numerous in Rocky Mountain National Park. Species are now migrating poleward at a average rate of 4 miles per decade but that's not fast enough because the isotherms are moving poleward at 10 miles per decade. AGW makes some very specific predictions coming from the simulations of the CO2 forcing. Let's see if the current data fits it: 1. Polar amplification. The warming is faster at the poles than the equator. The NH warms faster than the SH because the SH has more oceans to store heat. The NH warming will be more variable than the SH again because of the ocean composition. The South Pole will experience little to no warming due to the circumpolar current around Antarctica. 2. The surface and the troposphere warm at a rate of around 0.15-0.18 degrees C per decade in a multi-decadal trend. (We need a multi-decadal trends to average out decadal length oscillations). 3. The stratosphere will cool. Glenn distrusts anything but October so I will limit myself to that month. So what does October look like. (Note: I'm using 2008 because NCDC is updating their web pages and graphs for their yearly report where they will announce "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).") Polar amplification: check. Warming trend: check. Looks like significant warming but maybe you just distrust surface records altogether does the troposphere show the predicted 0.12-0.15 degree warming? UAH Low Troposphere trend for October: 0.14 degrees C per decade warming RSS Low Troposphere trend for October: 0.16 degrees C per decade warming UAH Mid Troposphere trend for October: 0.14 degrees C per decade warming RSS Mid Troposphere trend for October: 0.18 degrees C per decade warming RATPAC Mid Troposphere trend for January-October: 0.15 degress C per decade To see how RATPAC and the surface trends line up see this annual comparison from last year. Note: I'll update this post when all the 2009 data comes out in the next few days. It's only the graphics that aren't available the trends above are from 2009. Finally what about the stratosphere? It's on a 0.2 degree C per decade cooling trend! Everything lines up for AGW and is why the AGU survey of climatologists have 97% believe AGW. This is what Randy and I mean when we say Glenn doesn't engage the totality of the data. Everything lines up to the same answer whether from computer models, surface data, satellite data, radiosonde data, or species migration. Complaining about specific stations is just complete nonsense. Rich Blinne Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 14 13:39:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 13:39:35 EST