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

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:11:12 EST

Hi all,

Speaking as an AGW proponet, I echo John's sentiments here. Just because in the broad picture all evidence converges on a conclusion does not negate the need for scientists to clarify and/or correct individual data points which may be wrong. Not being intimately familiar with the data in question, I won't speak to the specific stations that Glenn cites; however, I do think a better response than "nonsense" needs to be put forward.

In Christ,

PS to John - you raised a number of AGW-related theological quesetions earlier in these threads, but never responded to the posts I submitted on the topic. Did you receive/read them??

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, John Walley <> wrote:

> From: John Walley <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming
> To: "Rich Blinne" <>, "Bill Powers" <>, "Randy Isaac" <>
> Cc: "asa" <>
> Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 12:39 PM
> "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 15:11:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:11:35 EST