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

From: John Walley <>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:50:14 EST

Even though I am a skeptic, I admit I am a big fan of Sir John Houghton. I would very much like to find a way to resolve this controversy and at the same time defend his integrity. I saw his interview on Bill Moyers and I am convinced he is a true believer and has the best of intentions. But like Jon Tandy stated in one of his previous emails, "there are several political and ideological factors involved in some people's advocacy of the environment, independent of actual scientific or human welfare concerns" which I wanted to reply to then, I think it is equally applicable now. I think it is entirely possible that God spoke to John Houghton and raised him up to be a prophet to this age like He did with Joseph, but somehow the message got hijacked between then and now. I submit that this is just like the ID movement. I think we all agree that the generic design inference that was revealed to some of the early ID proponents like Thaxton et al, is valid and supported by science but most of us stop short of endorsing what we saw played out in Dover. Somehow, the whole idea got hijacked by YECs and political activists and the finished product had almost the 180 degree opposite impact of what was intended. It didn't end up bolstering faith primarily, more likely it made the church look like opportunistic theocratic usurpers. I think we are seeing a similar phenomenon with AGW. It is possible that the cause came across as being useful to some with less than honorable motives and was spun up to serve political objectives which was never what God intended. All the irrational alarmist fear mongering and hypocritical profiteering and carbon footprinting of some of its most visible cheerleaders and lack of attention to detail on the science as well as their haughty religious fervor should have been obvious clues. Just like with ID I think the message has been compromised in its delivery. But it is also possible that all this was part of the plan, and just like with ID, those who did not have true motives got exposed and humbled, I can see a very similar parallel happening now with AGW. Maybe after we get past all this ideological and political baggage that was attached to AGW and we get to see who was honorable and who wasn't, then maybe we can start over with the science and look objectively at every station's raw data and all the proxies and rebuild all the models in the light of true consensus, and maybe then we implement a real AGW plan that we can really agree on. Maybe we had to let the political usurpers fall on their own sword first. At least that is what it is looking like to me. Thanks John   ________________________________ From: Michael Roberts <> To: Rich Blinne <>; Bill Powers <>; Randy Isaac <> Cc: asa <> Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 2:02:56 PM Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming For one like me with extremely rusty first year univ physics I find it hard if not impossible to assess the data myself. However I do look to the experts in any field and am not impressed with those who dabble outside their own. Thus on Global Warming I look to the experts and none better than Sir John Houghton, who has better credentials in physics than anyone who posts on this forum. After all D.Phil and D Sc from Oxford and prof in atmospheric physics there in the 70s. He has been working at this for years and thus has a better grasp of the physics than Glenn, who now tries to convince us that John and the rest of them have got it all wrong. As Richard has pointed out neither Richard nor the rest of them have got it wrong ----- Original Message ----- >From: Rich Blinne >To: Bill Powers ; Randy Isaac >Cc: asa >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 4:02 PM >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 15:50:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:50:36 EST