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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 22:00:13 EST

For Bill Powers, Rich Blinne, Gordon Brown, Michael Roberts, and Christine Smith

Bill Powers wrote:

 

>>>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.<<<

 

But once again the specific heat of water isn't changing, so now let's look at the question of the heat content of the ocean. Douglas and Knox just posted a study of the outgoing radiation field for the past 50 years. That field is highly correlated with the oceanic heat content. What they find is NOT warming (increase in heat content of the oceans) but one of oscillation. See figure 3 of David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, "Ocean Heat Content and Earth's Radiation Imbalance, Physics Letters A 373(2009), p. 3299

Talking about the theoretical predictions of warming they write:

"Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only
many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate
in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical
predictions." David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, "Ocean Heat Content and Earth's Radiation Imbalance, Physics Letters A 373(2009), p. 3300

In other words, the climate models are not matching observation!

 

>>>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?<<<<

GRM:It should be the black body but what it is is the average of the thermometer readings.

>>>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.<<<

 

GRM:Geologically when the southern Hemisphere is cooling, the northern hemisphere is warming. They are out of phase.

 

"Age synchronization

between Greenland and Antarctic ice cores

through atmospheric CH4 variations reveals that

Antarctic and Greenlandic temperature are linked,

but not in phase (4, 5) (Fig. 1, A, B, and D).

Antarctic warming started before warming in

Greenland for most of the large millennial

events in the records, and Antarctic temperatures

began to decline when Greenland rapidly

warmed." Jinho Ahn and Edward J. Brook, "Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period, "Science, 322(2008), p. 83

 

GRM:This is what all the alarmists miss. The melting of the north while the southern oceans have record ice extent is quite normal in geologic history. They, of course, don't tell anyone this probably because they don't know it.

>>>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?<<<

GRM: A recent Indian Glacier study shows that this isn't happening. It was done by the INdian Government.

 

"The report, by senior glaciologist

Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly

of the Geological Survey of

India, seeks to correct a widely

held misimpression based on

measurements of a handful of

glaciers: that India's 10,000 or so

Himalayan glaciers are shrinking

rapidly in response to climate

change. That's not so, Raina says.

Even if it were, other researchers

argue that severe loss of ice mass

would not entail drastic water

shortages in the Indian heartland,

as some fear." PALLAVA BAGLA, "No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds, Science 326, 2009, p. 924

 

"Even more stable is
Siachin glacier in Kashmir,
where Indian and Pakistani forces
are stationed eyeball to eyeball at
6000 meters. Claims reported in
the popular press that Siachin has
shrunk as much as 50% are simply
wrong, says Raina, whose
report notes that the glacier has "not shown
any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years."

"Several Western experts who have conducted
studies in the region agree with
Raina's nuanced analysis-even if it clashes
with IPCC's take on the Himalayas." PALLAVA BAGLA, "No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds, Science 326, 2009, p. 924

>>>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. <<<

On this we agree. I used to beleive in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) but when I saw how many air conditioners are next to thermometers, I figured that the data was hopeless. No one tells us of that issue. It was a friend who pointed me to the pictures and that is what alternative sources of information is all about.

 

>>> 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<<<

 

My favorite code in the hacked emails is iIn briffa_Sep98_e.pro, a CRU program we find this at the top of the code:
 Note the **** line and the comment after the Valadj data statement.

; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

There are two other times in the code when it says they are applying a very artificial correction. They knew what they were doing stank.

 

^^^^^

RICH BLINNE WROTE:

>>>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.<<<

 

OK, for the south Pole, let's look at Amundsen Scott station, right at the South Pole--90 deg S. It's temperature is not warming--falsified prediction for AGW.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SgzBE3bWIjI/AAAAAAAAARQ/Lm5q94dKZuw/s1600-h/weatherAntarcAmundsenMaxMin.jpg

 

Vostok station isn't having this massive warming experience

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SgzBRZ83r2I/AAAAAAAAARY/ee12qfD8rZw/s1600-h/weatherAntarcVostokMaxMin.jpg

 

I used max min because there are always months which are missed down there making averages useless.

 

Rich, Please look at the data I refer to before you make statements like the above. I calculated the degree days above zero for many Siberian stations. If Siberia is warming, then the temperature should be going up AND the number of days above zero should be increasing. Multiplying these two quantities will be very sensitive as a test of arctic warming. I think only three cities out of 18 I studied in Siberia actually are warming. I posted these but you didn't bother to look, obviously.

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/07/russia-no-warming-seen-in-degree-days_05.html

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/07/russia-no-warming-seen-in-degree-days.html

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/06/russia-no-warming-seen-in-degree-days.html

 

Many of these cities are cooling strongly. Once again, a falsified prediction of the AGW group. Of course, if you don't look you won't have to deal with the data.

 

Rich Wrote

>>>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).<<<<

 

That rate can't be true Rich. The IPCC says the world has warmed only 0.74 deg C over the past 100 years. If your rate is correct we would have doubled that rate. I suggest you look again at the rate you claim. Don't believe me that your figures are wacky? Here is what the AR4 says:

 

" The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)

of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]C is larger than the corresponding trend of

0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1)." Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report, p. 30

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

 

The hundred year trend, which is certainly multidecadal is .074 not .15 as you erroneously claim.

 

 

 

 Rich wrote

>>>3. The stratosphere will cool.

 

Glenn distrusts anything but October so I will limit myself to that month. <<<

 

I distrust it all because any group of scientists who will put their thermometers next to heat sources are not really serious about actually measuring the temperature. So, I doubt October as well. I suspect that the real cooling in October is even greater than what is observed.

 

>>>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).")

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/map-blended-mntp-200810-pg.gif

 

Polar amplification: check.<<<<

 

Not according to the data reported out by Russia and obtainable at http://climexp.knmi.nl/click_s.cgi?someone@somewhere?monthly?316,26

 

And Rich, merely spouting propaganda spoon fed to you by NCDC is not really engaging with the data. When you download and process as much raw data as I have, then you can claim to actually be engaging with the data.

 

 

>>>>http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/glob-oct-pg.gif

 

Warming trend: check.<<<

 

Yeah, warming in the halls of Goddard Institute of Space Science!

When one subtracts the raw averages from the final edited data one sees a warming trend in how the editing of the raw data adds more and more heat to the data--in other words, inside the halls of Goddard, there is a warming trend going on. Rich, please explain why modern thermometers read too cold and need to be heated?

 

Since you clearly didn't look at what I presented before, let me quote Balling and Idso

 

"The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg]C [per]dec. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. [2001]
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. [2001]
and Karl et al. [1986] note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy [2002] found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated,*** the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century."*** Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, "Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 10,, p. 1388

 

Note the last sentence. You can see their graph at

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Su4wl9UpFMI/AAAAAAAAAtg/wHvbRpGWjOs/s400/weatherFinalminusRawEdited.jpg

 

Of course, I posted this before and you chose not to look at it. Care to deal iwth it now?

 

>>>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.

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/ts-sfc-radiosonde-jan-dec-2008-pg.gif

 

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. <<<

 

Let's look at that satellite data. The devil is always in the details. Look at http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SybyLf1mxKI/AAAAAAAAA5o/20HOiFc6Nv8/s1600-h/weatherSatelliteStepChangetrends.jpg

 

This picture shows a step function in the satellite temperature and if you calculate the trend both before and after that step function jump, the upward trends are far far below your claim. Please explain the step change and why the trend is so low before and after it.

 

 

 

>>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.<<<

 

Gee, I didn't know Randy needed you to speak for him. What I mean by engaging in the data is actually having a critical eye towards it rather than a sheeple attitude.

 

So Rich, you didn't answer the question of how does one correct the biasing effect of a running air conditioner on the temperature data when no records of when the AC is on are kept?

 

See http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SbqiDJkiaTI/AAAAAAAAAB4/sYCMQ7wNBzA/s320/WEatherFort_Morgan_CO_overall+copy.jpg

 

I have lots and lots of these pictures taken from Anthony Watt's surfacestations.org site. 69% of US stations are next to heat sources. Splain how to fix that Rich!

 

 ^^^

 

GORDON BROWN ASKED: When was the last time that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free?

 

it very well may have been ice free 8-6 kyr ago during the Holocene climatic optimum. Sea levels were 2 meters higher, the world was 3 deg C hotter than at present, trees grew to the current coastline of the arctic a thousand km further north than they do today, there was no permafrost (trees don't live in permafrost)

 

Svalbard had little evidence of glaciation at that time http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/1/45

 

Southern Norway and the Alps were devoid of glaciation. All documentation can be found at http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/04/holocene-denial-syndrome.html

 

 ^^^^

MICHAEL ROBERTS

 

>>>>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<<<

 

Your illogic is quite sad Michael, truly sad. A guy who admits he doesn't know physics thinks he can tell who is right. In case you forgot, I am a physicist by training. I doubt very seriously you would ever take my side even if I said the sky was blue because I suspect you are still a bit bitter with me over that question you would never answer. Care to answer it now?

 

^^^^^

CHRISTINE SMITH WRITES:

>>>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.<<<

 

A true scientist. Thank you Christine. That is the attitude we all should have.

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 22:00:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 22:00:38 EST