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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 06:40:54 EST

Rich, The way data is engaged is if one explains the questions one is asked. Data is not engaged when one ignores the questions one is asked.

Of the satellite data, I asked about the step function and why that is in the satellite data--no one seems to pay attention to it. What caused the step function which accounts for most of the satellite warming Here it is again

Please explain.

Secondly, I have asked how one is to correct the station data of which, 69% are near heat sources in violation of the siting guidelines, when no one keeps records of when the AC is on. No one takes measurements at each station of how much heat arrives at the thermometer from the heat source, and that is another important piece of information to know when one is correcting the station record. You haven't answered or even addressed this.

Here is a picture of an air conditioner exhaust immediately below an mmts thermometer.
Please tell us specifically how to take out the biasing effect of that heat source.

Of Russia, can you explain why when I down load raw monthly data from,26 for the Siberian cities and plot the degree days above zero C, I see no warming akin to what is shown in the much massaged and unrepeatable plots shown at Climate at a glance which you depend upon.

Remember that in the US modern thermometers are edited to ADD half a degree of warmth compared with 1900. (you also haven't addressed that point) You can see the picture here Picture from

Now, given that one can prove that the US temperatures are artificially warmed merely by 'editing' and correction processes, one simply MUST raise the question if the same thing is being done in Russia for the Siberian data. After all, I pointed out that Siberian cities across 100 deg + of longitude don't show an increase in the degree-days above zero, which should be a parameter very very senstivie to warming. Please explain the discrepancy.

Again here are my links to my studies of Siberia using the actual raw data, not the pontifications of the climatologists who have not shown themselves to be very trustworthy.

Finally, does it not bother you that the CRU now claims that they can't give anyone the raw data upon which all their conclusions are based? Science is founded on the principle of openness where critics get to criticize and repeat the experiment. In climatology we must simply trust and obey.

There are a lot of other issues you are ignoring but this should start it off. Please explain these issues.

Now to engage your data (so you can see what one must do) I will now look at your tropospheric trend. Your tropospheric trend is once again a homogenized data source. Given that we know that the CRU and parts of the US climatological system were engaged in massive manipulation of the data, I prefer my data raw. Trust and obey Rich, that is what the climatologists are asking us to do. Trust their work and obey their politics. Trust is earned, once lost science loses.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: Glenn Morton ; Randy Isaac
  Cc: asa
  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

  On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Glenn Morton wrote:

>>>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. <<<

    Let's look at that satellite data. The devil is always in the details. Look at

    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.

  The trend I am referring to is from 1960:

  Generally speaking you should stay far far away from either side of 1998. The trends for the satellites are for 31 years and not since 1998. Here's from the table for October 2009:

        October Anomaly Rank
        (out of 31 years) Warmest Year on Record Trend
        UAH low-trop +0.28C/+0.50F 6th warmest 2005 (+0.39C/+0.70F) +0.14C/decade
        RSS low-trop +0.28C/+0.51F 7th warmest 2003 (+0.46C/+0.84F) +0.16C/decade

  UW-UAH mid-trop+0.26C/+0.47F6th warmest1998 (+0.51C/+0.93F)+0.14C/decadeUW-RSS mid-trop+0.29C/+0.53F7th warmest1998 (+0.56C/+1.02F)+0.18C/decade

        RATPAC* +0.47C/+0.84F 7th warmest 1998 (+0.79C/+1.43F) +0.15C/decade

  Here's what the mid-troposphere trend looks like in graphical form:

  Finally the average for this decade is 0.18 degrees C warmer than the previous decade. Some cooling.

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 06:41:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 06:41:16 EST