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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 22:12:46 EST

Replies for Rich Blinne, Michael Roberts, Rich Blinne again, Murray Hogg,
Randy Isaac, Murray Hogg again, Michael Roberts again, and Gordon Brown.
A comment on the 4 post limit. What difference does it make if one posts 29
small emails or 1 big one? Answer, doing the former gets you chastised on
the ASA, doing the latter doesn't.

Rich Blinne wrote:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Arctic isn't warming. This just shows you have zero
credibility. <<<<

I would like everyone sane on this list to note that Rich just ducked
dealing with the monthly raw data and refused to engage with the data. His
"scientific" reason for not paying attention to the discrepancy is "yeah
yeah yeah the arctic isn't warming". This is so laughably not engaging with
the data.

>>>>TIKSI, Russia - Freed by warming, waters once locked beneath ice are
>>>>gnawing at coastal settlements around the Arctic Circle.
In Bykovsky, a village of 457 on Russia's northeast coast, the shoreline is
collapsing, creeping closer and closer to houses and tanks of heating oil,
at a rate of 15 to 18 feet a year. Eventually, homes will be lost, and maybe
all of Bykovsky, too, under ever-longer periods of assault by open water.
"It is eating up the land," said Innokenty Koryakin, a member of the Evenk
tribe and the captain of a fishing boat. "You cannot do anything about

And Have you considered that part of this might be, gasp, SUBSIDENCE? Of the
Timan-Pechora basin in which Tiksi lies, it is written
"The active rift stage of the West Siberian Basin terminated in the Late
Triassic and was followed by tectonic subsidence and deposition of
predominantly siliciclastic sedimentary rocks of Jurassic to Quaternary
age." Mann et al, "Tectonic Setting of the World's Giant Oil and Gas
Fields," in Michael T. Halbouty, Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the Decade,
1990-1999, Tulsa: AAPG, p. 48
Not all subsidence is caused by Global WARMING, Rich. Are you going to try
to prove that this subsidence is, or are you like the above going to say,
Yeah yeah yeah Tiksi isn't sinking because of subsidence... blah blah

>>>Coastal erosion is a problem in Alaska as well, forcing the United States
>>>to prepare to relocate several Inuit villages at a projected cost of $100
>>>million or more for each one.
Across the Arctic, indigenous tribes with traditions shaped by centuries of
living in extremes of cold and ice are noticing changes in weather and
wildlife. They are trying to adapt, but it can be confounding.<<<<

I want everyone to note how Rich has ducked, dodged and evaded the questions
I asked him about why the monthly raw data doesn't show siberian warmth, how
one can correct the output of a thermometer next to an air conditioner, why
the satellite data has a step function in the middle of it, and why are
modern thermometers made to read warmer than those of 1900. So far in this
'reply' of his, he is ignoring those questions. I will keep asking him to
Rich claims to be the expert on AGW here on this list but he can't or won't
answer a simple question about how a particular station is to be corrected
if it has a heat source next to it.

Now, since I will deal with issues, Building modern energy intensive
cities, even small ones, on top of permafrost, will melt the permafrost
below and cause them to sink into the ice. I used to work for ARCO and we
had this problem at Prudhoe Bay. So, once again you can't prove that your
sinking is due to warming from CO2. it might be because the huts now are not
igloos but homes with heaters emitting too much heat for the permafrost
below to remain solid.
>>>Take the Inuit word for June, qiqsuqqaqtuq. It refers to snow conditions,
>>>a strong crust at night. Only those traits now appear in May. Shari
>>>Gearheard, a climate researcher from Harvard, recalled the appeal of an
>>>Inuit hunter, James Qillaq, for a new word at a recent meeting in

Let's see, most AGW folk would now claim 'anecdotal'. Is this the best you
can do??
>>>One sentence stayed in her mind: "June isn't really June any more."<<<


>>>Even in this funny little island we have lost our winters in the last 15
>>>years . That I know from winter climbing. Before then you could guarantee
>>>some good snow and ice climbing in the mountains of England and Wales,
>>>and get many good days in. Today you are lucky to get one or two.<<<

Maybe you should look out the window at your country, Michael. Scotland's
Cairngorm ski resort has opened early. The article says it is an early

Rich Blinne wrote again:

>>>>Not only that but what about "cooling" Darwin? The following is from the
>>>>October 2009 NCDC global report:

Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia experienced warmer-than-average
temperatures during October 2009. The capital city recorded an average
maximum temperature of 34.8°C (94.6°F) on October 2009, the highest on
record for any month (Source: Australia's Bureau of Meteorology).

I guess the people at the Darwin Airport were firing up their air
conditioners. :-)<<<

Actually Rich, that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to explain how one
could correct the bias in the temperature record caused by heat sources next
to air conditioners. Here is another picture.
Rich, both the house and the air conditioner are heat sources. Siting
requirements say that the mmts should be 10 m away from a house. Do you
think that above picture fulfills that requirement? Don't duck weave and
evade this question.

And yes, if it was warm, and the Australians have air conditioners next to
thermometers, that will warm them. Do you deny that blowing hot air
conditioner exhaust on a thermometer will actually warm the thermometer?

Murray Hogg wrote:

>>>I suggest you relocate them away from the air-conditioner.<<<

I want everyone to note how cavalier these people are when there are
problems with measurments of the data upon which they depend. This is
certainly not a scientific attitude--it is an attitude of a politician who
doesn't really care about truth. Scientists are supposed to care about
truth--in the case of the thermometers, what is the TRUE temperature.

Frankly I want to cry when I see such abysmal sloppiness excused and
tolerated by people who are interested in science.

Christine Smith, I have a question for you. Do you think Murray's cavalier
uncaring attitude is what scientists should do?

Randy Isaac wrote:

>>>>I think you're on the right path, doing what good scientists would and
should do. Whenever a complex primary analysis leads to a result with
significant impact, the first thing to do is a sanity check, or a "sniff
test" to see if the result holds true. In essence, you've done that for the
global warming case. Instead of taking all the data for all the earth and
all the time periods, you've done a sanity check on specific areas for
certain periods and found it didn't hold up.<<<<

Thank you Randy, you don't know how much I appreciate your attitude. It
seems that few on this list care to do a sniff test on the data (look at the
shameful answers and evasions above).

>>>When a sanity check of data isn't consistent with the primary analysis,
there is one more critical step that must be taken before conclusions can be
drawn. There are four logical possibilities:
a. The primary analysis is wrong
b. The sanity check is wrong
c. Both are wrong
d. Inconclusive--more investigation is needed.<<<

Agreed. I would make one observation, Randy, I have probably downloaded more
raw data here than anyone else on this list, yet almost none of them care to
follow your sense checks. Of course my data could be wrong, but one isn't
going to show my data wrong by saying " Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Arctic isn't
warming. This just shows you have zero credibility" as Rich says. To show
how I might be wrong, one must repeat my work and show where I made the
error. Unthinking parroting of GISS sites is merely an excersise in mantra
spouting. Thus I really really appreciate your attitude. At least you are
willing to look at the data and possible problems

>>>The key point is that until the source of the discrepancy between the two
points is identified and verified, the answer is d. I have experienced many
situations of this kind and the story isn't over until the understanding of
why the two approaches differ has been confirmed. It doesn't matter how each
approach can have its strong advocates. There must be an explanation of the

That is fine, more investigation is always needed. But I will tell you from
my experience in debating YECs that they too will say more investigation is
needed and then ignore the problems presented. Some go so far as to say we
should draw no conclusions until all knowledge is known. So, since I don't
think you are a person like that, what exactly would convince you that
global warming is false. Please be specific about what steps one should
take. And then assure me that if I did that herculean task (which I am not
sure I can do whatever it is) that it would actually change your mind. I
have met far too many people in this world who say they will change in the
face of evidence but who never will. Which kind are you Randy?

>>>You provide eloquent descriptions of why and how various subsets ought to
a good substitute for the full blown analysis and I'm not arguing with any
of it. We still have a discrepancy to resolve. To do that, we have to try
all sorts of different approaches before the matter is settled. Until we
know the difference between the two techniques that leads to the different
results, we will remain inconclusive.

May I suggest an approach that could test some of the possible sources of
discrepancy? First, instead of tackling the full global trend, one might
focus on a more regional observation analyzed with the same techniques. So,
for example, the GISS data which was used for global trend analysis, was
also used for assessing the geographical distribution. Chart number 11 in
this presentation is
an example. Here we can see that their data indicates a 0.5 to 1.0C
difference (except for Texas) in temperature for the US during the period
2001-2007 compared with 1951-1980. This is a specific result for a specific
region. (By the way, that chart shows what I was referring to about
variations in geographical regions.<<<<

Let me ask this. If that trend shown in the above slide 11 is to be
believed, don't you think that the monthly temperature record should show
it? Do you think the RAW temperature should show SOME rise in temperature?
Answer this question before we continue along this path.

>>>>As you point out, the variations in CO2
concentration are small, though not zero, and the physics is the same,
though the radiation intensity is different. <<<<

Given that the atmosphere is so thoroughly mixed that in every breath we
take we inhale molecules that had been in the lungs of every famous
historical person, I would challenge the idea that a stationary deficit of
CO2 can hang around Texas or any other location for a long time (or hover
over Brookhaven MS). So please provide a reference to a scientific paper
saying that the CO2 content can vary for decades over a given spot. I would
be very interested in learning that I am wrong about my view in that regard.

>>>>However, several ocean and wind
circulation patterns with decadal oscillations can influence the analysis
for specific regions) For your analysis, to avoid any possibility of skewing
data by month, it should be possible to take all 12 months for the period
from 2001 to 2007 and derive the average anomaly, taking care to blend the
data from the various states by accounting for the geographical area
represented. If the error bars from that work have an overlap with the error
bars of the GISS data, then the discrepancy disappears for this particular
situation. <<<<

How about I do it for the 18 cities I have spread from one end of Siberia to
the other since you all seem to be fixated on Siberia and I see no warming

Murray Hogg wrote:

>>>>That the homogeneity adjustments (i.e. "editing") are responsible for
>>>>the difference between the raw and adjusted data is quite clear. The
>>>>real question is whether those adjustments are reliable.<<<<

I would agree with you. I would point out that when I learned my physics
(something Michael Roberts did not learn and isn't qualified to comment on),
I learned that if you want to measure some quantity X you don't mess with
the observed values when you average up all your measurments. If I am
measuring the speed of light, I must measure the distance, and I must
measure the time, and I might also have to measure rotation of a toothed
wheel etc. Now, all those measurements have error in them. If I know that
the previously measured speed of light is 299,792,458 m per second, and I
adjust my distance measurement to make my result come out to match the
previous value, you could rightly accuse me of cheating, of scientific

But, somehow that doesn't seem to apply when we are trying to measure the
TREND of the temperature. Remember, we want to observe the TREND. The
MEASURE. And when you change the trend at hundreds of stations, the average
trend output by this process is not an observed trend but something else.
That is why the homogeneity filter is so bad.

Here for the benefit of the lurkers are some examples, all taken from data
downloaded at

Note that the above is a NOAA site. I am merely reporting what they have
Here are some examples of changing the trend, the very thing we are trying

I have verified these but a friend did the work and he deserves the credit.
These pictures are from,+FL.png

>>>>As you are no doubt aware, there is an extensive literature addressing
>>>>that question, and the Peterson article from which you derived the graph
>>>>is a part of that literature.

Now, I regret that this particular subject is so far outside my area of
expertise such that there is doubtless an enormous amount of background
knowledge one needs in order to make sense of Peterson's article. But I will
venture on the following brief observation; <<<

Yes, but there are lots of people who think the homogeneity issue is where
the fraud is perpetrated. I am one of those. Scientifically one should not
alter the measurement of what one wants to determine.

>>>Peterson's methodology is essentially to compare the trends of adjusted
>>>data (for stations with known siting issues) and non-adjusted data (for
>>>stations with no known siting issues) by way of running a cross-check on
>>>the adjustments.<<<

It is a subjective judgement that the cooling stations in his study are the
badly sited stations. I looked into those stations and the cooling stations
looked better sited according to the rules but he thought they needed to be

>>>I short, am I not correct in thinking that Peterson's evaluation of the
>>>reliability of homogenity adjustments on data from poorly sited stations
>>>is somewhat at odds with your own?<<<

Darn tootin' I differ from Peterson. I have tried to engage climatologists
on the issue of stations next to air conditioners and they are all quite
blaise about them. That is not consistent with a group of people who care
about getting the data right, so I am not ashamed to go against Peterson on
his changing the trend. Truth is determined by data, nothing else.

>>>I wonder if you have taken the time to bring your analysis to Peterson's
>>>attention, and what his response (if any) may have been?<<

I have brought it to the attention of others. they all say what I am doing
is well known and not newsworthy!!! Gordon Simons was witness to two of
these instances if anyone wants to ask him for verification.


>>>There are more than two options. There are those who don't want GW to be
>>>true and throw up red herrings, those who are just bloody-minded for a

How scientific of you Michael. Yep, that is a grand scientific reason.
Anyone who has an ounce of skepticism is just bloody minded. Christine
Smith, is this the kind of answer you think is a good one?


>>>It is not true that trees don't live in permafrost. Much of the boreal
is located on permafrost. The lower elevations of Alaska's interior are
not tundra. However the trees' roots cannot go deep because they encounter
permafrost. I recall once that a tour guide pointed out an area of forest
he called a "drunken forest" in which the trees did not stand up straight
to the permafrost underneath them. The existence of forest in these
is apparently determined by whether the average summer temperatures are high

Gordon Brown (ASA member)<<<

Not so fast Gordon. Tree roots in permanently (as in year round) frozen
ground can't take up water. Permanentely frozen ground is the definition of
permafrost--the perma short for permanent. Trees live ABOVE permafrost, not
IN permafrost. Please acknowledge that I am correct on this.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 22:13:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 22:13:31 EST