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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 23:26:23 EST

Thank you Gordon, I appreciate your comment. And yes you are right that
many people refer to any region with permafrost below is permafrost. But
that is sloppy in my opinion. some of the permafrost on the North Slope
goes several thousand feet down, and it causes velocity problems for our
seismic data. I have worked seismic data on the North Slope briefly during
my career.

Now, as to surficial permafrost, there was almost none 5000 years ago when
trees were living 1000 km further north than they do today--yet everyone is
worried about the melting of the permafrost, most of which in the near
surface would have been melted during the Holocene climatic optimum. AGW
folks don't seem aware of the heat of the early Holocene and how everything
that they fear actually happened at that time.

On another topic, I think I will point people to a rather dishonest, imo,
handling of raw data by GISS. Note how HISTORY has been changed by the GISS.
This kind of shenanagan by the agw crowd is quite worrisome.

Frankly, like John Walley, my trust in these guys is about zero.

For everyone's information, I have evaluated oil deals for over 25 years. I
have become very skeptical of anything anyone presents to me. Most people do
sloppy science and I don't see any improvement in quality when it comes to
the climate data.


Consider how history has been changed by the climatologists:

For Rich.

Would you care to explain specifically how one corrects a thermometer next
to an air conditoiner so that the data is useful for determining global
climate? Ducking, dodging and evading is not becoming a scientist. here is
another case.

Would you care to explain the air conditioner question and why the monthly
raw data doesn't show siberian warmth, 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?

Is ducking and dodging and art form?

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Glenn Morton wrote:
>>>>> It is not true that trees don't live in permafrost. Much of the boreal
>>>>> forest
>> is located on permafrost. The lower elevations of Alaska's interior are
>> taiga,
>> 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
>> which
>> he called a "drunken forest" in which the trees did not stand up straight
>> due
>> to the permafrost underneath them. The existence of forest in these
>> latitudes
>> is apparently determined by whether the average summer temperatures are
>> high
>> enough.
>> 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.
> You are technically correct. However many people refer to regions as being
> permafrost regions if there is permafrost near the surface.
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:26:23 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 23:26:32 EST