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

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 06:34:34 EST

Thanks Rich for engaging Glenn's data and the civil tone. I agree it comes down to the data and whether raw or corrected is better. I think it would be great if you an Glenn could agree on what would be a valid test of these respective hypotheses and we could collectively analyse it and make our own judgment on it.  As I said I am suspicious of the corrections but I am willing to be persuaded if enough skeptics can get access to it and the correction methods and they prove reasonable. For Jones to say "“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it”, that doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence in his methods or his political IQ either. I think the new mantra that is going to come out of this and what it all boils down to: Its the Data Stupid! The ultimate irony would be for someone to use that on Carville while he is defending AGW on some talking heads show as a well placed sound bite. John ________________________________ From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> To: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>; Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>; Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 12:23:09 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Glenn Morton wrote: > >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? Murray answered that question see Peterson. In addition to that as long as the air conditioner is not new it doesn't materially affect the trend as again shown by Peterson. If you can show contra Peterson a poorly sited station and a nearby well sited one and that the anomalies are materially different outside the error bars and show how the homogenization process misses something then I will concede your point. Or you can do what I did and show how the Australian homogenization appears to be superior to the American one. The Australians have a key advantage as they have access to the metadata which showed that Darwin PO closed for temperature in 1941 but continued to collect precipitation data through 1962.  The error further appears to be not in the homogenization but in the collection of the raw data, identifying a non-existent station. Neither the Australian BOM nor GISS made this error. A human being can see this but not a computer program.
 Eschenbach appeared to miss this fact, however, because the error is in the raw data. You need to choose which is superior the raw or corrected data. Between what you have shown and Peterson I would say that the corrected data is superior. Any data stands to be improved, e.g. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf where the mid-troposphere satellite data needed to be corrected since the cooling stratosphere was producing a cooling bias in the mid-troposphere data. So, the bad sites you mentioned are worthy of investigation and also the correction methodologies but you need to go to the next step and show whether the bias in the data produces a material difference or how a proposed correction procedure is superior to the current one.  Ducking, dodging and evading is not becoming a scientist. here is another case.  http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=29132 > >Would you care to explain the air conditioner question and why the monthly raw data doesn't show siberian warmth,   You have a bigger question since it's abundantly clear there is warmth from the buildings falling into the permafrost and the permafrost itself gaining two degrees and the coastlines eroding why doesn't your data show it? The effect in the Arctic is so patent now you don't even need a thermometer to show it. why >the satellite data has a step function in the middle of it, It's called the El Nino of the Century and is why when anybody picks 1997/1998/1999 as a start point of any trend it should be viewed with extreme suspicion. In fact, the longer the trend the better. The trends I quoted were 31 years or greater. and why are >modern thermometers made to read warmer than those of 1900? > Again it doesn't matter since the very homogenization process you seem to hate deals with different thermometers. Where you need to deal with this is when you change the thermometer. As long as you have an existing thermometer whether it reads warm or cold for whatever reason it's still the same thermometer and thus you can then glean a decent trend from even a biased thermometer, particularly if you homogenize it with the more accurate nearby rural stations. This is not speculation on my part and it was proven, see Peterson. http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf Peterson said,  "Analysis of a small subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network data does not find a time-dependent bias caused by current poor station siting." Now it is a small subset so maybe you might be able to find a counter-example. So, you could show a time-dependent bias on a different subset but as of yet I haven't seen you do that. I'm waiting.   >Is ducking and dodging and art form? > > Is an argument from silence still a logical fallacy? Rich Blinne Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 16 06:35:09 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 06:35:09 EST