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

From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 10:07:20 EST

Since so much is being made of improperly placed thermometers, I've got
to ask: Who are these morons? I think my 13 year old son, if he wanted
to measure temperature, would realize that this is a bad idea. Of much
greater challenge is to place a thermometer in a place and environment
so that it is not affected by solar radiation, which is why anyone who
does this for a living (obviously not the people who did this) would
place the thermometer in a thermal shield that permits air flow, but
excludes direct solar irradiance at any time of the day and year. It
should be clear that whoever placed these thermometers and whoever
supervised their placement never thought that anyone would be using the
data in the kind of arguments that we and the global community is now
involved in, leading one to suspect the data, not merely because they were
placed near air conditioners, but for a host of other possible negligent
behaviors. Any sensible experimenter would simply throw out such data.
The only reason we are trying to salvage the data is that it's all we've
got, and we are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

I am beginning to understand why Glenn wanted to look at Oct data.
Where we are dealing with badly placed instruments (presuming they are
reliable instruments), we want to try to find a subset of the data set
that will be least influenced by the bias and unknown affects. So Glenn
examined the Oct data because it is a time when air conditioners are not
generally being used (at least not in the northern lattitudes) Of course,
there are many other months when air
conditioners are not being used. Still perhaps some thermometers are
being placed next to other heat sources. Solar thermal affects might
also be an issuse. In which case, examining temperatures when the sun
is not up can be useful. What if we examine daily lows? Often air
conditioners may not be on at this time (esp. if we take a Fall time
frame) and the sun will not influence the results.

Oh well, got to go, just trying to help.

bill

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009,
Glenn Morton wrote:

> replies for Rich Blinne
>
>
>
>
>
> I had asked about correcting a station with an air conditioner. Rich erroneously wrote in reply
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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. <<<<
>
>
>
>
>
> That was not the question. Clearly you don't understand what the homogeneity correction is doing and what the difference between it and a correction of the daily temperature is. I am asking how one is to correct the DAILY temperature output of a station next to an air conditioner. The signal output--a temperature--consists of two parts. The temperature of the environment PLUS the heating of the local environment by the air conditioner. Tout=Tenviro+Tac. The true temperature is Tenviro and that is what we want to get to. But no records are kept of when the air conditioner is on, what direction the wind is blowing (next to the building might be different than the anemometer on the roof) so we can't always be sure if the heat is carried towards or away from the thermometer.
>
>
>
> These data are then put into the station record and the homogeneity filter is put on top of all that. I would also suggest that if one is to cool a station, one should identify what is heating the station. If one is to heat it up as seems to be the norm then one should have a physical explanation for what is cooling the station over time. None of this is given in the corrective work. And given Balling and Idso's work of subtracting the raw data from the final data,
>
> it is clear that warming seems to be far more common than cooling a station over time.
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sh7ntlYGwEI/AAAAAAAAAXY/9GQ6qdOqSEQ/s1600-h/weatherRawVsSanitizedUStempDifferences.jpg
>
>
>
> So please tell me how to correct the daily temperature record, which after all is the original 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. <<<
>
>
>
> Yes if the correction fits the bias of the climatologist, it is automatically better, but that isn't science. What is the physical cause of cooling in eastern Colorado that requires the changes Peterson makes to his temperature series. He doesn't specify that in the article. He merely waves the magic wand of "badly sited". What is it Rich that is cooling those stations making a heating correction necessary?
>
>
>
>
>
> Of Siberia
>
> Rich Replied:
>
>
>
>>>> 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.<<<
>
>
>
> No, I don't you have not yet answered MY question, another masterful dodge on your part. You posted a sad story about Tiksi Russia and claimed that warming is causing subsidence. I showed that the entire area is subsiding. Please prove that your subsidence is the cause or what part it accounts for. You seem never to actually answer questions, Rich.
>
>
>
> As to your claim that the permafrost is gaining temperature, I note that that is mere assertion on your part. Please provide a reference with DATA. Anyone can assert anything but a scientist gives his sources and lets other people examine the data. Mere assertion doesn't hack it in science Rich.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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.<<<
>
>
>
> Finally an answer to the question. So, now, if it is El Nino, the warming from the satellite isn't caused by CO2. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Rich, 31 years is the length of the satellite data which started in 1978. My picture IS the data.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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."<<<
>
>
>
> Anyone who believes this is quite capable of buying swamp land. Would you put your thermostat for your AC next to the stove, so that everytime you cook a meal the AC goes on even if it is in the middle of winter???
>
>
>
> CAN ANYONE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT AC EXHAUST DOESN'T AFFECT THE TEMPERATURE WHICH IS READ?
>
>
>
> Sorry Rich, that is physically impossible.
>
>
>
> here is what they are doing. They take rural stations and compare them to urban stations. .They expect that the rural stations are free of it, but I have posted links to rural stations which are next to AC units as well. So their methodology of making that conclusion is flawed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are rural stations:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1-UFgmF2I/AAAAAAAAAlA/JFDN1f0QzlM/s1600-h/weatherOHUrbanaThermometer.JPG
>
>
>
>
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1-1FMr53I/AAAAAAAAAlI/GcvI9h3iZ9M/s1600-h/St_Ignatius_AC_discharge.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1_VmjCpiI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/zHd5inydsss/s1600-h/weatherWYRiverton_closeup_95-97_airconditionera.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sq1_thRP4cI/AAAAAAAAAlY/S1Gk3KOW2n0/s1600-h/weatherWYNewCastleEastAirconditioner.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> So, comparing rural stations with air conditioners to city stations with air conditioners and concluding that there is no problem is stupid, Rich. The devil is always in the details.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Blinne
> To: Glenn Morton ; Murray Hogg ; Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:23 PM
> 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 10:07:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 10:07:43 EST