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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 23:02:54 EST

Hi Don,

At least there is a physical reason for the static adjustment. Rich might have answered my question but I find it odd that there is no mentioned physical reason for modern stations to be reading too cold requiring an increase in their temperature--especially when those thermometers are next to air conditioners.

GRM: Don, look at my post on my blog tonight. I put out a study of Siberia. The raw data doesn't support Global warming at all. If anyone wants to disagree with me then they must do the work I did and download all the Northern Russian data.

see SIBERIA IS GETTING COLDER., contrary to the claims of both Rich, Randy and the AGW crowd. The data must be edited severely to make it warm.

Rich please explain the failure of your AGW prediction

Siberia is cooling contrary to the claims of Rich Bline. Maybe tomorrow
morning I can get to the rest of the emails that I didn't get to today.
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
  From: Don Winterstein
  To: asa ; Glenn Morton
  Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming


  I appreciate your efforts here.

  You wrote: "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."

  In at least two previous posts on this list I explained that there's often a need to apply adjustments to geoscience data in order to make a satisfactory interpretation. This need generally arises from unknown variations encountered during recording, and as a rule the recording can't be repeated to get a handle on the reason(s) for the variations. Data that you know from physical principles should be coherent frequently turn out instead to be incoherent, so you can't interpret without making adjustments. An example of a common kind of adjustment: in reflection seismology we always apply static corrections to land data; this process is done automatically with special-purpose computer programs. The programmer has built into these programs assumptions about many things, and there are usually several parameters the user can vary, depending on the level of sophistication. (I'm not telling you anything you don't know.) So oil company geophysicists also must "mess with the observed values" before they can interpret, and the way they do the messing can affect the interpretation. <<<


  The need for such adjustments of geoscience data sometimes gives the interpreter flexibility to make the outcome go in a desired direction without being unethical about it. So, although I've not "engaged with the climate data," I was sure that climate scientists were making such adjustments, and I have felt that, because their biases are so obvious, some of the adjustments they've made are sure to have moved their interpretations in the direction of their biases. You're effectively arguing that much of the effect they want to see is in fact not in the data but comes from their "homogeneity adjustments." Partly because of this expectation I made "a modest proposal" a week or two ago that a different set of geoscientists, such as oil company geophysicists, with a different set of biases, should completely reinterpret all the climate data to see whether different conclusions might be plausible from the same data. Before the world spends trillions on a possible goose chase it might be good to get a second opinion.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 16 23:03:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 23:03:27 EST