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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 23:13:08 EST

Kenneth. the problem is that they take thermometers like those I have shown
and make them read hotter. that is the lesson drawn from the Balling and
Idso work in Geophsyical research letters.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sh7ntlYGwEI/AAAAAAAAAXY/9GQ6qdOqSEQ/s1600-h/weatherRawVsSanitizedUStempDifferences.jpg

Once again, I am going to point people to my blog to see that Siberia is
really cooling. Only the biased editing of the data by AGW proponents at the
GISS and other climatological services makes it appear that Siberia is
warming.

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/12/siberia-isnt-warming.html

This is probably one of the more important blog posts I have written. The
only one more important is this one entitled "CO2 is not melting the
Arctic."

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/09/co2-is-not-melting-arctic.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Piers" <pier@calvin.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

Friends: Not being a statistician or a data processor I should probably keep
out of this. But wouldn't the obvious thing to do with a set of temperature
numbers that were collected from a thermometer located near or above an
outdoor AC is simply exclude them from the data set? (even though, as Rich
points out, if this anomaly had endured during the entire time frame of the
data collection, inclusion would likely have little material impact).
Failing exclusion, wouldn't the next obvious thing be to look for data sets
collected by nearby thermometers that were not afflicted by location defects
and use their results to apply correction factors to the suspect data set?
By the way it does seem fairly inconceivable to me that, if one was
interested in collecting valid temperature data, one would locate the
thermometer near or above an outdoor AC. I have an old thermometer outside
my kitchen window on the east side of my house. In the winter this
thermometer always reads about 2-3 deg F above the air temperature because
of heat transfer through the nearby window. The actual magnitude of the
temperature anomaly depends on the air temperature and the indoor
temperature. The bigger the difference between these two, the bigger is the
anomaly. I would never recommend using the raw data from this thermometer in
a data set for global temperature calculations. The observed temperatures
have a systematic bias. If the temperature measurements collected from this
thermometer were going to be used in a data set, some "homgenization
factors' would need to be applied. Wouldn't the same be true for the AC
thermometer?
Ken Piers

Ken Piers

"We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we live
by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of faith, we must
choose either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that
cannot be proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
Wendell Berry
>>> "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> 12/16/09 7:11 AM >>>
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 23:13:25 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 23:13:25 EST