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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 07:44:56 EST

Below are answers to Rich, Don W. Bill Powers and Michael Roberts. There are
several scattered below for Rich. This silly 4 post rule doesn't stop
bandwidth usage. I am always amazed that scientists can be so
mathematically challenged. 50 kb in 50 emails = 50 kb in 1 email.

Last night I published a study of all the Russian stations north of 60 deg
N. Russia does not show warming. Now, I am going to tie this back into
something that was said of me in Rich's first reply to my re-appearance on
this list. When I had said that the data I had available didn't show
Siberian warming, Rich said this bullying tidbit

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Arctic isn't warming. This just shows you have zero

Now, this isn't said with any emotion, it is mere observation. The assertion
that someone has no credibility is a polite way of saying either the person
is incompetent or a liar. That is just simply a fact. So, in light of my
study of Siberia, and
the claim made yesterday by the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis(IEA)
that the CRU climatologists had tampered with Russian temperature record
(which would include Siberia) I am interested in whether or not Rich will
with draw his claim that I have zero credibility. I am not asking Ted or
Randy to administrativly force him to withdraw that because that is
nannyism. If Rich doesn't want to withdraw what may be an erroneous
statemen we will find out something about Rich's character.

Here is what the Russian IEA said
>>>>On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued
>>>>a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the
>>>>headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon,
>>>>England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not
substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's
territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of
such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature
calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological
stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate
Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data
and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations
facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological
stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more
frequently than the correct data of remote stations.<<<

Now, if these charges are true then Rich has been resting his belief on a
broken reed, on a group of corrupt scientists who mixed politics with their

And I will ask you the question I asked of Michael Roberts below.
Rich, the Russian government provides monthly temperature data to the Dutch
Meteorological service. I down load it from that dutch governmental site.
When I plot it, it shows Siberia cooling for 200 years. Would you please
explain why I should believe your map showing warming in Siberia? given that
I am using Russian governmental data provided to the Government of the

In warming in Alaska Rich wrote:
>>>>>Again here are my links to my studies of Siberia using the actual raw
>>>>>data, not the pontifications of the climatologists who have not shown
>>>>>themselves to be very trustworthy

Then how about this for comments on climate change in Alaska from July 2008?
Note: the date is pretty significant as you will see. Note also some of the
photographs in the quoted document.<<<<

What a laugh those pictures are. Clearly you have never seen storms in the
high latitudes. I have been on the sea both in the relatively high Arctic
and the Antarctic. I have seen 80 foot waves in the North Sea and similar
waves in Antarctican waters. Storms cause the waves, not CO2. And before
you say CO2 causes the storms, realize that the past 2 years with lots more
CO2 in the atmosphere have been very free of hurricane type storms.


I want to re-visit Don Winterstein's comment about corrections in seismic

Don wrote:
>>>Static corrections to seismic data cause somewhat incoherent reflected
>>>waves to become more coherent, so "proof" they are working is in the
>>>increase in coherency. But there's more to it than that: The way modern
>>>reflection seismic data are acquired is roughly equivalent to doing
>>>dozens of ancillary mini-experiments which, under certain assumptions,
>>>make it possible to experimentally determine something about the real
>>>Earth properties that give rise to the need for the corrections. <<<

Don, there is a difference between our corrections and those made by the
climatologists. We have a physical model for why we have to apply statics.
We KNOW that the near surface has a very slow velocity. When we do dynamite
we actually measure the travel time through that weathered layer and apply
it. The question no one has answered is how do we measure the additional
degrees added to the temperature record by an air conditioner which runs
part of the time and for which there is no measurement of either when it is
on or the daily additional heat.

Furthermore, the net effect of editing climate data is that modern stations
are warmed. I have asked over and over on many forums and no AGW proponent

No one can tell me the physics of this correction. You and I can tell people
the physics of the weathering correction. I asked this of Rich, but he
seems not to be interested in explaining the hows and why's of temperature
correction other than to hand wave that Peterson got it right.

Rich Blinne wrote:

>>>That's EXACTLY what Peterson did. He compared the trends of poorly sited
>>>and well sited stations and the trends were the same, proving the
>>>reliability of the homogenization procedure. In addition to Peterson, the
>>>entire calculation was done redone only using the well-sited stations. It
>>>gave the same answer as when the poorly sited stations were included. See
>>>the instrumental record chapter of the IPCC report
>>> and look at
>>>Figure 3.3 on page 244. (Note: the suggestion that both Randy and I have
>>>made of Glenn doing a systemic study of bad stations can be short
>>>circuited by him posting Figure 3.3 to his web site.) <<<

First off, Randy didn't say do a study of bad stations. He said do a large
region. I have done that with my study of Siberia. By the way Rich,
apparently the Russian Newspapers are now saying that the CRU guys tampered
with their data.

Now lets look at the caption in the figure Rich sends us to. It says:
"Anomaly (C) time series relative to the 1961 to 1990 mean of the full
US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data (red), the USHCN data without
16% of the stations with populations of over 30,000 within 6 km in the year
(blue), and the 16% of the stations with populations over 30,000 (green).
The full
USHCN set minus the set without the urban stations is shown in magenta. Both
full data set and the data set without the high-population stations had
stations in
all of the 2.5 latitude by 3.5 longitude grid boxes during the entire
period plotted,
but the subset of high-population stations only had data in 56% of these
grid boxes.
Adapted from Peterson and Owen (2005)."

The problem with this is the problem I pointed out yesterday but which Rich
avoids. Rural stations today all have heat sources. The assumption behind
this study is that cities with less than 30,000 people have no significant
heating. That isn't true when the thermometer is next to an air conditioner.
I linked to these pictures before but Rich ignores the implications that
>30,000 people does not equate to no heat sources.

Here are rural stations:

Here is another. Tahoe City puts a burn barrel next to their thermometer.
Isn't this a grand way to do science? There is about 1400 people according
to google

Please explain Rich why rural areas mean no artificial heating of
thermometers as your study seems to imply?


Michael Roberts wrote:"But yet again they are shown to be wrong as Rich does
over Siberia. It is the same for Greenland ."

Michael, would you care to explain why when I download Russian government
provided monthly Russian data from a Dutch government meteorological site,
and plot it it shows cooling in Siberia for 200 years?


Bill Powers wrote of the badly placed thermometers:

>>>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. <<<

Yes, this is the work of people who don't care to get it right. That should
be a first sign that we are not dealing with serious science. Everytime I
have emailed climatologists and commented about this problem they all say
they know it, it is old news, or that is just the way it is done. But if
you look at the University of Arizona's thermometer, run by the meteorology
department--the guys who teach the next generation of climatologists, you
will understand how bad is the science they are using. The Tuscon
thermometer is in the middle of a hot parking lot in ARIZONA for petes sake.
What do those profs think will happen to the temperature over a hot parking
lot? Hint--you can't walk barefoot across a hot parking lot in either Texas
or Arizona in the summer.

I checked google earth and that thing is sitting there.


Rich Blinne wrote:

>>>>Another way to decouple the effect of air conditioning is to look at
>>>>so-called "high lows". That is how many record high lows there and how
>>>>many record low lows there are. If there is AGW there should be more
>>>>high lows and fewer low lows. Solar warming would effect only the highs
>>>>and not the lows. Here's a graph of high lows and low lows:

On the top graph the red line is the percent of the U.S. where lows are much
above normal. The blue line is percentage the U.S. where lows are much below
normal. We are getting more and more high lows and almost no low lows.<<<

And lets see what has been happening this year. 3000 record lows in July
this year. October was the 3rd coldest October ever. One needs to be
sure,, Rich that the chart you send us to is raw data. If it is after the
half a degree of editing heating, then it is really an irrelevant chart to
look at. Do you know if this chart is raw data or homogenized data?

Rich one thing that bothers me about your approach is that you seem to think
nice pictures tell the entire story. What has been done to the data is more
important than the pretty picture.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 17 07:45:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 17 2009 - 07:45:32 EST