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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 08:46:55 EST

 I am going to use one of my posts to highlight something interesting. In my study on Siberia I used 51 stations. Rich points us to a graph made from 19 stations. I make clear what I did to my data. Rich shows us a picturre processed with no history or details of what is done with the missing data. That is not a good way to do science.

I must point out something else--the utter corruption of the CRU group where it comes to criticism. Rich keeps saying that all these studies show Siberian warming. What he doesn't seem to let everyone know about is that the CRU group actively kept critics out of print. They had a vested interest in not being shown to be wrong, but they were allowed to be the reviewers on papers.

Here is one of the emails

>>>From: Phil Jones <>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: have you seen this?
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004

Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
reworking Esper et al. as you'll know. If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to
Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking essays.
Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of
work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in
the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization
techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the
decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized
Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as
Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't
close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature
varies an awful lot from year to year.
********Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.******

Note the asterisked place.

One other thing. Rich, the data I plotted comes from the Russian government via the Dutch government meteorology site. All I did was download and plot it, eliminating only years with missing data because that will screw iup the average.

What should I believe, your study or the data coming from the Russian government's weather service? I vote for the data. And I would note that there are other people who say that CRU has messed it up in Siberia but their papers were recommended for rejection. How nice. You cite studies showing your case but ignore the corrruption that kept critics of the work out of print. NICCCCCCCEEEE!!!

Here again is my Siberian study. Please tell me why the raw government data doesn't show warming? Don't tell me about a study, this is the raw data!

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: Glenn Morton ; Murray Hogg ; Randy Isaac
  Cc: Don Winterstein ; asa
  Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

  On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Glenn Morton wrote:

    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

  No failure. See the following plot of the average of the raw data of the 19 stations in the Asian Russian Federation above the Arctic Circle excluding any years that have < 12 months of service. Note how the trend since 1980 is at ~5x the global rate of warming. That's polar amplification. Glenn you're really making a fool out of yourself.

  Siberia is not the only arctic country note the following from Environment Canada:
  Temperature and Precipitation

  Throughout the province, the temperatures for this month were closer to the October normals values than Novembers. All Ontario sites recorded higher mean temperatures than normal. The Northern locations broke records dating as far back as the 1940s, by differences ranging from 3C to 8C.

  In terms of precipitation, it has been a dry month. Most locations have recorded lower total precipitation than normal. The Sarnia weather station recorded very little precipitation, ranking it the second driest November in over a century. Kingston experienced its driest November since the 1930s. Records were broken throughout southern Ontario. Snowfall amounts were much lower than normally expected at this time of year, resembling the values observed last month. For the first time in recorded history, Toronto established a new record for a snow-free month.

  Meanwhile in Murray's neck of the woods:

  Maximum temperatures averaged over Australia were 2.12C above normal, ranking second behind the 2006 record of +2.17C. They were at least 2C above normal throughout New South Wales and Victoria, South Australia except for the far north, and Tasmania except for the east coast, with similar anomalies also occurring along the south coast of Western Australia east of Albany, and on the west coast near Carnarvon and Broome. In the south-east anomalies were much more extreme, and were mostly in the +5-7C range in South Australia south of Port Pirie, Victoria away from the coast, and inland New South Wales except the far west. Statewide anomalies set records in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania, with the first two (+4.99 and +4.92C respectively) exceeding the previous largest anomaly recorded for an Australian state. Station records were set over an area covering all of Victoria, inland New South Wales except the far north-west, the east coast south of Sydney, most agricultural areas of South Australia, and north-western Tasmania. Records were also set locally around Broome and east of Darwin.

  In the Southern Hemisphere, both the November 2009 average temperature for land areas, and the Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest November on record. Globally it's also the warmest November on record for the lower-troposphere and mid-troposphere satellites and radiosondes.

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 17 08:47:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 17 2009 - 08:47:33 EST