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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 07:32:49 EST

> Very, very interesting. Why did you average an entire continent using no
> grid? That's pretty useless.

Where did you you learn your mathematics. Are you suggesting that gridding
is going to turn cooling into WARMING? Pray tell explain how.There are only
about 1/10th of the stations show any warming yet somehow gridding is going
to make everything WARM? get real with your objections Rich.

 There is an implied gridding in any such average. What there isn't is a
weighting. The stations are spread all over the 100 degree longitudinal
spread so while not accurate to the n'th degree, it is still showing that
Siberia is cooling.

Still you did do an analysis of the arctic
> stations so I will start with that since the point is whether there is
> polar amplification and thus high latitude stations are key. You also did
> anomaly analysis. So, thanks. But why would you start in 1897 and end in
> 1991?

Why did I end in 1991? Because while I was doing research that you should
have done, I screwed up the labeling of the axis in Excel. Here is the
corrected chart. The data goes out to 2008 but in the old picture the label
was wrong.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SytyNGUUldI/AAAAAAAAA8w/LTHOJ9_qdms/s1600-h/weatherSiberiaARcticCircleTempAnomaly.jpg
Before about 1912 there are a couple of points of live data but no two are
in consecutive years. I grabbed the wrong start point for the label.

Rich, if you would think about what the anomaly is, you would know that
anomaly mapping is not really showing more information than temperature
rise. The first value in 1897 is 5.69 deg C for the anomaly--a value that is
WARMER than the 2008 value of 4.71 deg C.

> That's what I find frustrating dealing with skeptics you seem to love to
> play with the endpoints which seem all too "convenient". Here's the same
> kind of analysis with wider endpoints using the same web site Eschenbach
> used for part of his Darwin Airport analysis. Note how your choice of
> endpoints (particularly 1991!) hides the warming trend.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y96xzoo

I didn't stop with 1991 I screwed up on the labeling. The data you see is
all there is. Maybe if you, who claims to engage in the data, had actually
done the work yourself rather than relying on me your lab assistent, who is
said to have no credibilty, you would have caught my mistake in my graph. As
it is, I am the one who both did the work and who caught my error. Rich, it
is time to start downloading actual raw data and looking at it. Stop using
studies with 19 stations when there are 51 out there above 60 N. Stop
trying to pare down the number of stations picking only those that will
support your position. And stop trusting the pablum you are fed. You are
smarter than being a trusting pablum eating person.

>
>
>
> The test for polar amplification is whether the trend is faster for high
> latitudes over the global rate of warming. Compare with warming globally:
>
>
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

You keep pointing to data that has had by mere editing, half a degree of
warming inserted into it which never was actually OBSERVED! I guess actually
observing nature is no longer part of science. Merely looking at pretty
pictures has become the method du jour.

Rich, you have not commented on the work of Balling and Idso to my
knowledge. Stop ignoring the criticisms and actually engage with them. Why
does the final GISS dataset contain half a degree of warming not seen in the
raw data?

"The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg]C [per]dec. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. [2001]
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. [2001]
and Karl et al. [1986] note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy [2002] found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated, the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century." Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, "Analysis of adjustments
to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29,
NO. 10,, p. 1388

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

With each passing year the climatologists edit more unobserved heat into the
temperature record.

What I find so frustrating with AGW beleivers is that they never pay
attention to this chart. PAY ATTENTION. What makes modern thermometers need
to be warmed. The only reason to raise the observed temperature in a pattern
like that seen above is that something is cooling the thermometers. WHAT IS
IT RICH THAT IS COOLING THE THERMOMETERS OUT THERE. Please provide an
explanation

>
> From 1980 to 2008 in the Arctic temperatures went up 2.5 degrees C while
> global temperatures went up around 0.5 degrees C.

How trusting Rich. They 'correct' a monotonically increasing amount of
warmth into the record, post it in a pretty little chart and you will
believe it. How utterly gullible that is.

That's a 5x polar
> amplification.

Yes, after they add heat to the thermometers in the editing process. If I
tell you that your stock portfolio went up 5x over the past year would you
believe me? If I put it in a pretty picture would that make it easier for
you to beleive it? Of course you would believe it. that is your
methodology. You would not actually look at the stock market to see the raw
data, that would be too much work. After all no one would tell you anything
that is wrong, or false. I have some magic beans for you.

Rich when are you going to deal with the work of Balling and Idso?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 18 07:32:48 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 18 2009 - 07:32:49 EST