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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 20:17:56 EST

I see that Rich has not responded to Dave's noticing that this program is flawed. Being the totally untrusting guy that I am, I repeated Dave's work (sorry Dave, I never trust anything). From this program, which Rich thinks is keen, but which is a NON-governmental site, I chose Russia (asia) and Siberia and got 88 stations. I picked them all and produced the graph of the temperature. It shows cooling

Like Dave, I then repeated the plot with all 88 stations and plotted the anomaly series. Like Dave, I suddenly saw vast quantities of global warming--this after the data was carefully massaged by the climatologists. I put this out in a blog post

I don't know, but this seems so incredibly illogical. The absolute temperature over a hundred years goes down, but the anomally plot shows warming? That makes ZERO sense. Rich, your site is flawed. I see that your site uses this same flawed system. Why don't you actually download the REAL data from a REAL meteorological service rather than pablumized data from a source where you have no earthly idea what has been done to the data???

Rich, I hear that you used to be a young-earth creationist. If that is true, then think back to those days. We were YECs because we trusted our fellow Christians to tell us the truth. We trusted those whom we felt would be moral and not play with data. We were wrong and we gave yec up. We learned that science and scientists were telling us the truth about geology; the preachers were distorting things and that disturbed us.

The lesson I took away from that experience is that I should check all the data out for any claim that someone makes. Sure, I can't do it for everything, but I do it for everything that is important to me. The lesson you seemed to take away from that is that you should trust scientists. By doing that you merely transferred your faith in preachers to faith in scientists. You didn't learn the lesson that you should be skeptical; that science should be skeptical.

Unfortunately all this nonsense out there about consensus makes AGW a religion, not a science. Science doesn't work off consensus, it works off of data. Politics works off of consensus.

Rich, surely you still have one skeptical bone in your body don't you?
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dave Wallace
  To: ASA
  Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 8:37 AM
  Subject: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming


  Yesterday I went to the GWS (Global Warming Science) site and in order to verify that I was using the facilities correctly I reproduced your results more or less since I did not use exactly the same stations you got.

  I also graphed Arhangel'sk on GWS and the resulting plot was as close to your as I could tell by doing a quick once over. Recent warming but certainly not beyond historical swings.

  Next I tried to reproduce what Glenn plotted only using GWS plot capabilities and got a server error with a stack walkback trace... Have gotten this a number of times and it does raise concerns about the programming on the site.

  All the following discussion assumes lat/long set as Glenn did, only included years with 12 months of data and plots the mean of the unadjusted data.

  Not knowing how many stations would crash the plotting logic I tried the first thirty that came up in the list of stations.

  Actual Temperature Averages

  Anomoly Temperature Averages

  I suggest getting both of these plots up in two browser instances and comparing the plots. The anomaly plot shows considerable recent warming compared to the 1890 to 1960 time period. The actual temperature plot does NOT show that the most recent temperature is greater than historical figures from say 1890 to 1960. Something is wrong!

  My understanding is that anomaly plots show the difference between the yearly average and the average of the averages over the years plotted.

  IMHO the plotting software is buggy.

  Never the less I persevered trying to reproduce Glenn's plots.

  Actual Temperature Averages over the first 75 stations 001x61402958000x61402963000x61402971001x61402972000x

  Anomaly Temperature Averages over the first 75 stations 001x61402958000x61402963000x61402971001x61402972000x

  Note that the same kind of problem exists as I showed above with the anomaly plot.

  However, if one only looks at the actual temperature data, only from 1880 on, it does not look that much different than Glens plots at least eyeballing it where a smoothed curve would go. Averages for near in years are NOT out of line with historical maximum averages so warming is not apparent either looking at smoothed data or none smoothed data.

  Actual Temperature Averages over the last 72 stations

  Anomaly Temperature Averages over the last 72 stations

  The actual temperature plot does show warming of about one degree between the oldest and latest years on the smoothed data plot but not if one looks at the none smoothed data plot.

  The anomaly plot as usual is not useful as it shows a 2 degree difference between the oldest and latest years on the smoothed line.

  How would the plot have looked on GWS if I could have plotted all the stations on one graph?? Probably it would show a bit of warming but less than one degree on the smoothed plot and none on the actual plot compared to historical highs.

  I would like to understand the small scale differences between Glenn's plot and the ones from GWS but I do not think they make any material difference.

  Dave W

  To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 18 20:18:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 18 2009 - 20:18:31 EST