Re: Why Skeptics Don't See What Climatologists See was Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 20:32:42 EST

I love what you did Rich, you cherry picked 5 stations to show the temperature data. And then you conclude

>>>All the sites agree with each other for their anomalies but look nothing like any of Glenn's graphs

Of course it doesn't look like my graphs. You cherry picked a few stations, and you used a problematic program. I used 51 in my study the other night and 88 tonight. You have gone from citing 19 stations to citing 5 stations. And this doesn't even mention the fact that two of your plots are anomaly plots, which both Dave and I have shown has a problem in this program.

Are you seriously saying that the temperature anomaly can rise while at the same time the actual temperature drops and we should be happy that it is all showing global warming?

Rich you have not answered the questions.

1. How do you correct the temperature record on a daily basis for the nearby air conditioner?
2. How do you explain the fact that with each successive year, the climatologists have input more heat to the record, implying that with each successive year something is cooling the thermometers forcing the climatologists to raise the observed values? Please tell me what is cooling the thermometers requiring the increasing correction upwards of the temperature record?
3. Of Siberia, I downloaded governmental data from a governmental site and plotted it showing that Siberia is cooling. You attempt to escape this by using a non-governmental site with a problematic program. Care to explain why you are now having to get your data from a questionable source that does God only knows what to the data?
4. Please explan why Amundsen Scott South Pole station shows no warming?

5. This morning I asked why you thought that an anomaly chart would show warming if the raw temperature data showed cooling? You haven't answered that. Indeed, you have doubled down showing data from sources that have global warming in the anomaly but cooling in the absolute temperature. Doesn't this bother your?

You keep NOT responding to these very important criticisms of your work. Why? Do you have no answers?

Your explanation below for why anomalies should show warming while the absolute temperature of the earth cools is so laughable that I can hardly contain myself. Rich, do you actually listen to what you are saying? You seem to be saying that the temperature of Siberia can drop in absolute value but that is actually global warming!!!! I don't know, but that sounds a wee bit strange to me.

  The following is the plot of the RAW data for

  1. Asian Russian Federation GHCN sites
  2. With data before 1912.
  3. Greater Than 65 degrees latitude

  All the sites agree with each other for their anomalies but look nothing like any of Glenn's graphs and there is plenty of data before both 1912 and 1897. By the end of this post we should all know why this is the case. (Note: no conspiracies are required on either side) First let's look at the anomalies individually. Remember these are all raw, no homogenization has been done.

  Here's the average so the trend is more evident. This is the average of the anomalies which almost identical to any of the individual anomalies. AGW is evident.

  Here's the same set of stations just looking at the temperatures:
  And the average of these temperatures:

  Shazam! No AGW! If you change the scale on the left hand side you get anomalies of the average. Note the static bias between the stations when you do the anomalies of the average technique. Glenn has done an excellent job of documenting static bias in surface stations on this list. But everytime he did it I yawned. Why? Because while these stations may have lousy static bias we see that we have good time-dependent bias. If you are studying microclimate then you care about static bias but if you are studying global climate change decreasing time-dependent bias is all you care about. By the way, that's exactly what homogenization does. It trades off static bias in order to get less time-dependent bias. Pielke Sr.'s paper is titled: "Microclimate exposures of surface-based stations." So, he cares about air conditioners. The first line of Peterson's paper is: "Analysis of a small subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network does not find a time-dependent bias caused by current poor station siting." So, he doesn't care so much about air conditioners.

  So, given the state of the equipment how do you glean the best and most accurate way to determine if there is AGW? You use the anomaly method and more specifically you compute an anomaly for each station and then do an areal average (common practice: weighted 5x5 grids) of these anomalies. Again, average of the anomalies and not anomalies of the average. You correct for the kind of bias that the analysis is sensitive to. Glenn's analysis is sensitive to static bias and thus has a cow when he sees air conditioners or techniques that increase static bias. The anomaly method is sensitive to time-dependent bias and people who do that yawn when they see (old) air conditioners and cheer when more static bias is traded off for less time-dependent bias.

  For climatologists this is really basic stuff. This is why the skeptics need to be peer-reviewed by climatologists because the very basic error that Glenn makes would get caught right there. He could then go back and recompute the climate change correctly -- and this includes any measured quantity and time frame, not just temperature and the present day -- and then see if his conclusions are still warranted. See here for more background.

  I'll close with a quote from this page in case NOAA's explanation is clearer than mine:

  Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?
  Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a regionís average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

  Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

  For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 18 20:33:01 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 18 2009 - 20:33:01 EST