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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Sat Dec 19 2009 - 10:45:48 EST

Hi Glenn,

How politically contaminated is the data?

From: [] On Behalf Of Glenn Morton []
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 10:26 AM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

Here is another question for Rich not to answer. I get my data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute<,26>.(KNMI) Rich gets his pictures (not data) from sites like and,<UrlBlockedError.aspx> neither of whom are scientific sites. Given the problems Dave pointed out about the anomaly calculation showing rising temperature while the actual temperature is declining, a problem I verified here<>, I decided to look at an individual station to see what is going on. I had the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Insitute calculate the annual average temperature. That is here<>. I want to call attention to the fact that they didn't use the data around 1930 nor did they use the data in the 1890s. There is n!
 ot one single year in the 1890s that have a complete record. Note that the range of the data is from -4 to about -9 deg.

Now let's look at the data from Rich's site, the non-governmental site. That picture is here<>. Note that this non-governmental site, presumably run by a hobbyist, has data in the 1890s, where all the years have missing data and the averages therefore can't be correct. Note also the -11 degrees in 1931. I have no idea where that comes from as I can't get the KNMI data to give that kind of number and neither does the KNMI when they calculate annual temperature.

Rich, as I have mentioned several times, it is dangerous to use pablum data which someone else provides in pablumized form when they don't tell you precisely what they are doing. That is why I decided about a year and a half ago I was not using any of the sites to build my charts. I decided to download the data and make my own charts. At least then if I make a mistake, like I did with labeling the years in that plot the other day, it is my mistake and I can more easily find it.

The other day you used this program or one like it to proclaim that your graph didn't look like mine. It also doesn't look like your program looks like the data from the Netherlands Meteorological Institute either. Care to explain?

I am still curious about your answers to my questions which you keep avoiding.

1. How do you correct the temperature record on a daily basis for the nearby air conditioner? (I will add now, an auxilliary question: Do you think it is OK to try to measure daily temperature with a thermometer next to an 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 yet it has the same CO2 content in the atmosphere above it?

5. 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 you?

6 (now added) Why does your nongovernmental site use years with only part of the data there for yearly averages?

Rich, you should dig deeper into your your data than you do. That is what it actually means to be 'engaged' with the data--something you claim but seem to show no evidence of.

Now honesty demands that I acknowledge a curiosity in the data I have from KNMI and the annual average plot. In the late 1920s there are months with missing data, but 1930 on seems to have a full complement of 12 monthly averages for each year. Since this place only gives out the monthly data, that is all I can deal with. But they throw out years around 1930 from their annual average temperature. I suspect that they have the full daily temperature and if a year is missing too many days or too many of a particular distribution of days, their program is set to refuse to calculate an annual temperature. Does this invalidate the monthly temperature in those years? Partly but if one has 15 days of temperature, say in July, its average is not going to be terribly off so that number probably is representative but not entirely accurate. It is better to have that partial month as an average than miss the entire month which stilts the yearly average. That is the only explanatio!
 n I can come up with to explain the plot discrepancy with the data I downloaded.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 19 10:46:44 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 19 2009 - 10:46:44 EST