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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sat Dec 19 2009 - 15:14:53 EST

Replies for Rich and Moorad and Dave Wallace way at the bottom. Moorad, this post should answer your question about the state of the data and the inability of even climate advocates to repeat their own calculations. Of course, Rich will shamelessly march on, claiming that i have no credibility. isn't that right? And what was it that Michael Roberts called me? Oh yeah, bloody-minded. I am just bloody minded enough to actually look at the data, which apparently scientists are no longer supposed to do, Right Michael?

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Blinne
> To: Glenn Morton ; Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 12:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>
> Here is another question for Rich not to answer. I get my data from the
> Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.(KNMI) Rich gets his pictures
> (not data) from sites like tinyurl.com and www.appinsys.com, neither of whom
> are scientific sites.
>
>
> Tinyurl is a URL shortening service to keep the URL length short for my
> postings. To even make this argument betrays your ignorance. Appinsys is
> just plotting software that plots the raw data downloaded from the GHCN data
> set. For individual stations the anomaly is just a constant offset from the
> temperature. Let's look at some of the stations I looked and see if
> appinsys anomaly matches the GISS records of the GHCN raw data and thus
> correctly calculates the anomaly.

Rich, I try to stay ignorant about plotting sites that can't get it right, that produce averages for years with partial data and all that sort of thing. So, thank you for making me proud. Of such things one should stay far far away.

>
>
> Malye Karmaku.
>
>
> Apinsys anomaly:
>
>
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI188020080900110AS22220744000x
>
>
> GISS record:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222207440000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
>
>
>

What a laugh, Rich, you sent a GISS temperature graph, which you claimed earlier to me was what deniers always sent, but to the best of my knowledge GISS is not into climate change denial. And then even more oddly, you are comparing it to an anomaly graph. Sloppy, Rich, very sloppy. But I will go with the flow and lets look at the different temperature patterns between your plotting place and the GISS

I stretched the two graphs to be approximately the same horizontal scale. Then I started looking at the differences between these two sources. Download this picture and look at it as you read this email.

Even though one is an anomaly plot and the other is a temperature plot (sloppy, Rich), One would expect that when a year is hot in one form it will be hot in the other. There is occasionally as much as a degree worth of relative difference between the anomaly warming and the temperature warming. Notice the rightmost point in the little circle around 1940 in the upper graph from GISS. It says the temperature in that year was only half a degree cooler than the temperature in the previous year. Inside that little red circle are three years clustering around -3 deg C.

 Now look down below, there are only two points in the corresponding red circle in Rich's wonderful, magnificent Plotting site of which I am ignorant and wish to remain ignorant because of the following. Look where the third dot has gone--Green circle. In the plot from your magnificent plotting company, that dot is now more than a degree and a half cooler than the previous year. Rich, what was the temperature that year? The REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS TEMPERATURE? Which is it, Rich, the upper GISS value or the lower magnificent plotting company.

Rich, Serious question. Do you actually LOOK at the data you send out and think about it BEFORE you send it out?

I am adding the temperature question to the list of still unanswered questions by you. #7. Why is there such a big difference between the two years on those graphs? Please explain. Of course, I and I am sure that others as well are getting used to your lack of explanations, but bluffing an puffing about how anyone who doubts global warming and climate change AS CURRENTLY practices, is not to be listened to. I have watched you bully people on this list and elsewhere about climate change. Now it is your time to put up or shut up. DEAL with the data. Why is that year so different.

Another question. If two AGW advocate sites can produce a more than a degreee difference in the temperatures between two years, what do you think the noise level is in the data? I mean what kind of standard deviation would you say is there? I would say that if one is moving temperatures around by as much as a degree, that implicitly there is at least a degree of error in the data. And guess what, the climatologists say 100 years worth of warming is less than a degree.

I have arrowed other differences between Rich's two wonderful graphs. I have no doubt that others can find even more errors. Rich, please send me more pictures before you think about them so I can feast on the errors you send me.
.

>
> See the station number match in the two URLs? Again, here's further evidence
> I have clean hands. I do not produce my own graphs. Lord knows what kind of
> manipulation/mistakes (such as you getting the years wrong once) you made.
> Until you actually post the spreadsheets it's your graphs which are suspect
> because to use your logic what kind of scientific site is blogspot.com?
>
>
> Let's keep going:
>
>
> Dudinka
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI188020080900110AS22223074000x
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222230740000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
>

Ok, this is fun Rich. Clearly you are not thinking about what you are doing. If I have time today I will do all these pictures.

Load up this picture so we can discuss it

Note that the Grand magnificent plotting company in the lower has a dot inside the green circle. GISS doesn't have it. Note the pattern in the red circle There appears to be a degrees worth of relative difference in temperature measurment between these two years. ANd the same seems to be the case in the brown circle.

NEXT!!!! Onward to more fun and games teaching someone how to actuall OBSERVE data.

>
> Salehard
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI188020080900110AS22223330000x
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222233300002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
>
>
>

Ok Rich, Load up THIS PICTURE for Salehard. Note that your favorite play thing gives 2 low points around 1900 GISS gives only 1. What was the correct temperature that year Rich? And there is one low temp year in about 1995 that GISS doesn't show. Note inside the green circle another one of those massive changes in temperature. On the anomaly plot that year is about equal to two years later, but on GISS in the upper plot, it is significantly low to those same two years.

Only two more to go.

>
> Ust'-Cil'ma
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI188020080900110AS22223405000x
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222234050000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Ok Rich, load up this picture GISS gives inside the green circle only half a degree difference between the two years, but your magnificent plotting company gives it 1.7. What temperature CHANGE is correct, Rich? Inside the red circle, sadly the patterns of temperature change are not at all the same. I think someone is making it up as they go along. Yep, that is what I think Rich. How does the temperature change that much from one data source to the other????

Please explain Rich.

>
>
> Turuhansk
>
>
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI188020080900110AS22223472000x
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222234720005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
>

I think you have gotten the hang of how to actually ENGAGE with the data, Rich. I will leave THIS PICTURE as homework for you. I did circle some things as hints to help you on your way to where you too can actually engage with the data.

>
> In order to shorten the very long URL I'll requote from TinyURL all the
> anomalies on one page:
> http://tinyurl.com/yctp4pz
>
>
> Now the average of these anomalies:
> http://tinyurl.com/yghubof
>
>
> As was stated before the correct technique is average of anomalies and not
> anomalies of averages. We see above that appinsys gets it right but you have
> not shown that you have gotten the calculation right yourself. Until you
> actually post your spreadsheets I will not answer any more of your
> questions.
>
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
>
> P.S. Here's the MASSIVE effect of the air conditioners at Ft. Morgan plotted
> against the raw temperatures from other rural areas in the Eastern Plains:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.co
>m/yardo6y

You can't be serious. You are plotting stations thousands of miles apart? How sad, really that you think that is science. Why not do some that are like 20 miles apart. I have posted them here before but look at the yearly patterns. Clearly something is affecting one of those stations in the winter--probably someone left the door to their house open or something.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SrbW89B0ewI/AAAAAAAAAmY/sNpsPeIqb5c/s1600-h/weatherMSBrookhavenCityMonticello1960-66winter.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SmDv0TsPPKI/AAAAAAAAAfo/imnvSmifcaA/s1600-h/WeatherILCarlinvilleHillsboro6monthAve01-87.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Si3KHLJGR4I/AAAAAAAAAYY/oAb1rrCpvC4/s1600-h/WeatherSeymourINColumbusINTempDiff.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SsLAvS0uEeI/AAAAAAAAAp4/CDnNJeqEXVc/s1600-h/WeatherWAWenatcheeminusWatervilleAveDailyTemperature.jpg

Rich, I am beginning to see why you dodged having a debate with me over these issues for so long.

P. S. Rich, send me some more of those pictures I can analyse for you.

dave Wallace wrote:

"If the air conditioners have been running as
far back as we have records then I can see that anomalies probably fix
that issue. However, if the air conditioners get added and run
sporadically (off some weeks on others as ours does) then I suspect that
still causes a problem. "

The problem is that there were very few airconditioners, even in the south before the post war period. A/C was too expensive to run in a home back then. So, they have been added over time and doing anomalies won't fix it because they were not widespread in 1900. THis is something the AGW folks simply won't pay attention to.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 19 15:15:17 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 19 2009 - 15:15:17 EST