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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 10:31:47 EST

On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Glenn Morton wrote:

>
> >
> >
> > 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.

Before I start it should be noted that appinsys.com/GlobalWarming is a skeptic site. Thanks Glenn for calling it is not a scientific site. I agree. :-) Unlike Glenn just because a site concludes something different from me I don't immediately dismiss it as having no value. I have found nothing wrong with their grapher. They use the official data and they do the calculations correctly. I would be greatly gratified if Glenn used the appinsys grapher there to make his points. How the calculation is done is utterly transparent and is buried in the URL. As it stands right now all Glenn's graphs could just be made up because there is zero transparency. Now on to why the GISS varies from the previous graphs and why the GISS graphs are the right answer.

Glenn I deliberately compared the anomaly against the temperature graph to show that the web site was using the official government data AND to show that the site computed anomalies correctly. Thanks for verifying that the anomaly calculation was correct. The divergences are due to time of year bias you discussed on your web site. (Click on the text file at the bottom of the GISS station page and you will see missing months). Fortunately, appinsys has an option that allows us to drop any year that has incomplete data.

Here's the raw temperature graph for Salehard with the default settings (compute averages if having 9 months or more of data). Those wily skeptics showing non-existent cooling in 1905! :-)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900110AR22223330000x

Dropping all years without 12 months of data:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020081200110AS22223330000x

Wah? Zooming in:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100MJanDecI190019100900110AR22223330000x

Now we know why the divergence existed. This illustrates the difference between addressing the data scientifically rather than ideologically. What's ironic was I was defending a skeptic site over and against the GISS data. Because I used a skeptic site graph to show AGW Glenn ASSUMED it must be wrong. If the GISS data was really bad he would have said "why did GISS remove the cooling in 1905?". The problem is the divergence went against his ASSUMED position and he picked the one that backed his position.

What we learned today is that the same raw data can produce different results based on how you compute the average. For either of our work since we are not the experts if we see a divergence with the "pros" then our first thought shouldn't be there is some great conspiracy but rather maybe we made a mistake. In this case we had a sign flip from warming to cooling based on how the averaging was done. So, when you say but my data showed cooling in Siberia you may have it so wrong that the sign is bad. This is particularly the case since you have used a known bad way of averaging.

Combining all that we have learned here is the graph for high latitudes dropping any non-full-year averages. Here's the anomalies of the high latitude stations dropping any non-full-year measurements. Note the common trend for all the stations. This is how homogenization works. If you have gaps you can use the anomalies of nearby stations to fill in the gaps. We can see that the stations have fairly widely spaced absolute temperatures but have common trends in their anomalies.

http://tinyurl.com/ybyk9au

Averaging to best see the common trend:

http://tinyurl.com/ydf4gan

As many undoubtably noticed Glenn's intransigence has forced me to do the analysis many different ways with different station groupings and different averages, adopting the GISS graphs etc. But, somehow, just somehow, we always get the same basic answer: there exists greater warming at high latitudes than globally. The same kind of thing occurs in the greater climatology community. Four different organizations using slightly different techniques get the same answer. Not peak for peak like Glenn wants but that just shows there isn't fraud. Also, Glenn provided but I hadn't had the chance to comment another bit of confirmation of AGW. The computer models predict little to no warming in the Antarctic and Glenn provided a graph to show that. Thanks. Add in the lower-troposphere trend being roughly the same as surface trend as predicted (the same for the mid-troposphere) and a cooling stratosphere and we can all see why 95% of climatologists believe AGW is real. I would like to thank Glenn for being so bull-headed this as it allowed me to look at the data and I can see now that the professionals handled it very, very well.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

P.S. Glenn you are misinterpreting the silence. I have received many thank you e-mails from people that say I am making good arguments but don't want to respond publicly and incur your wrath. Perhaps I should accede to their wise counsel, applying the following Scripture: Prov. 26:5. I'm pretty much done here but if no one responds to you from now on you need to understand we are under no obligation to respond to your rants (nor are you under any obligation to respond to mine).

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 10:32:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 10:32:38 EST