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

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 13:17:41 EST

Rich how you change history. Earlier when I said using such sites as appinsys could be problematical, you told me how ignorant I was.

I had written:
>>I get my data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.(KNMI) Rich gets his pictures (not data) from sites like and, neither of whom are scientific sites. <<<

 This is what you said Dec 19th at 12:43 pm.

"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."

Nowhere in that post did you say you doubted the validity or the scientific accuracy of appinsys. You defended it as mere plotting software. But hold on, gang, now that it has been shown that that site gives bad data, Rich changes history and marches now to a different drum saying

>Before I start it should be noted that is a skeptic site. >Thanks Glenn for calling it is not a scientific site. I agree. :-)

But as far back as Dec 17th you were using this site for data acting as if it was good data. from your 11:34 pm post from that day. Not a hint that you thought this site was crap. If you bleieved that, why did you seek out crap data? I will say this very bluntly. If you knowingly are using crap data to support your case, then the implications of that are really really bad. And use that site you did. Do you intentionally use known bad data to support your case? Don't get all ruffled, you just said today that you knew it was a nonscientific site.

Here's the same kind of analysis with wider endpoints using the same web site Eschenbach used for part of his Darwin Airport analysis. Note how your choice of endpoints (particularly 1991!) hides the warming trend.<<<<

So, Rich above admits to using unscientific sites for getting his data, and furthermore, he defended it merely YESTERDAY and told me how ignorant I was to make such an argument as I did.

Rich, I don't use skeptic or acceptor sites for my data. I know darn good and well that sometimes one's friends can be your worst enemy. I don't trust period. I look at data and decide what it says, I don't care what someone who agrees with me or who disagrees with me says. I only care about the data.

But the shameless changing of history in our debate is very very sad, Rich and frankly unbecoming. If you thought it was bad why did you say it was only a plotting software but now you claim that you always viewed it as a unscientific site? Your words condemn you either way. But before you try to change history, you should be aware that our words are all here for all to see.

I will tell you what has happened. You are seeing two different versions of the GHCN data. It changes with each year when they redo all the corrections. Anthony Watts posted a picture which I downloaded from there but someone else made. It shows two pictures showing how temperature history has changed (which seems to be a skill set of global warming advocates) between the 1998 and 2008 versions of the GISS data set. It is in an animated gif.

Watch history change. But if you don't like that, then compare how the history changes from the IPCC Assessment Report 3 to IPCC Assessment Report 4. The thermal history of our planet, meaning the temperature in 1880 changed from 2001 to 2004. And they say that the present can't affect the past!

Let's look at this graph. the sources of the pictures are in the picture so if any one wants to go check the validity of these pics they are quite welcome to.

But remember these are GLOBAL average temperature, and the climatologists are whipping past temperatures around like bulls toss china in a china shop. And remember both pictures are anomalies with respect to 1961-1990, so there is no change in the base for the calculation (which is a wonderful trick for the climatologists to pull--change the basis so you can't do a proper comparision but here they didn't)

Let's start with the light blue arrow and work from past to the present. The peak in teh AR4 report is about 1870, no earlier than 1869, but it is about 1865 in the lower report. The gray arrow shows a tempearture of -1.5 in AR4 but -.2 in AR3. A warm front must have passed through the CRU between 2001 and 2004 and changed the temperature in 1880.

About 1887, the AR3 report of 2001 shows a deep trough with no upward inflection. The tempertuer in that trough is -.5 C from the 1961-1990 average. But WOAH, look above, in AR4 the global temperature average has changed by 3/10ths of a degree--Somewhere Rich, even you have to admit that some station was given a different value of temperatures between 2001 and 2004. One can't change the average without changing the input!!! (I think you will admit this, but you admit so little and so few problems for your position, that I do have some doubt that you will be honest enough to admit that one can't change the average without changing the input somewhere).

On we go showing Rich how to engage with the data. These two reports have been out fro 8 and 5 years respectively and Rich has yet to do this kind of analysis. No skepticism at all. He has just blind faith that no climatologist would alter the data.

The olive green arrow around 1910 has about a -.4 C anomaly in AR3 but a -5 in AR4. Once again, a cold front came though the CRU in 2003 and changed the temperature in 1910. I think the physicists need to talk to the climatologists about what is really wrong with General Relativity. The climatologists certainly have figured out how to send information into the past.

The bright green arrow shows a spot of cooling in 1917 in AR3 but--gone in AR4. Must have been a piece of undigested cheese.

The black arrow shows the anomaly (1961-1990) in 1940 to be about zero in AR3 but above zero in AR4.

And about the time that this skeptic was born, the orange highlights that the first years of my life saw a cooling in AR3 but a warming in AR4. No wonder I am so conflicted.

Yes Rich, changing history is a grand thing. It helps one escape from silly things one said in the past, like yesterday noon when you defended appinsys. But of course, everyone has probably forgotten that you said that yesterday so it is safe to say you always thought it was a pile of crap over there.

>>>>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.<<<

Rich Rich Rich, you seem not to understand skepticism. I assume everyone is wrong. If you recall yesterday when Dave, who generally has an open mind about problems climatological and might be called a mild skeptic said your site was doing certain things, I checked up on what dave said. Just because I think someone agrees with me doesn't mean I trust their conclusions unless the data supports it.

Your comment shows that you approach this issue as a political, not scientific issue. Only politicians care about what their supporters say. Scientists only care about the data.

Rich further wrote:

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.<<<<

Most people learn the lesson in your first sentence above in Freshman lab. I didn't learn that lesson today, maybe you did. Secondly, I don't have faith in pro's like you do. Your approach plays right into the hands of the YECs who complain that people treat scientists like priests whose every word is to be believed. That makes you a sheeple people in my view. Scientists are to be challenged, and if they can't stand the heat they should stop doing science (or claiming that they are doing science).

Rich any Senior in physics should be able to answer the questions I am about to ask you. I doubt you actually will.

1.If the global average (of thousands of individual stations) can change by .3 deg C by different methodologies, what is the intrinsic error bar in the methodologies? What percentage of the proclaimed global warming is that error bar?

2. if a global cooling trend can become global warming trend for 3 years in the early 1950s, how would you find the lower limit of believability in the stated values of the trend.?

3. Do you think professionals never make any errors and thus are not to be questioned?

Before I start it should be noted that 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.

Rich wrote:
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. <<<<

Yeah Rich, I am the only guy who is intrasigent. I am also the only one who seems to notice the details that you slop over, like trying to compare anomaly graphs to temperature graphs as you sent out to us all yesterday.

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).<<<

And so have I received many of the similar things. I don't pay too much attention to them. I would say to those on your side, if you think his arguments are so good, come out of the wood work a defend them. Don't be cowards.

For you, Rich and all those who are not out here debating please answer the growing list of questions you seem to ignore. Note the addition of question 7 and 8. I have modified the list with links to pictures so one and all can see what Rich isn't answering.

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? Gosh Rich, this last question ought to be easy to answer. see

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?(apparently it does now because Rich now says it is an unscientific place)

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

7. Do you believe professionals are never to be challenged but only believed?

8. Please explain how the thermal history of the world changed from 2001 to 2004 from the publication of AR3 to AR4?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 13:18:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 13:18:12 EST