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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 17:20:32 EST

Randy wrote:

>>>> I thought you were saying that you didn't trust the global warming
>>>> trend
data because you didn't see the same trends in your US data.<<<

You are right that that is ONE of the thousands of reasons I doubt what the
climatologists are saying. I am not only challenging the interpretation but
the validity of the data itself (see down at the bottom).

You must read my criticisms and Rich's non-replies (sorry, couldn't help it
since he is not answering simple quesitons).

Another reason I distrust what is going on is that 69% of the US stations
are next to heat sources like building, hot cement and air conditioners.
This also happens internationally.

I bet you would be amazed at how many global warming advocates refuse to
answer a very simple question. Let's try it out on you. Lets see if you
will answer. NOAA's siting recommedatinos say:

"Sensors located at
least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as
buildings, concrete
surfaces, and parking lots."
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
p. 6

Surely we can agree that the climatological stations in the links below
are not 100 meters away from buildings, hot cement, or air conditioners.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sy6cJj9rlhI/AAAAAAAABAw/2qwp4IezbwE/s1600-h/WeatherWilbur_temp_closeup_airconditioner.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Syr5wrjtuzI/AAAAAAAAA8o/FB0KHqHY0GQ/s1600-h/weatherGABainbridge_IP_to_North.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Syrsb4bDuPI/AAAAAAAAA7o/LYH-K6KGvV4/s1600-h/weatherCOJohnMartinReservoirThermometerAirconditioner.jpg

I have lots and lots and lots more of those examples of violations of the
siting recommendations. Indeed, surveys find that 69% of the stations are
near heat sources. But few global warming advocates will condemn such
practices.

So, here is the question Rich and global warming advocates in general will
never answer. Do you think it is good scientific procedure to violate the
siting recommendations and put a heat source just feet away from the
thermometers?

Do you Randy?

Another reason I distrust what they say is that with each running of the
numbers they change station histories. I will attach another of the series
of comparisions I have run this one comparing the temperature anomaly
history given by IPCC Second Assessment Report with what is now on the NOAA
site. Each source presents its own historical temperature record. Shoot
none of the charts are identical, with each year, they produce new charts
that disagree with what they presented as THE history of the climate last
time. But each history changes.

There is no way you can understand this other than to actually take the time
to compare the charts. I did it this morning for AR3 to AR4, and now for
AR3 to NOAA. Load up this picture, put your browser on 75% zoom and then
follow along.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/Sy6Y-uqNgwI/AAAAAAAABAo/p-EPwro3IAo/s1600-h/weatherGlobalTempanomalycomparisonIPCCwithNOAA.jpg

The two pictures use two different basis years, the upper uses 1961-1990 but
the lower uses 1901-2000 for the anomaly calculation. It should only shift
the data up or down, so I can't, in this comparison use absolute values of
number, only relative numbers. What you will see is that these two
temperature histories, one from the IPCC and the other from NOAA do not show
the same history--history has changed (or as I prefer to say, they don' know
what the H happened in the past).

With the red arrow there is a different slope to the cooling between IPCC
and NOAA.

In the IPCC report the coldest period was 1890, NOAA says it was 1910. For
Rich, which was it, 1890 or 1910? Please answer this Rich.

The green arrow in the lower graph marks 1918 cooling in the above. Below
their smoothing takes it out, but the IPCC puts it in. But I want you to
notice the relative pattern of the years 1917-1919. 1917 is medium 1918 is
coldest and 1919 is warmest.

Now go back to the graph they produced in 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/1998/ann/j-dlo_pg.gif

History has changed 1917 is warmest, 1918 is still coldest but 1919 is now
medium.

The climatologists don't know what the temperature record is. Rich pointed
us to a site that gives different values than GISS does. I know what
happened, the two sources are using two different versions of the GHCN
record. Some of the temperature differences were as much as 4 degrees for
the same year from the two sources.

Another reason I dont trust the data is because there ARE seasonal effects
on the data. Global warming advocates rarely want to comment on this either

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

Or this semi-annual temperature swing
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SrreKvhuRLI/AAAAAAAAAnY/VXY4PfH9VpA/s1600-h/weatherMNMontevideoMilan180dave2000-2008.jpg

Note that we don't have the ability to measure the temperature to within a
degree of accuracy even if we average 105 years worth of daily temperature
differences. And note the seasonal effect which is neither constant in
amplitude nor frequency. One can't build easily a model with which to
correct this.

If you want other reasons, then read the rest of my posts. I guess it
really depends on how much you personally care about seeing the other side
whether you will do it or not.

One comment about John Wally's remark about the science by name-calling that
is occasionally engaged in. John said to Rich that Rich was engaging in a:

>>>"If I start losing the argument I will just change the focus to Glenn and
>>>point out what a meanie and bully he is and that I am winning the
>>>popularity contest, and all that absolves me from really having to engage
>>>the data after all if I get my bluff called" which you did. <<
approach

I know I am a tough SOB where it comes to logic and data. Some might say I
am a bully. So, if anyone needs me to acknowledge that I will gladly do it.
I am a take no prisoners kind of guy but will admit that my argumentation on
the net is not how I do it in person. That being said, I am proud of being
one who actually analyzes data as closely as I do and I am proud that I
demand sound logic from the other parties as I would hope they would require
it of me. If that makes me unpopular, I am most assuredly comfortable with
that. It has been a long long time since I gave up the childish view that I
must be liked by others. Being brutally honest with the data is the way to
make a fortune. Ignoring the train coming down the tracks is a way to get
run over or lose one's shirt. (anyone considered the effects of the removal
of IRS tax bracket indexing on the tax rate you will pay when you start
living off your IRA?--the train is coming. but the sheeple people are being
told hang in there you will have a lower tax rate when you retire)

And of the popularity argument, I think it was Mark Twain who said that if
popularity counts, Buddhism is right.

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 17:21:15 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 17:21:15 EST