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

From: Iain Wilson <>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 23:13:09 EST

Glenn et al,

Now i am becoming annoyed. I enjoy the exchanges & am learning much. But this asinine stabbing @ each other does nothing to add to the discussion. My kids would be getting a sharp word and a time out @ this point. Randy did NOT deserve this email below. Period.
Sent from Nokia E75

-original message-
Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming
From: "Glenn Morton" <>
Date: 21/12/2009 12:50 PM

4th post today replies to Randy and to Rich.

Randy wrote:

> To be honest, Glenn, my eyes are blurry and my head is spinning from
> scanning through the last couple of hundred posts you all put up in the
> last
> week. So forgive me for not answering your question until I get a chance
> to
> think it about further. Yes, after reading through the exchanges between
> you
> and Rich, I understood what you were saying much better and would have
> withdrawn my note. You're questioning both the data and the
> interpretation.
> I really appreciate the way you and Rich are getting into the data, though
> you both use more gratuitous jabs at each other and subjective
> descriptions
> of others than I like. In his post John Walley noted "I know Chuck Colson
> is
> openly derided on the ASA list ..." I hope he isn't correct, I don't know
> when that happened, if it did. But NO ONE should ever be "openly derided"
> on
> this list. Can't we all pay attention and focus on debating ideas WITHOUT
> deriding anyone who might hold to those ideas?
> Now I have to give my eyes and brain a rest.
> Randy

Randy, I am sorry, it is simply not credible that you can't understand what
is being asked. Even with tired eyes and a tired head, it isn't too
difficult to conclude that an air conditioner heat exhaust next to a
thermometer might bias the thermometer. Frankly, I am extremely disappointed
in your response. That one is a real no brainer. Do you think that an air
conditioner heat exchanger will COOL the thermometer as it out puts hot air?
Is that really what you think? Have you ever put your hand into the wind
stream coming out of an air conditioner exhaust? did it feel COOL????? I
doubt it seriously. Was that not clear that this is the hot end of the
airconditioner system, not the cold end? Remember Randy, we have an
obligation as Christians to uphold truth.

But unfortunately from what I had heard about your role in these debates,
that is about what I expected. I have been told that you seem incapable of
criticising anything in the theory of global warming. Scientists should be
able to criticize even what they believe. They should be able to know the
weaknesses of what they believe.

Maybe tomorrow after a nights rest you can comment on whether or not a
thermometer next to an AC heat exchanger might bias the result. Take some
vitamins and it might help your decision making processes. Do you think
that would be too difficult for you? I wouldn't want to tax you too much.

It is truly amazing to me that global warming advocates won't condemn such
sloppy scientific practices. In fact it disgusts me. It seems to put
political beliefs above data and good logic

Rich wrote in the Three of the For hottest years thread:
>>>GISS posted their maps and graphs for the year a couple days ago. The
>>>diagnosis: three of the four hottest years in the instrumental record
>>>happened in the last half decade.

2009 comes in at number 4 missing number 2 by .01 degrees C. All-time record
high November. Map here comparing to number 1 (2005) and number 2 (2007).

Yep air conditioners next to thermometers helps that, especially given that
in 1900 there were no air conditioners out there but in 2009 they were
everywhere. This seems to be too difficult a concept for AGW advocates to
grapple with but it shouldn't be.

Rich wrote in this thread.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Blinne
> To: Glenn Morton ; John Walley ; Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:28 PM
> Subject: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming
> Yes, the god-like climatologists with that specialist capability called
> "reading comprehension". More on that later. First of all why quote TAR
> which came out in 2001 when AR4 came out in 2007? But anyway, let's dive
> in here. Here's the figure that Glenn references:\

Rich if you didn't notice I did quote the fourth report this morning when I
compared it to the third. The thing that you can't seem to understand is
that in order to show that the thermal history of the climate has changed,
one MUST compare older reports with
modern ones. The note to which you are replying is comparing the present
NOAA temperature anomaly with the AR3. If the past history is changed
between them, I know no other way to show that than to cite SOME older

Of course you can't stand to see any criticism of your religion.

> Figure 2.1: (a) Annual anomalies of global average land-surface air
> temperature (oC), 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990 values. Bars and
> solid curve are from CRU (Jones et al., 2001). Values are the simple
> average of the anomalies for the two hemispheres. The smoothed curve was
> created using a 21-point binomial filter giving near decadal averages. (b)
> As (a) but smoothed curves only from NCDC (updated from Peterson and Vose,
> 1997) thin solid curve; GISS (adapted from Hansen et al., 1999) thick
> dashed curve; SHI (updated from Vinnikov et al., 1990) thin dashed curve
> to 1999 only; Peterson and Vose (1997) thin solid curve. Thick solid
> curve as in (a). Two standard error uncertainties are centred on the CRU
> curve and are estimated using an optimum averaging method (Folland et al.,
> 2001) [RDB Note: Folland et al can be found here
>] and include
> uncertainties due to urbanisation but not due to uncertain- ties in
> thermometer exposures. The NCDC curve is the weighted average of the two
> hemispheres according to the area sampled, which accounts for most of the
> differences from the CRU curve.

Wow, Rich, you can copy a caption and link to a figure. I am soooooo

> John, note the different averaging techniques and how it gives a slightly
> different answer with both averages inside the error bars. Now to the
> graph from the technical summary.
> It's caption:
> Figure 2: Combined annual land-surface air and sea surface temperature
> anomalies (C) 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990. Two standard error
> uncertainties are shown as bars on the annual number. [Based on Figure
> 2.7c]

Again you show the amazing ability to copy a caption. I think I provided
my readers with the information that both pictures are anomalies with regard
to 1961-1990. Thanks for verifying this.
> So we go back to the graph referenced by Glenn. Uh, wait a minute!!! Glenn
> referenced Figure 2.1a and the report referenced Figure 2.7c. At least
> Glenn didn't expunge the incriminating evidence in his picture and if he
> was going to refer to Figure 2.1 it should be Figure 2.1b. Glenn
> apparently has trouble reading captions. What's Figure 2.7c?
> Figure 2.7: Smoothed annual anomalies of combined land-surface air and sea
> surface temperatures (C), 1861 to 2000, relative to 1961 to 1990, for (a)
> Northern Hemisphere; (b) Southern Hemisphere; and (c) Globe. The smoothed
> curves were created using a 21-point binomial filter giving near-decadal
> averages. Optimally averaged anomalies (Folland et al., 2001) - solid
> curves; standard area weighted anomalies (adapted from Jones et al.,
> 2001) - dashed curves. Also shown are the unsmoothed optimum averages -
> red bars, and twice their standard errors - width denoted by black "I".
> Note that optimum averages for the Southern Hemisphere are a little warmer
> before 1940, when the data are sparse, than the area-weighted averages.
> However, the two types of averaging give similar resoults [sic] in the
> Northern Hemisphere.
> Figure 2.1a that Glenn referenced is the simple area average from Jones et
> al 2001 and as we see from the caption to Figure 2.7(c) corresponds to the
> dashed curves. It's a match. What about the technical summary graph? It
> matches the optimal average calculation from Folland et al 2001 and the
> solid curve. No history was changed. Just two different ways to make the
> calculation.

Ridiculous Rich, (that may catch on as a moniker), I showed the
differences in the pictures. With circles and arrows. Maybe you can't see
circles and arrows or see that two curves don't match. That is truly sad.
But if two different methodologies say that the history was different, that
IS changing history if one relies on one vs the other. Why shouldn't we
just use what was observed? After all that is what science is all
about--what is observed.

Rich, if no history was changed, please explain why in one picture the
coldest year was 1910 and in the other it was 1890. REAL history requires
that one or the other be coldest (or that they both be equal). But neither
of the two methods show them equal. One shows 1890 as the coldest and the
other shows 1910. Can you not even acknowledge that 1910 is not 1890?

Here is that picture

Someone told me that you had never ever granted a single acknowledgement
that a single criticism of global warming is valid. That is very
interesting to me as it seems to indicate that you think global warming
theory is perfection itself, no improvement is possible. I of course think
all theories have room for improvement and criticism. So, is it your
contention that there is absolutely nothing that can be criticised about
AGW? If that is false, what do you think is criticizable about global

>>>That's how the IPCC process works. <<<

Really? It uses different methods to come up with whatever answer it
prefers? It uses different methods and comes up with different histories?
So how in the H can we say that this is all settled? They don't even know
what the historical temperature was!

Here again is the comparison of NOAA with IPCC 2001 which shows that they
have different histories.

Notice again, my dear Rich that the coldest year in the IPCC is 1890 if that
true, then NOAA's claim to have the coldest temperature in 1910 can't be
true. One or the other of these pictures is wrong. Which one is it and why
do you pick one over the other?

Rich, the error bars are so large that one should not yet have even measured
the global warming of .84 deg C above the noise level. when I compare the
temperatures between two nearby towns, the standard deviation for towns less
than 25 miles apart is usually about 3 degrees F Or approximately 1.5 deg C.

Rich, your email was entirely a red herring. I care less about what the
'evil climatologists' conclude as to the amount of warming than you do. I
care if their methodologies for concluding what they do are sound. You are
anything but a serious
scientist. Why, I might think you are an engineer. But I do admire your
ability to bully people. That is a very useful skill.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 23:15:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 23:15:18 EST