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

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 23:28:39 EST

Both you and Randy are absolutely right. I apologize to the group and Glenn.


On Dec 20, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Iain Wilson wrote:

> 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.
> iain
> ____
> Sent from Nokia E75
> 08114901406
> -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 withdrawn my note.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
> source.
> 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
> impressed.
>> 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
> warming?
>>>> 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
> is
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 23:29:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 23:29:19 EST