[asa] Fwd: global warming

Glenn gave me permission to forwad his reply to me to the list. Alas,
he has again unsubscribed from the ASA list. He does hang out these
days on TheologyWeb, BTW.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Jun 9, 2008 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: global warming
To: j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>

Burgy, I will respond to you because it is you, but if you want it on
the list you will have to post it. I am not on the list.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: j burg [mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:08 PM
> To: Glenn Morton

> I understand your argument against GW to be that you have looked at
> the raw data and determined that at least some of it is bogus --
> meaning poorly collected.
>
> Your second argument concerns past histories of high CO2 content.
>
> You also argue not to "follow the herd," for they may be wrong.
>
> My question to you are these:
>
> 1. Do you think the IPCC scientists were unaware of the data
> collection problems?

I don't know. I do know that many of these stations don't fit the
guidelines set out by the government. I would presume that they have
to know it but rationalize that they can correct for it. But with
thermometers next to airconditioning exhausts, where no records are
kept of when the airconditioning is turned on, I suspect it is
impossible to correct for.

Secondly, James Hansen in a paper says he corrects .3 deg for the
urban heat island effect in his data, but, if you look at studies of
the urban heat island effect it is anywhere from 2 to 5 deg C and it
is so variable that when plotted against the time of day it looks like
a scattergram.

Here is the 8 deg figure
"Urban areas can be up to 8 degrees warmer than surrounding suburban
or natural landscapes. This urban heat island affects not only the
amount of energy a city needs to keep its residents cool and
comfortable, but it also appears to influence where and how much it
rains in the vicinity."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17489

Here is a picture of the heat island over time--it depends moment by
moment on how much sun, clouds and wind are blowing.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherUrbanHeatIsland.jpg

"The GISS urban adjustment, as summarized in Plate 2, yields an urban
correction averaged over the United States of about -0.15[deg]C over
100 years, compared with a USHCN urban adjustment of -0.06 [deg]C.
When only urban stations are
adjusted the impact of our adjustment is about -0.1 [deg]C on either
the USHCN stations (Plate 2j) or on the GHCN
stations (Plate 2k) in the United States. When both urban and
periurban stations are adjusted, the impact is about -0.15 [deg]C."

"The magnitude of the adjustment at the urban and periurban stations
themselves, rather than the impact of
these adjustments on the total data set, is shown in Plate 2l. The
adjustment is about -0.3°C at the urban stations and -0.1°C at the
periurban stations. In both cases these refer to the changes over 100
years that are determined by adjusting to neighboring "unlit"
stations." J. Hansen et al, "A Closer Look at United States and Global
Surface Temperatures," J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963 available
at h tt p: // pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf p 6

Which -0.3 degree C correction is an order of magnitude LESS than what
Nasa and other studies say the Urban Heat Island is. And since Hanson
is the leading guy in climate change, I find this atrocious science
because it makes the cities and therefore the world appearing hotter
than they actually are.

>
> 2. Do you think that a "quick" change in CO2 content (as we are now
> experiencing) can fairly be compared to one extending over millenia?

There are feed back loops which people don't take into account. Hotter
air, holds more water. Hotter seas gives off more water, but high in
the atmosphere, the water will cool and should form more cloud cover
to reduce the insolation hitting the earth.

>
> 3. On tectonics plate theory, the "herd" was wrong. OTOH, the "herd"
> is more often right than wrong. We all depend on this every day. Let
> me suggest that MAYBE you are right, the "herd" is wrong and Rush
> Limbaugh is right. What are the odds? Let's say they are 50-50 (most
> would say they are 1-99.

Let's forget the public figures. I pointed you to a picture of the
deuterium temperature record from Vostok ice core which I personally
downloaded and plotted.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherVostokPostglacialTemp.jpg
 You can easily repeat my download and plot. The fact is that the
earth was hotter than today prior to 3200 years ago all the way back
to 10,800 years or so. This is fact. Who cares what the herd thinks
after facts have been established. If it isn't to be fact, then one
needs to explain how in a colder world back then, more heavy water was
evaporated from the colder oceans--that is ass-backwards physics.

I also showed you plots of CO2 throughout the Phanerozoic which don't
correlate at all with the O18 record. Why no mention of that
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherPhanerozoicTempCO2.jpg

Do you think we can get a good daily temperature from a thermometer on
top of asphalt? If so, please explain why.

> Now I will tell you the single counter-GW argument I find credible,
> since I assume the IPCC has done its work in a satisfactory manner
> (please advise me if you know differently). The scientist Freeman
> Dyson has also spoken against the GW idea. His rationale is that he
> disbelieves that computer models can possibly encompass all the multi
> variables that go into the analysis. There is a web site, easily
> googled, in which he discusses this, if you are interested. Having
> worked with computer models in forecasting the future, some of what he
> says resonates with my experiences. Small tweaks at the front often
> cause wild swings at the end. I hope Freeman is right. I don't want to
> bet on him though.
>

There was a petition given to the UN conference on climate in which
many scientist some of whom have fought young earth creationism for
years, said we should just adapt to climate change. These guys are not
right wingers.

Secondly, please explain why my plot on post glacial deuterium
temperatures isn't credible, since the only credible one you mention
is an argument from authority, resting upon Freeman Dyson? If mine
isn't credible, why isn't it credible?

You can chose to post or not my reply, but I would like some answers
to those questions.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 11:54:44 2008