[asa] Re: global warming

On 6/9/08, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> 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.

This is my reply to that post.

> > My first question to Glenn was:
> >
> > 1. Do you think the IPCC scientists were unaware of the data
> > collection problems?
>
Glenn replied:

> 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.
>
Burgy again. I take Glenn's response to be that he thinks the IPCC
scientists overlooked how the raw data was collected.

Not being a climate scientist, nor privy to how the IPCC scientists
worked, Ther is little I can respond to. Glenn may be right. But if he
is, why is nobody in the climate scientist community pointing this
stuff out?

To accept Glenn's argument here means I must also judge the IPCC
scientists negligent. To accept the IPCC report I do not have to
reject Glenn's observations, but I do have to think they have been
adequately addressed by the IPCC.

>My question #2 was "Do you think that a "quick" change in CO2 content (as we are now experiencing) can fairly be compared to one extending over millenia?"
>
Glenn responded:

> 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.

Burgy again. I think my response here is much the same as #1. Did the
IPCC take int account feedback loops? Or not? Without expertise in
climate science, I don't have the tools to address this question.

Finally, I commnented:, "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 ."

 Glenn responded:

"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.

Again, I have no intention of getting a Ph-D in climate science.
Whether or not the above is pertinent I have no idea. Assuming they
are. where are the sceintific peer-reviewed papers that address the
subject? I am told they do not exist. That says, to me, that either
they are NOT pertinent OR that those points have been addressed by the
IPCC or other climate scientists.
>
Glenn again:

> 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.

Do you have a citation?

Glenn again:> Secondly, please explain why my plot on post glacial
deuterium temperatures isn't credible,

I assume it is factual and, as such, credible. Whether or not it is
pertinent I have no idea. If it has not been addressed by the IPCC, it
should be. But not by me.

Cheers

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 17:39:32 2008