Saturday, May 30, 2009

Clinton Vs Morrison More Bad data

Again we visit Dave's favorite place to get data. Dave thought this site showed that global warming was real. A real look at the data shows how unreal it is.

Today we look at Clinton Iowa and Morrison Illinois, two cities separated by 14 miles and a state line. The first picture shows the daily difference in temperature.

In 1975 the Clinton station moved 1 mile. Note that the noise introduced by the movement of the station by 1 mile is far greater than 100 years worth of global warming. See the green line inside the red around 1970. That green line represents 100 years of warming. The error in the data is 20x greater than 100 years of warming. And we are supposed to believe Global Warming is measurable! We can't even measure a similar temperature 14 miles away

Let us look a little closer at the data. I prepared a histogram of temperature differences for these two towns just 14 miles apart and within 100 feet of the same elevation. How often are the daily temperatures divergent?

You can see that half of the days have greater than a 2 deg F difference in temperature and 10% of the days have greater than 6 degrees. Let's put this in perspective

A suggested set of criteria based on the horizontal temperature gradient has been devised. A weak front is one  where  the  temperature  gradient  is  less  than  10[deg]F per    100    miles;    a    moderate    front    is    where    the temperature gradient is 10 [deg]F to 20 [deg]F per 100 miles; and a strong front is where the gradient is over 20 deg]F per 100 miles.

A strong front is when the temperature gradient is .2 deg F per mile, yet the temperature record says that on 10% of the days the temperature gradient between these two towns is more than twice that due to a strong cold front! Is it conceivable that these two towns experience super strong cold fronts that lie BETWEEN THE TWO TOWNS 10% of the time? That certainly seems ridiculous to believe. It is easier to believe that the thermometers are not working correctly, and if they don't, then neither does the silly global average temperature which is based upon crap data like this.

Now let's take a closer look at the 365-day running average. That is the third picture.

The interesting thing about this is that in general the temperature difference would be one way for years and then it would reverse for years. Given all the examples of this I am finding when I examine the temperature records for closely spaced towns, one would think that there are cold fronts almost constantly between closely spaced towns all over the US. Or could it be that the temperature record is just so bad that no conclusions can be made from it?

Does anyone really believe that a 1-3 deg warm front sat between Morrison and Clinton for the past 43 years? I for one am not that gullible.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Iowans can't measure the temperature

Belle Plaine and Toledo are 18 miles apart with only 30 ft difference in elevation. The daily temperatures vary by as much as 20 degrees, and does so far more often than would be expected by cold fronts being between the cities. The red curve is a 365-day running average of the difference between the average daily temperatures. That curve for decades was over 2 deg F , with Belle Plaine hotter. If this temperature
difference was real, it should have led to decades long thunderstorms and winds. Noted the sudden onset of bad data in about 1964 I thought it might be a station move, but the station record doesn't show it moving then. It stopped again in 1998, although the noise didn't go back to 1950s levels.

The small green line in 1965 is 100 years of global warming. Clearly the noise for one year is greater than that. There is no way we can nudge global warming out of signal this bad.

Here is why. When you make a measurement of anything, and you decide to adjust it for an error, you are saying that the error in the raw measurement is the value of your adjustment. That becomes the error bar. Consider this from a site dedicated to explaining error analysis.

The accuracy of a measurement is how close the measurement is to the true value of the quantity being measured. The accuracy of measurements is often reduced by systematic errors, which are difficult to detect even for experienced research workers.Source

Now that was a statement about linear systematic errors. What we have in the temperature stream is nonlinear systematic error. If you make a 2 deg correction for this period of time, you can't claim that the accuracy of the data is less than 2 degrees. This has profound implications

Over the past century global warming is said to have warmed the world by 1.1 deg F, yet they are making corrections of +/-2 degrees to the data stream. That means then that one can't possibly, say that the world has warmed by 1.1 deg F. Statistically it is lunacy to say that the world has warmed by 1.1 +/- 2 degrees, which means it might have cooled by 1 degree or it might have warmed by 3 degrees. The data doesn't allow us to tell.

Before I make the final comment, I want to let everyone know that the data for the chart above came from Dave's favorite It is a government site.

One final thing, in the comments some have criticized me for using CO2science previously as a source for my yearly data. I compared CO2 science, which is raw with the final edited data for Belle Plaine. You can see below that the differences are minor and thus the criticism is simply that of people stretching to find anything wrong with what I am saying. What am I saying? The data is crap.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Homogeneity--how the fast one is pulled over us

I will take a break from analysing the data at Dave's preferred site to show you the homogeneity filter. This is a filter that tries to make the TREND of presumed bad sites fit the TREND of the presumed good sites. And it is this aspect of the editing process that makes me want to scream. A thermometer even at a bad site ought to have it's trend preserved, because the effects of the bad ought to be constant, or semi constant. Either that or throw the entire station out.

Thomas C. Petersen shows a couple of examples. The first is from the Journal of the American Meteorological Society.

He describes the procedure in a caption beneath a picture. Here is the picture and the caption below it.

“The homogeneity adjustments applied to the stations with poor siting
makes their trend very similar to the trend at the stations with good
LOCATIONS,” American Meteorological Society, Aug, 2006, p. 1078 fig 2

So, in the above picture they take a cooling station the red dashed line, and turn it into a warming station--by magic, we have warmed the world. In the second picture in the AMS article they take a slightly warming station and make it warmer. Caption below the picture

“Again, the homogeneity adjustments applied to the stations
with poor siting make their trend very similar to the trend at the
LOCATIONS,” American Meteorological Society, Aug, 2006, p. 1078 fig 3.

So, we no longer let the data talk we make it say what approved stations say.

In April of this year, Peterson presented a talk to the AMS in San Antonio, a wonderful place for a convention. He presented the homogeneity filter for Reno, Nevada which has some interesting lessons.

The upper chart shows the black, relatively raw data. That shows a 3 degree drop in 1937 or so (black line upper chart. They correct the data by making the temperature warmer from the 1940s through the present. That is the red curve. You can see that they have warmed the measured curve by up to 3 degrees C, which is about 5.4 deg F!.

They chose to keep the 1900-1937 data be the standard. In other words, they implicitly decided that the instruments used between 1900 and 1937 are better than the instruments used from the 1940s on. That does seem like the wrong decision, unless they think the world's technology is getting worse with time.

The other interesting thing is that they added half a degree to 3 deg C to the temperature in the 1990s. What they have decided is that Reno is too cool and it must be made warmer than the thermometers read. Obviously this takes a huge amount of hubris on the part of the editor who implicitly saying that he knows the temperature better than the thermometer does. So the editor raises the temperature, adding heat to the world and worrying those who don't understand these things.

What is the result of all this editorial sleight of hand? A warming of over half a degree for the US.

“The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg]C [per]dec. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. [2001]
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. [2001]
and Karl et al. [1986] note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy [2002] found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated, the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century.”
Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, “Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 10,, p. 1388

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Perry Oklahoma's Cold Cold, Two Months

More data from Dave's preferred site. Dave, as you recall said I shouldn't be using's data, as it was somehow fraudulent. He preferred I use this site. So, I am doing that to please Dave, as I really want to please him. It is, after all, a major goal in my life.

So, tonight lets look at Perry Oklahoma and the two months it spent in the refrigerator. Dave thinks this data is good, but of course, I know better because, unlike him, I have actually spent time comparing station data not only on the yearly basis, but on the monthly and daily basis. Dave prefers daily data so fine, here, from his preferred site which he thinks supports global warming is another lunacy from the raw data base.

Stillwater, Enid and Guthrie have about the same temperature But Perry, about 15 miles from Stillwater, 30 from Enid and Guthrie, was 10 to 25 deg F colder than the other 3 cities, if we are to beleive the temperature record. When one subtracts Enid from Perry, Perry is 10 to 15 deg F colder. The same result happens if you subtract Stillwater from Perry's temperature profile and Guthrie from Perry. This means that if we believe the temperature record, for two months Perry, Oklahoma was 10-25 deg F colder, living in a layer of cold air not experienced by any of the cities surrounding it. That should have caused a 2 month long thunderstorm and winds blowing INTO Perry, but of course, there is no record of that. The raw data is crap and this is the crap upon which we base our belief in global warming. Dave who thinks this is good data, has never actually bothered to examine the data he believes supports his viewpoint. What he doesn't know is that the big secret of the USHCN is how statistically bad the data is.

The red line in the picture is the global warming over the past 100 years but the raw data has as much as 25 degrees F of error. Anyone who deals with signal to noise issues will clearly see that there is no way such a small signal can be brought out of the noise of this partly raw dataset.

I will continue the analysis of Dave's favorite spot for climatological information, but I think tomorrow I must post on the homogeneity filter to satisfy hagiograph. Ok Hagiograh, do you think there is 25 deg difference between Perry and the 3 nearest towns which lasted for 2 months?

I would point out that I grew up in a small town just SW of Stillwater and have been to all the towns in this post. There are no mountains that could explain the 25 deg F difference in temperature. All the towns are on the flat Oklahoma prairie.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Daily Data, How bad is bad?

Dave has pointed us to a particular site that he says has the raw data and he urges me to use that data. So I will. I decided to look at Hallettsville and Flatonia Texas for the year 1977. I had previously, from the site seen large annual average temperature differences between Hallettsville and Flatonia around 1977. So I downloaded that year from

Now remember that this site claims that they have already edited out large standard deviation anomalies, so the data is partly edited. In spite of the claim to be raw data it isn't. They have also already done some areal adjustments, meaning that they have compared nearby towns. I will say that they didn't catch them all but that is for another post on another day about another pair of towns.

The first thing I did was download the chart of the annual temperature. And there it is, that weird jump in temperature at Hallettsville in 1977. It is about a 3 degree change.

So, the next thing I did for 1977 was to compare Hallettsville's temperature with the nearest town in the USHCN, Flatonia, TX. Flatonia is only 17 miles from Hallettsville and the topography is quite similar. I have been through these two towns during my career and they are both on the flat Texas Prairie. They should have very minor differences in temperature even on a daily basis but most assuredly on an annual basis. There are no mountains in that part of Texas.

So, I subtracted Flatonia's temperature from that of Hallettsville's and saw that the temperature difference was quite large throughout the year, mostly with Hallettsville being hotter.

The annual average difference in temperature between these two towns is 2.84 degrees F. You might be tempted to say that this isn't all that much. If so, that would be wrong.

A suggested set of criteria based on the horizontal temperature gradient has been devised. A weak front is one where the temperature gradient is less than 10[deg]F per 100 miles; a moderate front is where the temperature gradient is 10 [deg]F to 20 [deg]F per 100 miles; and a strong front is where the gradient is over 20 [deg]F per 100 miles.

A strong front is 10 degrees per hundred miles. That works out to be 0.1 degree F per mile. The annual temperature gradient between Hallettsville and Flatonia 17 miles away is 0.17 deg F per mile, almost twice that of a strong cold front! And it lasted for a year's duration, or a significant part of that year.

Now, why did I choose two neighboring towns? Because this is as close as we can come to actually verifying via duplication the temperature. By choosing two towns on the hot Texas prairie, where there are no mountains. Even making the adiabatic lapse rate correction, the temperature difference is still above 2.5 deg F for the year, giving an adiabatically corrected gradient of .15 deg F/mile.

Now, what does this gradient mean? As I said above it is more than 1.5 x the temperature gradient along a strong cold front. Such cold fronts bring rain, winds and thunderstorms, yet, for the year 1977, there were no year long storms over Hallettsville and Flatonia. In other words, this temperature difference could not possibly have existed or we would have seen accompanying weather phenomenon.

Temperature differences like these would lead to wind blowing most of the year from Hallettsville to Flatonia, NW winds, which are extremely unusual in that part of Texas. Below is the chart of the daily gradient, the 30 day running average gradient along with markers for the January equator to North Pole temperature gradient and markers for that due to a cold front. You can see that the temperature differences between these two towns is very large by any measure available.

Now, I ran a 30-day running average over the temperature difference. The first output point is 41 days into 1977 because Flatonia is missing data and I didn't want to plot the data before the first full 30-day running average point. It is the last picture.

Flatonia, not Hallettsville, has missing January data. I want to point that out because I am sure that Dave will want to claim that that is why Hallettsville has the high annual temperature in 1977. But that explanation can't be offered because as the first picture shows, Hallettsville, which is not missing data becomes suddenly very warm compared to Hallettsville, not compared to Flatonia. The sudden warmth in Hallettsville is real and not a factor of missing data.

Under the assumption that these two towns, only 17 miles apart should have nearly identical temperatures throughout the year,and thus are effectively quasi-repeated measurements, we can use the two towns as a measure of the noise in the raw data. The noise level is large. The blue bar is the magnitude of the yearly spread, 3.7 deg F. That becomes the error bar for the dataset used to calculate the global warming which is now pegged at around 1.1 deg F over the past century. Thus the signal we are trying to detect is 0.11 +/- 1.85 degree F for each year. (half of the 3.7 excursion). Anyone familiar with science knows that this is far too small to be detected against this noise level. So, if temperatures are not repeatable, as this shows, we can't really know what is happening globally. The data is crap. Maybe Dave should have a critical look at the data he thinks is good.

Monday, May 25, 2009

How Raw is Raw?

Dave, AKA as woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- in a comment on the first Electra post said this:

Why don't you try again? Rather than dealing with co2science crap data, why don't you go to the actual, real raw daily data at the USHCN website like I suggested?

Now, I have been using CO2 science data because it is the real raw data, which they downloaded in 2007. Dave, wants me to go to another site, which he thinks is the real raw data. It isn't. If Dave would read the descriptive files that go along with what is given out at the particular site he likes he would find this statement:

The quality of the HCN data was
enhanced with the use of outlier and areal edits, and the data were
corrected for time of observation differences, instrument changes,
instrument moves, station relocations, and urbanization effects (Karl et
al. 1986; Karl and Williams 1987).

Now, what Dave is pointing us to is NOT the 'real raw' data as he says, it is the edited data that the USHCN folks claim is the original data. Unfortunately, Dave and I may have a different definition of what is raw data.

In fairness to Dave, One can argue that the data set offered doesn't have the following, also found in the descriptive files

The data have not been adjusted for station
relocations, heat island effects, instrument changes, or time of
observation biases. The nature of inhomogeneities arising from such
factors depends on a station's climatic regime.

Note that this second list doesn't say they didn't do the areal and outlier edit.

Back when I started looking into this, I found a statement somewhere that in about 2006 for the first time the USHCN allowed people to get the actual raw data--i.e. data without outlier editing and areal editing applied. I didn't realize the importance of that statement so I didn't capture it in my data base.

But the clear thing is that the data DAve says is the 'real raw data' isn't the real raw data but data edited to make it look pretty. The crap CO2 science data that he wants to ignore is apparently the real raw data before it has had a makeover by the make-up artists at the USHCN.

One of the reasons I am very suspicious of anything that smacks of editing by the make-up artists at the GISS is that they change history so easily, and history changes in just a 9 year period. The picture below is from Anthony Watts site but it shows clearly how editing is changing the past.

The sad thing is that the USHCN proclaims to give us raw data, but in fact they have already edited out all the lunacies in the data set, by their own admission. CO2 science may have the only really good look at the absolutely raw data set.

Now, if Dave or anyone else can locate on the internet the absolutely raw data from a USHCN or NOAA site, a dataset that has zero editing on it, I would be glad to stand corrected. Unfortunately the records are being continually updated at the USHCN site without anyone knowing what they are doing and what they are changing.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Antarctic Ice Extent

This January, during the southern summer, I went to Antarctica. I wanted to see it. It was wonderful, glorious and we had fantastic weather, but we hit it lucky. The two cruises immediately before us and the one after us had weather so bad that they couldn't land but once each trip.

I will say that it was cold down there, even in January, when it is the warmest. Today the Global warming hysteriacs tell us that Antarctica is de-icing. Everything is slipping into the sea. But of course this seems contradictory with the fact that over the past 30 years the Antarctic sea ice has grown year after year. While the Arctic ice has declined, Antarctica's ice has been getting bigger each and every year for the past 40 years.

the Arctic plot is shown here.

Now, one thing that most people don't understand is that the Arctic and Antarctic are out of phase with each other--something that shouldn't be if CO2 is the cause. CO2 should affect the Arctic and the Antarctic equally because it is affecting the radiative escape of heat. But as we can see they are out of phase.

"The last glacial and deglacial periods were characterized by millennial-scale shifts in global climate. Records from Greenland ice cores! and North Atlantic sediments suggest that high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere were repeatedly subjected to large and abrupt fluctuations in temperature, commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. In contrast to the abrupt changes observed in the north, temperature fluctuations over Antarctica were more gradual (warming and cooling over hundreds to thousands of years) and approximately out of phase with their northern counterparts'. Recent ice-core evidence from the Atlantic sector of Antarctica reveals a direct relationship between the extent of warming across Antarctica and the duration of cold, stadial conditions over Greenlands. The contrasting behaviour of temperature variations over Greenland and the North Atlantic as compared with Southern Hemisphere records has led to the notion of a bipolar seesaw, whereby changes in the strength of the Atlantic's conveyor circulation or, more precisely, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) affect the distribution of heat between the South Atlantic and the North Atlantic and more widely'? Modelling results suggest that a reduction in the strength of the AMOC (for example as may be caused by an input of fresh water to the North Atlantic) would give rise to an immediate decrease in northward heat transport. As a result, surface air temperatures over the North Atlantic would cool and those over the South Atlantic would warm. The transmission of these anomalies between the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic may take on the order of a few decades." Stephen Barker, et al, "Interhemispheric Atlantic Seasaw response during the last deglaciation," Nature, 457(2009), p. 1097

Of course, the hysteriacs won't tell you about this. They only want to get funding from you in the form of taxes. They scare you with the Arctic, and tell you bed-time scary stories about Antarctica de-icing, but don't show you the pictures of the Antarctic sea ice I just showed you. In other words, they hide data from you.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

No doubts on Electra

Dave in a comment on my Electra California post, a couple of posts below, said that Electra probably had missing data causing the yearly averages to be so bad and so varied. In that post, the readers of this blog will recall, I showed that there were changes of yearly temperature average of over 10 deg F. Dave thinks it is an artifact of missing data. So, I downloaded the monthly data from and here are the plots for each month, from 1960 to 1994 (all plots say 2006, but the data only goes to 1994). As you peruse each picture notice that post 1985 there are sharp spikes in the average monthly temperature. These spikes are what causes the spikes in the annual data. Note the size of these amazing temperature jumps in the raw data. The data is crap, yet this is what we are using to calculate how much the temperature has warmed. Note that there are no missing numbers, as Dave claims

Ok, we see the jumps in the monthly temperature. So, lets check to see if the night time temperatures are missing. If so, then the cooler minimums would be gone. They wouldn't be hot. What we find when we look at the minimum and maximum temperatures for the months which have these mysterious jumps of many degrees is that it affects both max and min temperature. Here are some examples. First again, July Mean. Notice in the 2 pictures below the mean that I have July min and max and the same two weird jumps in the later years are in both the max and the min.

Same thing for November. First the mean picture followed by the min and max. Same weird jump in temp affects all datasets.

Whatever the source of these jumps in the record, it is affecting not only the mean but also the maximum and minimum temperature. That says something environmental, something next to the thermometer is screwing up the reading. It isn't missing data as Dave says.

I say again, the data is crap. It can't be used for the purpose the Historical Climate network says it is used for, i.e. to measure the subtle change in the earth's global temperature. And if you think this data can be fixed, go look at the Chinese data here

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

CAFE--How Not to Save the Planet

Ok, tonight's message will be about the new CAFE standards and their perverse impact on the usage of fuel. I think there are some sectors of the economy which will be forced to use more gasoline, not less, because of the new CAFE standards.

No, this is not a place where you eat. CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The Obama administration, in their madness just said that cars must meet 42 mpg and light trucks, 30 mpg by 2016. I won't comment on the cars, but now being in the world of agriculture (even if still a bit inept about it), I can see that these idiotic rules, designed by a bunch of ignorant city folk, are going to cost us lots of fuel on the farms, which means it will cost you when you buy your food. Someone must pay and it won't be the farmer.

Here is how it works. I have a 1999 half ton pickup which I use at the ranch. It gets about 20 mpg, which isn't all that bad. I have put 3/4 of a ton of stuff in the back (I know this for a fact) but I wouldn't go much bigger than that for a load fearing breaking an axle or something worse. Now, lets say I need to drive 20 miles to pick up 3/4 of a ton of stuff. I can do that in approximately the expenditure of 1 gallon of gasoline. So far, the math is simple.

But, if I had a truck which required 30 mpg, I would need one of those tiny little, puny pickups that most real men avoid. Well, farmers avoid them because they can't do much. A Ford Ranger can get 30 mpg but it can only carry about half of what my truck can. So, when I needed dirt to fix the dam on my lake and got 3/4 of a ton of dirt in one bed load of my present truck, it would require two trips to get that same amount of dirt with that smaller truck. The place I bought the dirt was about 10 miles from the ranch and thus represented a 20 mile round trip. To do that with one of those Obama approved pickup trucks means that I must drive 20 miles twice, or 40 miles. At 30 mpg, that means I would spend 1/3 more gasoline with a 'clown' truck which is supposed to save the planet, to do the same job.

And that, perversely, would mean I would pollute the air more than I do with my currently politically out of favor truck.

Boy, don't those city-slickers in Washington just know how to save the planet? Us poor ignorant hicks in fly-over country are too stupid to see their wisdom. We must be wrong out here in hicksville because the entire country is applauding the coming salvation of the world.

Below is me on my lake, the one I fixed in a way that minimized energy expenditure and CO2 emissions--all against the wishes of my president.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Electra, California Garbage in; Garbage Out

Lets look at one station in the US Historical Climate network. I downloaded the raw data from, plotting it via their interface. It is shown below

An examination of the above chart shows several things. There is a step-function shift in 1911 or there abouts. That was probably a station move. Another shift occurred about 1960. You can see that the temperature level changes at the years I cite. Someone who is versed in dealing with data streams can see this instantly.
Then of course, immediately after 1984 or so, something very very bizarre happens to the raw data. Don't ask me what it is, but it is there and it is clearly erroneous.
No one can assert with a straight face that Electra, California suddenly heated by 17 degrees Fahrenheit between 1984 and 1986. If it had, it would have made huge headlines. "City wilts beneath the crush of global warming" would have been one of many headlines.

Well, I went to here to download the edited data. It is shown below.

Two of the step function changes are more evident on this graph and the post 1984 squirliness is gone from the data. One might think that this is well edited data, and everything is hunky dory. It isn't.

The first question one must ask is, how do they know PRECISELY how much temperature to subtract from the raw data to arrive at the final temperature? They compare Electra with surrounding cities and average it, geographically. But the nearest city to Electra in the US Historical Climate Network, is Lodi, California, 43 miles away. All others are further. And Lodi is at 49 feet elevation while Electra is at 755, hardly an equivalent site with which to use to replace bad values in Electra.

I subtracted the Edited data from the Raw data. I did it this way to show the difference as a positive number. That is the plot below.

Now, what is utterly amazing to anyone who understands statistics, even at a freshman level, if the error in the raw data is over 17 degrees, there is no way to decide to correct a given year, say 1985, by EXACTLY 17.31 deg F. There is absolutely NO way that they could reconstruct the temperature in Electra to the accuracy of .31 degrees by looking at Lodi's temperature 43 miles away or by looking at any other temperature dataset even further away. This is statistical lunacy, yet that is what your government climatological hysteriacs are saying that they can accomplish. They are saying that they can do mathematical magic to one-one hundredth of a degree. What utter crap.

Let's all give a hip-hip hooray for the magical abilities of the weather service.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

To Dust or Not to Dust

"A successful theory can easily produce a state of mind that fails to recognize the presence of proofs to the contrary." Stanley Jaki, The Relevance of Physics, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 280 cited by Arthur C. Custance, Survival of the Unfit ,Doorway Papers, No. 53, (Brockville: privately published, 1971), p.3

That quotation has stuck with me for years, ever since I first read it. It says bundles about the human ability to fool oneself. Today we are going to look at a May 8, 2009 Science article which explains the sea surface warming of the North Atlantic. Everyone wants to claim that the warming is due to CO2's evil effects upon the planet. But, not this Science article

"Observations and models show that northern tropical Atlantic surface temperatures are sensitive to regional changes in stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric mineral aerosols. However, it is unknown whether the temporal variability of these aerosols is a key factor in the evolution of ocean temperature anomalies. We used a simple physical model, incorporating 26 years of satellite data, to estimate the temperature response of the ocean mixed layer to changes in aerosol loadings. Our results suggest that the mixed layer’s response to regional variability in aerosols accounts for 69% of the recent upward trend, and 67% of the detrended and 5-year low pass–filtered variance, in northern tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures." Amato T. Evan, et al, "The role of Aerosols in the Evolution of Tropical North Atlantic Ocean Temperature Anomalies," Science, 324(2009), p. 778

So, in other words, between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the warming is not due to CO2 but due to aerosols, also known as dust. Over the past 20 years the amount of dust in the atmosphere has declined and that has led to the warming of the surface of the earth. Of course, global warming hysteriacs won't tell you this scientific fact, they prefer to tell you scary bedtime stories about how CO2 will be the death of mankind.

The article continues:

"Since 1980, tropical North Atlantic Ocean temperatures have been rising at a rate of nearly 0.25°C per decade . Studies have attributed this increase, explicitly and implicitly, to global warming. mean Northern Hemisphere temperature variations , changes in the thermohaline circulation, or some combination of these factors . However, many of these studies fail to provide either a mechanism for or direct evidence of how these variables control tropical North Atlantic Ocean temperatures. At the same time, models and observations demonstrate that local changes in aerosol cover should have a non-negligible impact on Atlantic Ocean temperature via the scattering of sunlight and reduction in surface solar insolation. " Amato T. Evan, et al, "The role of Aerosols in the Evolution of Tropical North Atlantic Ocean Temperature Anomalies," Science, 324(2009), p. 778

This is consistent with other data, that warming in Europe, or at least a big part of it, is due to the cleaner air which lets more sunlight through to the earth's surface.

“GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the pastthree decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more ofthe sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.”
“Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1°C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl ofthe Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre (Geophysical Research Letters, 001: 10.1029/2008GL034228). "The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service.”
“The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.” Anonymous, “Europe's cleaner air makes for brighter days but hotter climes”
New Scientist, July 5, 2008, p. 16

So, is the North Atlantic now warming or cooling? Evans et al have a chart showing the temperature anomaly of the sea surface temperature (SST) which shows that the ocean is now at its long term mean temperature--dashed line. The North Atlantic seas surface temperature has not been impacted by CO2.

Once again, the data upon which global warming is based is flimsy. The only catastrophe of Biblical proportions that the world faces is the credibility,ultimately, of the climatologists who dishonestly site their thermometers so as to make the earth appear to warm more than it does.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

All of Antarctica--it isn't melting

A gentleman with whom I was debating on another forum said that I was cherry picking the Antarctican stations. That was the reason he gave for not paying attention to the lack of warming at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole station. I then showed him the Vostok station, the only other interior station. It too showed no warming. Again, it didn't have the effect I wanted. Thus I decided to post all the Antarctican stations available here

Now, I should point out, as I have below on this blog that the Antarctican Peninsula is warming, but that it is due to winds causing warm deep ocean waters to upwell melting some of the ice from below, not from above as CO2 would be expected to operate. It is from the Antarctican peninsula that all the fear-mongering stories emanate. So, I will first post the pictures from West Antarctica and then from East Antarctica. Only the ones in the East show any evidence of warming, but it isn't a whole lot--unless you read the Newspaper hysteria driven headlines. As you look at the pictures ask yourself if all this looks like it is warming significantly

No warming there. What about Vostock?

Going around East Antarctica clockwise Halley station.

No warming there. Novolazarevskaya?

Nope. Syowa?

Nope, its cooling. Mawson?

Nope, its cooling. Davis?



Not warming yet


Nope, no warming

Nope. Dumont d'Urville station?

How about Scott Base?

Ok we have been 3/4 around Antarctica and no warming. Only the Antarctican peninsula is warming and that is due to upwelling deep ocean waters melting the ice from below, not CO2 melting it from above.

The westerlies are the prevailing winds in the middle latitudes of Earth’s atmosphere, blowing from west to east between the highpressure areas of the subtropics and the low-pressure areas over the poles. They have strengthened and shifted poleward over the past 50 years, possibly in response to warming from rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Something similar appears to have happened 17,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age: Earth warmed, atmospheric CO2 increased, and the Southern Hemisphere westerlies seem to have shifted toward Antarctica (5, 6). Data reported by Anderson et al. on page 1443 of this issue suggest that the shift 17,000 years ago occurred before the warming and that it caused the CO2 increase. The CO2 that appeared in the atmosphere 17,000 years ago came from the oceans rather than from anthropogenic emissions. It was vented from the deep ocean up to the atmosphere in the vicinity of Antarctica. The southern westerlies are important in this context because they can alter the oceanic circulation in a way that vents CO2 from the ocean interior up to the atmosphere. The prevailing view has been that the westerlies shifted 17,000 years ago as part of a feedback: A small CO2 increase or small warming initiated a shift of the westerlies toward Antarctica; the shifted westerlies then caused more CO2 to be vented up to the atmosphere, which led to more warming, a greater poleward shift of the westerlies, more CO2, and still more warming (5). But Anderson et al. show that the westerlies did not shift in response to an initial CO2 increase; rather, they shifted early in the climate transition and were probably the main cause of the initial CO2 increase." J. R. Toggweiler, "Shifting Westerlies," Science, 323(2009, March 13, 2009, p. 1434

[cite="Wind Shifts May Stir CO2 from Antarctic Depths" Lamont-Doherty]
The faster the ocean turns over, the more deep water rises to the surface to release CO2," said lead author Robert Anderson, a geochemist at Lamont-Doherty. "It's this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere." [B]In the last 40 years, the winds have shifted south much as they did 17,000 years ago, said Anderson. If they end up venting more CO2 into the air, manmade warming underway now could be intensified.[/B]


So, lets now look at the stations in the peninsula where all the horror stories come from


Yep a little bit


Yep a little


Yes a lot but this is the most northerly station


Yep a lot.

Only 4 of the Antarctican stations show warming, yet the headlines in the papers and the scientific journals act as if next year you can buy a summer house in Antarctica.