Thursday, January 21, 2010

Abilene TX Not Impacted by Global Warming

As I wrote earlier at this link, the small town of Abilene, located just a few miles west of Dallas, Texas, seems to have been (and remains today) completely immune to CO2-induced global warming for the past 120-plus years. Such an outcome is not possible if CO2 had the properties (warming the globe) that climate alarmists insist it has. One cannot have some areas warming due to CO2, and other areas completely unaffected. Physics does not work that way, as physics is impartial. It either works, or it does not.

How can I say such a thing, and does my statement have any credibility? I think it does, because I studied physics in undergraduate university, and in the same physics classes as those majoring in physics. I also studied chemistry, again competing with those majoring in chemistry and pre-med students. I also studied mathematics, including statistics, calculus, and differential equations, again competing with those majoring in math. All of these, and more, were required courses to receive a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering. I would say I am quite qualified to speak on the subject. Based on the hundreds of educated, technical people in the audiences where I give speeches, many others agree.

However, I really like the sentiment expressed in a comment on that Abilene posting, where an anonymous reader wrote that (my paraphrase) It is a good thing that scientists in 1940 did not know that the past 30 years had such a high rate of temperature increase (it was 4.5 degrees per century, or 0.045 degrees per year). That is 50 percent greater than the rise from 1975 to 2009, that has caused such alarm among modern climate scientists. Also, it is a good thing that the politicians in 1940 did not know and did not outlaw CO2 emissions based on that then-recent temperature increase. Had they done so, there would never have been sufficient oil to conduct World War II (meaning the Allies would have lost, Hitler's Nazis would have won, and we would all likely be speaking German and living a very different - and likely much worse - lifestyle.) Also, there would never have been the amazing increase in material wealth and lifestyle improvement since the 1950's, again all due to increased oil, natural gas, and coal usage. Oil provided not only cheap transportation, but more importantly the feedstocks for petrochemicals such as medicines and plastics. Natural gas provided cheap heating fuel, and the raw materials for important agricultural fertilizers. Coal, of course, fuels power plants around the country and provided just about the cheapest power available for all sorts of uses.

Mr. Anonymous then concluded by saying, Sometimes it is best for scientists just to shut up. Now is one of those times. (again, my paraphrase).

Hear, hear, Mr. Anonymous.


Dave N said...

Are you aware of Anthony Watt's site?:

I've had a quick look to see if the Abilene weather station has been surveyed, and at first glance, it hasn't been. Perhaps if you surveyed the station, it may give some clue as to why it has not suffered from UHI effect as it seems many others have?

Dave N said...

Follow up to my last comment:

According to this:

The station is 3.66 miles from Abilene. Not sure in what direction, though.

Dave N said...

One more post, I promise :-)

It appears the weather station is at the Dyess Air Force Base, here.

I'll bet it's what appears to be a white box, in the open, grassed area, and therefore unlikely to be affected by the UHI effect

Roger Sowell said...

Dave N,

yes, I'm aware of (and sometime commenter on) WattsUpWithThat and am familiar with the surface stations project. I've met Anthony Watts and discussed many things with him. He has graciously allowed me a couple of guest posts on WUWT.

I don't know if the Abilene station is properly sited or not, but it really does not matter for my purposes. What matters, to me, is that Hadley uses the data, as published, in their CRUT3 global temperature calculation. Yet this data, taken alone, refutes the concept of Global Warming over the long term.

The data also shows, as I wrote in the blog post, that a trend can be shown of global warming from 1910 to 1940, and again from 1975 to 2009 - but neither had anything to do with CO2 heating anything up. Indeed, it is much more due to a string of cold winters in the late 70's and early 80's, and slightly warmer winters in the decade of the 1930's. CO2 cannot be responsible for both such causes. CO2 was lower in 1930's compared to late 1970's, so how could the winters have been colder recently and warmer in the past? CO2 is supposed to work in the opposite direction - more is warmer.

The reason that Abilene (TX) is important (and by the way, there is another Abilene in Kansas), is that it has remained a small town so that UHI does not exist as it does in larger cities. It has an intact temperature record, and it shows absolutely zero net warming or cooling over 120 years. No wonder the climate alarmists did not want their data released!

I will soon post similar temperature graphs of other small towns across the USA, and these will show the same results.

What is truly fascinating is the opposite trends from San Diego in California. Cooling from 1975 to 2009 just does not agree with the CO2 theory of global warming.

I received your email to me, and thank you for the kind words about SLB. I hope you enjoy reading these entries.

Roger E. Sowell