Global cooling

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

So, are you stating that the recorded 'hot' summers of 1921 through to 1934, which were recorded before satellite observations and 'data smoothing techniques' are wrong? Presumably you also dismiss the 1922 report from the consulate at Bergen Norway which was founded on actual observation and exploration, but wasn't peer reviewed by academics (with no experience of those conditions) as irrelevant?

Incidentally, I don't know what you mean by my 'go to sources.' I'd never heard of either of those letter writers which I quoted, and I'M still waiting for you to clearly state that the claims of that 1921 to 1934 sequence of unusually hot summers (equal to those claimed today as proof of global warming) must be wrong, since global warming at that earlier time (the 1920's) can't be made to fit the modern computer model mantra!

mac · Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:15 pm Post subject:

GT--I have old friends who are losing a step. Go back and read your messages. Your suspect source makes the argument, which you repeat, that data adjustments for El Nino have somehow compromised the data and therefore they are going to not use that data. That is happy horseshit, and I challenge you to find any credible scientist and any peer-reviewed journal articles that support that nonsense.

I don't know how good the data for the summers you mention is. But if you think that temperatures cherry-picked without being put into a robust trend analysis belies trend analysis that clearly and unambiguously shows an upward trend for average temperatures, you've lost several steps--and apparently slept through statistics classes. Again, I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed paper that discusses those summers in a proper scientific framework and draws a trend conclusion from it.

Just one reputable peer-reviewed paper is all I ask. In ten years, nobody has produced one. I won't hold my breath.

nw30 · Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:30 pm Post subject:

pointster · Joined: 22 Jul 2010 Posts: 376

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Thank you Pointster for a credible reply, but I must answer the attack by Mac.

1) You cannot peer review the findings of those experienced Arctic users (explorers, seal hunters, fishermen ) who KNEW what they were seeing first hand (read the report quoted-1922) They were aware of the change in conditions i.e. hitherto unheard of temperatures, long standing glaciers disappearing. But you apparently dismiss this as untrustworthy, or unscientific. I know who I prefer to believe!

2) I made clear in reply tp Pointster that I found the second letter interesting, but was NOT commenting on its accuracy. (You apparently were unable to understand that.)

3) The rest is like a cover up. I asked if you deny that the decade in the 1920's saw similar 'hot' summer temps as those of today, but you don't answer. Instead, you cast doubt about unreliability, despite the first hand evidence of those experienced Arctic users, who clearly DID believe what they were experiencing. Some horseshit, though not from them!

mac · Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:46 pm Post subject: reie

There is no doubt that there are very hot and very cold days--and have been for centuries. The issue is how to put that data into a rigorous trend analysis--that tracks the trend of average temperatures, A hot day, week, or even summer at some place affects, but does not determine that average.

When you start with a denier source, with a principal (John Casey) with no technical strengths or publications and two employees who have no reputation or publications in climate science, and tout using unadjusted data out of context do you really expect to be taken seriously?

I would expect GT, but not NW, to understand the how and why of peer review.

mac · Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:07 pm Post subject:

This is one of many explanations available for the satellite data denial myth:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

I'm sorry, but yet again you are downplaying an apparent problem.

Quote - 'There is no doubt that there are very hot and very cold DAYS ......A hot DAY, WEEK, or even SUMMER at some place affects, but does not determine the average.'

The 1922 Bergen report stated that - 'Many long standing glaciers have entirely disappeared.'

Are you really saying that such would be possible from just a single day, week, or summer? If we accept the accuracy of those observations, we must conclude that a relatively prolonged period of hot summers, and possibly mild winters ( a warming phase) from perhaps the earlyish 1900's to the middish 1930's took place.

I accept that probability, and, to steal a phrase, believe it was with 95% certainty, natural climate change. My sceptical point is, if that change was natural, by what degree of certainty does the consensus claim today's events are 95% certain to be man made?

Did natural causes suddenly cease after the 1920's?

mac · Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:10 am Post subject:

I think you know that anecdotal evidence does not trump systematc data. Here is a data set for central England, 1772-2015. Tell me again there is no warming: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

No, I do NOT accept the opposite,that systematic data trumps clear and obvious eye witness observation of reality, which you choose to dismiss are merely anecdotal! (That report of long standing glaciers having entirely disappeared, among other 'evidence' of climate change in the Arctic at that time.)

You are unable to explain the reason, so it's pointless adding further. (Incidentally, central England is not in the Arctic region.)