Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[Webberweather53]

Historical observations, reports from numerous sources and other data all corroborate a warm Arctic in the 1920-1945 period and significantly reduced sea ice. The below link has one of the more extensive analysis I’ve seen on the subject.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

One such example is listed below from the above article.
“During the last three decades there has been a marked change in the climate of the Arctic which is being felt throughout the northern hemisphere where, especially, the mean temperature of the winters has increased considerably. In the North American sector this change is perhaps best understood and also most marked in Greenland, where long meteorological records exist from a number of points on the west coast, Thus at Jakobshavn, in latitude 690 13 North, the mean winter temperature for the years 1913-1922 was about 5 degrees F above the mean of 50 years and that of 1923-1932 almost 10.0 degrees F. above. In 1935-1936 the mean for the winter at Godhavn was 13.40 higher than the normal at the end of last century, that of Godthaab 7.60 and at Julianehaab 9.8oF. Increasing temperatures are not limited to the air; sea temperatures also have increased and while the amplitude is not so great, the result is even more profound and far reaching.”

I would definitely agree on the point though that it's warmer than the 1960s-80s during the 1920-40s in the arctic and that sea ice during the latter period was lower, I think the data is generally sufficient to pick up on this, but imo to go insofar as to claim it's as warm or warmer w/ nearly as much or less sea ice than the 21st century will probably require a more rigorous analysis w/ additional data beyond what's currently available to us (hence keying in data from ship log books, retrieval from historical archives, etc. is key). The downward propagation of stratospheric circulation anomalies triggered in part by our utilization of ozone destroying CFCs several decades ago may partially mask these wholesale changes after the mid 20th century & going forward for less sea ice during a warmer climate, especially in the summer when the mixing from mid-latitude Rossby Waves along the "surf zone" is small. This lack of summer mixing also explains why the ozone hole in the antarctic is strongest during their summer and may be influencing summer sea ice, land ice, and surface temperature trends in the arctic too (apart from natural variability, and expanded HCs from AGW (which most NWP fail to properly simulate), etc.)

 

[snowlover91]

Natural variability is actually capable of being quite large on a local level (temperatures in MN during the winter of 1877-78 were 4F warmer than the next closest winter (1997-98) but that doesn't necessarily reflect the overall global response relative to the late 20th century) and in the case of the arctic because the moist static energy budget is so low, temperature variance is very large in comparison to the rest of the globe, thus large anomalies like this aren't as unheard of. The reality is, apart from a few very sparse and poorly constrained data points like what you're alluding to above, there's not much we can really say about surface temperatures in the entire arctic during this period, there have been many attempts to reconstruct the data their w/ little-no avail, and/or they haven't been taken seriously by many in the scientific community (& rightfully so). The quality and coverage of surface data in the arctic during the 1920s and 30s is comparable to the RAOB network during WW II, I wouldn't necessarily consider either very reliable but some very basic signals could potentially be cast. However, to go as far as to say it's as warm or warmer than the 21st century is definitely a stretch especially w/o first recognizing or respecting the error bars involved in these kind of early analyses & measurements. Even GISS, which uses ridiculous amounts of kriging and interpolation to encapsulate the arctic during their month analyses, notes the coverage & confidence of surface observations even in the present day is very poor, you could obviously imagine it's not any better in the early-mid 20th century.

I certainly recognize the constraints with data in the Arctic and the sparse nature of reports/observations during this time.

The article I linked above does an excellent job bringing out the difficulties involved while also using the data that was available such as ship reports, observations, reports from various settlements and locals, airplane reports, DMI archived charts, etc to conclude that the ice extent in the 1920-45 period was likely fairly similar to what we saw in the early 2000s. I’d recommend reading through it, the author, Judith Curry, poured over a good deal of data and does an excellent job of balancing the sparse nature of the data with what it does tell us and from what I can tell she is pretty balanced with her views of anthropogenic influence along with natural factors.

My viewpoint was conceived through a process of detailed study that started years ago when I was an avid AGW proponent. As I began reading more articles, journals, peer reviewed literature and other data I also began coming across skeptics who attribute some or all of the warming to natural factors. Through a continued study of the literature the conclusion I now lean to is one that views anthropogenic contributions as fairly minimal with natural factors playing more of a role.

Furthermore, I do not seek out data to fit my preconceived view as you alluded to above. I arrived at my conclusion by reading and researching both sides and was previously a staunch AGW proponent and have since changed my view based on the data I’ve had a chance to examine. I still do read both sides of the argument and view things with an open mind which I believe is critical when trying to discover the truth and pursue scientific advancement as well.

 

[pcbjr]

Thank you both ... civil discourse and all ...
It'll not get solved here, but the learning is great!
Best,
Your One Armed Bandit

 

[GaWx]

Some great questions Larry!
1. Here is the link to Cherokee county. Going back to 1900, the max temp trend is flat and the average temperature overall is slightly down. Cherokee county is really rural and would have much less of a heat island influence, if any at all. Interestingly you can see a distinct warming, cooling and then warming period at Cherokee with a general slight cooling trend over the past 115+ years. Recently there has been some warming which is likely cyclical imo. Here’s the link if you want to play around with some years. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/count...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1900&lasttrendyear=2017
View attachment 5697

Cherokee County, NC avg lows/highs/means by decade (F) (from your link):
1900s 44.4, 67.0, 55.7
1910s 44.9, 67.4, 56.2
1920s 45.4, 67.7, 56.6
1930s 45.3, 68.4, 56.9
1940s 44.3, 67.7, 56.0
1950s 44.1, 67.8, 56.0
1960s 42.5, 66.2, 54.4
1970s 43.5, 66.7, 55.1
1980s 43.5, 66.9, 55.2
1990s 44.4, 67.4, 55.9
2000s 44.5, 67.8, 56.2
2010s 44.6, 68.1, 56.4

Lows:
- warmest consecutive 3 decades 1910s-1930s; coldest consecutive 3 decades 1960s-1980s
- 1990s-2010s lows cooler than 1910s-1930s lows by 0.7

Highs:
- warmest consecutive 3 decades 1930s-1950s; coldest consecutive 3 decades 1960s-1980s
- 1990s-2010s highs cooler than 1930s-1950s highs by 0.2

Means:
- warmest consecutive 3 decades 1910s-1930s; coldest consecutive 3 decades 1960s-1980s
- 1990s-2010s means cooler than 1910s-1930s means by 0.4

Any comments about this from @snowlover91, @1300m, @Webberweather53 or anyone else? Is there a possibility that the 1990s-2010s were cooler than the 1910s-1930s due to a cool bias caused by, say, an increase in the average elevation of stations in Cherokee County? Could the nighttime lows have been cooled due to better radiational cooling environment at some stations? I'm just being devil's advocate and am not trying to take sides. We now know that Charlotte's station got much better radiational cooling environment starting in 1998, for example, and that that stopped the warming of lows there since though highs have continued warming.

When I get time, I'd like to look at more rural stations in NC. But before I do that, I was hoping for some feedback and/or guidance from these gentlemen so I don't waste much of my time.

**Edit: I couldn't wait. So, I looked at the rest of NC counties. Out of 100 counties, the only 7 that were cooler vs 1900 were in the far SW corner from Haywood SW! So, Haywood, Jackson, Swain, Macon, Clay, Graham, and Cherokee. The other 93, including 22 of the 25 smallest counties/8 of the 10 smallest/the 2 smallest, were warmer. One of the 7 cooler counties, Haywood, has 61K making it 44th most populous of 100. So, it wasn't small population based. Rather, it was based on location within NC (far SW as mentioned). Why would that be the case? My next little project will be to look at counties adjacent to these 7 NC counties in SC, GA, and TN and see whether or not they were generally cooler vs 1900.

 

[Webberweather53]

I certainly recognize the constraints with data in the Arctic and the sparse nature of reports/observations during this time.

The article I linked above does an excellent job bringing out the difficulties involved while also using the data that was available such as ship reports, observations, reports from various settlements and locals, airplane reports, DMI archived charts, etc to conclude that the ice extent in the 1920-45 period was likely fairly similar to what we saw in the early 2000s. I’d recommend reading through it, the author, Judith Curry, poured over a good deal of data and does an excellent job of balancing the sparse nature of the data with what it does tell us and from what I can tell she is pretty balanced with her views of anthropogenic influence along with natural factors.

My viewpoint was conceived through a process of detailed study that started years ago when I was an avid AGW proponent. As I began reading more articles, journals, peer reviewed literature and other data I also began coming across skeptics who attribute some or all of the warming to natural factors. Through a continued study of the literature the conclusion I now lean to is one that views anthropogenic contributions as fairly minimal with natural factors playing more of a role.

Furthermore, I do not seek out data to fit my preconceived view as you alluded to above. I arrived at my conclusion by reading and researching both sides and was previously a staunch AGW proponent and have since changed my view based on the data I’ve had a chance to examine. I still do read both sides of the argument and view things with an open mind which I believe is critical when trying to discover the truth and pursue scientific advancement as well.

Actually, I did read thru it and I've read numerous papers on this topic regarding early-mid 20th & late 19th century data collection, I had to in order to conduct my undergraduate research which is linked to my website using 27 SST & reanalysis datasets to reconstruct the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) going back to the Civil War, learning all the nuances in each dataset, their weaknesses, strengths, how they were constructed, what version of CODAS is used, how the observational platforms have changed over time, what are the standard biases in each data source, where is coverage the greatest & the least (Atlantic has the greatest coverage & density of ship reports), and how most of these datasets are "trained" w/ EOFs from the modern era that are then projected onto pre-1950 data (thus assuming that modern and pre mid-late 20th century SST variability are the same), etc. etc., I know what I'm talking about. Yes, I'm well aware of the the published DMI ice charts, log books, reports, etc, and have been for several years but again, I'll ask if you've actually looked into the uncertainties in this data before you arrived at your conclusions, because it definitely sounds like you haven't. I'm not saying any of this to demean or spite you, but you need to realize that is has to be done because if your signal to noise ratio is close to 1, the conclusions you're drawing from the data aren't valid.

I'm definitely under the impression that you're seeking out answers to one side of the issue whether you realize it or not, you'll get vastly different viewpoints and conclusions on this topic if you actually approach this problem objectively instead of being half-heartedly so, read for example (I'm sure you're already aware of these outlets) on a regular basis what's published at Realclimate or Skeptical Science, both of which receive bad reviews from denier/"skeptical" websites but are actually run by real, publishing climate scientists, you'll see massive differences.

 

[GaWx]

I just looked at the rest of the 100 NC counties. Out of 100 counties, the only 7 that were cooler vs 1900 were in the far SW corner from Haywood SW! So, Haywood, Jackson, Swain, Macon, Clay, Graham, and Cherokee. The other 93, including 22 of the 25 smallest counties/8 of the 10 smallest/the 2 smallest, were warmer. One of the 7 cooler counties, Haywood, has 61K making it 44th most populous of 100. So, it wasn't small population based. Rather, it was based on location within NC (far SW as mentioned). Why would that be the case? My next little project will be to look at counties adjacent to these 7 NC counties in SC, GA, and TN and see whether or not they were generally cooler vs 1900.

*Edit: Now, I'm starting to wonder if this is high elevation based. And if so, why? Hmmmm.

 

[Webberweather53]

Kuzima (2008) analyzed 4 available surface air temperature datasets in the arctic during the early 20th century and found differences of up to 3C during the early 20th century, which is on the scale of the reported temperature signal in HADCRUT4. They clearly note even in the graph that was shown a while ago that the temperature variability and reported excursions in this timeframe are likely attributable to the lack of data in the arctic even though they attempted to claim that both the 1930s and 2000s were similar temperature wise (which is hard to sell because there's little data to go by in the 1930s except near the marginal sea ice zone in the North Atlantic and European sector.)

 

[GaWx]

The entire top row of 9 GA counties (bordering NC/TN and all mountainous) is cooler vs 1900! Holy cow! Going to check some more GA counties (further south) before looking at TN. Oconee and Pickens in the far NW corner of SC are warmer.
But, for whatever reason, there's a high elevation corridor that at least includes far SW NC and far N GA that has had an overall cooler trend since 1900.

 

[Webberweather53]

It's worth mentioning that when they HADCRUT4 data was filled by Cowtan & Way, the mid 20th century warming in the arctic still exists but it's not anywhere near as warm as the 21st century and as snowlover is claiming it to be. Obviously when you account for uncertainities there's still a very legitimate possibility that the 1930s were as warm or warmer, but again I think snowlover is overselling this point, especially since they haven't analyzed or considered the uncertainities in the data. HADCRUT4 raw data for 70-90N before 1940 only has about 20-30% of its grid boxes filled with any actual data, and the arctic is one of the areas where large sects are completely missing from the analysis. Raw HADCRUT4 data before 1950 is very noisy and the variations are unrealistically large in the arctic and those 4-7C temperature spikes shown on the climate4you graph probably didn't exist.

 

[Webberweather53]

Here's what several published reanalysis and surface temperature datasets have to say about arctic temperature variability since 1900, all of them agree (including the HADCRUT4 analysis by Cowtan and Way shown above) that the 1930s and 40s were warmer than the beginning of the satellite area, but don't concur that it's warmer than the 21st century. Again within the bounds of uncertainties that it may have been as warm as the 2000s. However, to immediately proclaim the 1930s-40s were warmer than the 2000s and doing so as snowlover has done without recognizing the uncertainties in the data, effectively clinging to one dataset (who didn't have anything more than one-third of grid boxes w/ one temperature station in them), or using sensationalized media reports from the early-mid 20th century that usually lack objective scientific reporting or much scientific substance to begin with (nothing has really changed today quite frankly) is not a good idea.

 

[BHS1975]

Where about to take some serious punishment pretty soon as the multidecadal cycles starts to amp up the warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Webberweather53]

Still, because we have warmed like this in the past w/ natural forcing doesn't mean warming now is for the same reason or that the anthropogenic influence is that much less significant. Furthermore, it doesn't say much if anything about anthropogenic forcing and/or how the anthropogenic forcing influences the expression of natural variability which then many often run to as to proclaim that this is "mostly natural". The climate system isn't as simple as looking at the AMO, PDO, etc. and then assuming because we're mirroring those large-scale oceanic oscillations that the cause of the warming or observed temperature variability in "x" region was mostly natural because it followed what the AMO or PDO did. This reasoning, which is common amongst those in the skeptical community, is actually completely and utterly wrong because it makes the false, inherent assumption that these large-scale modes of natural climate variability (like the AMO and PDO) are mutually exclusive or independent from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, and the reality is they mostly certainly aren't and are only becoming ever more dependent on the cumulative forcing from GHGs because we're continuing to release more methane, CO2, and other GHGs into the atmosphere. How much they're dependent on GHGs is up for debate and isn't easy to model and assess, but this is a point worth bringing up because many will often use this what's arguably a "one dimensional" line of rationale throughout their discussions on AGW (even w/o them ever realizing it).

 

[ForsythSnow]

The entire top row of 9 GA counties (bordering NC/TN and all mountainous) is cooler vs 1900! Holy cow! Going to check some more GA counties (further south) before looking at TN. Oconee and Pickens in the far NW corner of SC are warmer.
But, for whatever reason, there's a high elevation corridor that at least includes far SW NC and far N GA that has had an overall cooler trend since 1900.

I would definitely be interested in seeing how far south those counties in GA go. My thought is that the furthest south will be Dawson before you find a slight warming in Forsyth and Hall and perhaps Cherokee county as well due to population exploding rapidly and the overall expansion of what is considered Metro Atlanta.

Where about to take some serious punishment pretty soon as the multidecadal cycles starts to amp up the warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I seriously doubt we see exponential growth with temperatures and runaway temperature increases. At the same time, I expect some warming but not "serious punishment" like you believe.

 

[snowlover91]

Actually, I did read thru it and I've read numerous papers on this topic regarding early-mid 20th & late 19th century data collection, I had to in order to conduct my undergraduate research which is linked to my website using 27 SST & reanalysis datasets to reconstruct the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) going back to the Civil War, learning all the nuances in each dataset, their weaknesses, strengths, how they were constructed, what version of CODAS is used, how the observational platforms have changed over time, what are the standard biases in each data source, where is coverage the greatest & the least (Atlantic has the greatest coverage & density of ship reports), and how most of these datasets are "trained" w/ EOFs from the modern era that are then projected onto pre-1950 data (thus assuming that modern and pre mid-late 20th century SST variability are the same), etc. etc., I know what I'm talking about. Yes, I'm well aware of the the published DMI ice charts, log books, reports, etc, and have been for several years but again, I'll ask if you've actually looked into the uncertainties in this data before you arrived at your conclusions, because it definitely sounds like you haven't. I'm not saying any of this to demean or spite you, but you need to realize that is has to be done because if your signal to noise ratio is close to 1, the conclusions you're drawing from the data aren't valid.

I'm definitely under the impression that you're seeking out answers to one side of the issue whether you realize it or not, you'll get vastly different viewpoints and conclusions on this topic if you actually approach this problem objectively instead of being half-heartedly so, read for example (I'm sure you're already aware of these outlets) on a regular basis what's published at Realclimate or Skeptical Science, both of which receive bad reviews from denier/"skeptical" websites but are actually run by real, publishing climate scientists, you'll see massive differences.

It's worth mentioning that when they HADCRUT4 data was filled by Cowtan & Way, the mid 20th century warming in the arctic still exists but it's not anywhere near as warm as the 21st century and as snowlover is claiming it to be. Obviously when you account for uncertainities there's still a very legitimate possibility that the 1930s were as warm or warmer, but again I think snowlover is overselling this point, especially since they haven't analyzed or considered the uncertainities in the data. HADCRUT4 raw data for 70-90N before 1940 only has about 20-30% of its grid boxes filled with any actual data, and the arctic is one of the areas where large sects are completely missing from the analysis. Raw HADCRUT4 data before 1950 is very noisy and the variations are unrealistically large in the arctic and those 4-7C temperature spikes shown on the climate4you graph probably didn't exist.

Here's what several published reanalysis and surface temperature datasets have to say about arctic temperature variability since 1900, all of them agree (including the HADCRUT4 analysis by Cowtan and Way shown above) that the 1930s and 40s were warmer than the beginning of the satellite area, but don't concur that it's warmer than the 21st century. Again within the bounds of uncertainties that it may have been as warm as the 2000s. However, to immediately proclaim the 1930s-40s were warmer than the 2000s and doing so as snowlover has done without recognizing the uncertainties in the data, effectively clinging to one dataset (who didn't have anything more than one-third of grid boxes w/ one temperature station in them), or using sensationalized media reports from the early-mid 20th century that usually lack objective scientific reporting or much scientific substance to begin with (nothing has really changed today quite frankly) is not a good idea.

View attachment 5707

I get the feeling from the above bolded portions of recent posts that the intent is geared in a condescending way to me personally. I've found in general that when discussions about issues like global warming reach this point it's generally best to step away to prevent any heated exchanges from occurring. Having said that, I will post a few points below and then refrain from posting on this topic for awhile.

1. First of all I'll begin by noting that I've followed you for awhile and really appreciate your level of research and knowledge. You do know an incredible amount about all things weather and have some great data out there that I enjoy reading.

2. All of the data I have posted I included citations so that others can read and research the data for themselves. The article I cited by Judith Curry, for example, does an excellent job of mentioning the sparse nature of the data and difficulty in determining the sea ice extent prior to the satellite era while also looking at what is available to make a conclusion about the ice extent. If I were intending to hide the uncertainty or be misleading I would not link articles like this.

3. The climate4you graph I posted also attributes this in the footnote under the graph, "Because of the relatively small number of Arctic stations before 1930, month-to-month variations in the early part of the temperature record are larger than later." Again, the data I posted recognized that the variations in the early period are due to a small number of stations/sparse data and did not hide this fact. I am not "clinging" to this one data set but simply presented it as one that indicates the warming in the 1920-45 period was fairly significant and may be similar to what we've seen today. Certainly there is a large degree of uncertainty here and the graph I posted along with the article by Judith Curry made this quite clear.

4. The purpose of the media reports I published, within the context, was two-fold. First, the primary point was to establish that nothing much has changed in regards to climate alarmism and how the news media portrays various natural disasters or events. The second point was to convey the historical accounts indicating there was great concern at the level of melting people were seeing and how unusual it was. Beyond that the news articles cited had no other purpose that I was intending to convey.

5. I am aware of Skeptical Science and other similar websites. The problem with a website like Skeptical Science, for example, is that they already have a settled view on the subject and are set out with the goal of proving any skepticism as a "myth." This is not an intellectually honest way to engage in debate on a subject no matter what the person's credentials may be. I have read several articles that were done well with valid points while also coming across some articles where certain data was intentionally left out of their discussion, not addressed, or represented in a misleading way.

6. As I mentioned previously, I started out as an AGW proponent and eventually changed my conclusions based upon data that I read on both sides of the debate. Just because the "consensus" may be on the side of AGW does not automatically invalidate other viewpoints or skepticism. Judith Curry summarized this a few years ago as seen below:
"As a scientist, I am an independent thinker, and I draw my own conclusions about the evidence regarding climate change. My conclusions, particularly my assessments of high levels of uncertainty, differ from the ‘consensus’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why does this difference in my own assessment relative to the IPCC result in my being labeled a ‘denier’? Well, the political approach to motivate action on climate change has been to ‘speak consensus to power’, which seems to require marginalizing and denigrating anyone who disagrees. The collapse of the consensus regarding cholesterol and heart disease reminds us that for scientific progress to occur, scientists need to continually challenge and reassess the evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evidence." https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8158/full/

It's pretty clear we disagree on AGW and you are far more knowledgeable than I am or ever will be concerning the weather and related data. Having said that, I think it's important for transparency and examination of skeptical views especially when they are presented by those who are well credentialed but outside the "consensus" view.

 

[Webberweather53]

I get the feeling from the above bolded portions of recent posts that the intent is geared in a condescending way to me personally. I've found in general that when discussions about issues like global warming reach this point it's generally best to step away to prevent any heated exchanges from occurring. Having said that, I will post a few points below and then refrain from posting on this topic for awhile.

1. First of all I'll begin by noting that I've followed you for awhile and really appreciate your level of research and knowledge. You do know an incredible amount about all things weather and have some great data out there that I enjoy reading.

2. All of the data I have posted I included citations so that others can read and research the data for themselves. The article I cited by Judith Curry, for example, does an excellent job of mentioning the sparse nature of the data and difficulty in determining the sea ice extent prior to the satellite era while also looking at what is available to make a conclusion about the ice extent. If I were intending to hide the uncertainty or be misleading I would not link articles like this.

3. The climate4you graph I posted also attributes this in the footnote under the graph, "Because of the relatively small number of Arctic stations before 1930, month-to-month variations in the early part of the temperature record are larger than later." Again, the data I posted recognized that the variations in the early period are due to a small number of stations/sparse data and did not hide this fact. I am not "clinging" to this one data set but simply presented it as one that indicates the warming in the 1920-45 period was fairly significant and may be similar to what we've seen today. Certainly there is a large degree of uncertainty here and the graph I posted along with the article by Judith Curry made this quite clear.

4. The purpose of the media reports I published, within the context, was two-fold. First, the primary point was to establish that nothing much has changed in regards to climate alarmism and how the news media portrays various natural disasters or events. The second point was to convey the historical accounts indicating there was great concern at the level of melting people were seeing and how unusual it was. Beyond that the news articles cited had no other purpose that I was intending to convey.

5. I am aware of Skeptical Science and other similar websites. The problem with a website like Skeptical Science, for example, is that they already have a settled view on the subject and are set out with the goal of proving any skepticism as a "myth." This is not an intellectually honest way to engage in debate on a subject no matter what the person's credentials may be. I have read several articles that were done well with valid points while also coming across some articles where certain data was intentionally left out of their discussion, not addressed, or represented in a misleading way.

6. As I mentioned previously, I started out as an AGW proponent and eventually changed my conclusions based upon data that I read on both sides of the debate. Just because the "consensus" may be on the side of AGW does not automatically invalidate other viewpoints or skepticism. Judith Curry summarized this a few years ago as seen below:
"As a scientist, I am an independent thinker, and I draw my own conclusions about the evidence regarding climate change. My conclusions, particularly my assessments of high levels of uncertainty, differ from the ‘consensus’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why does this difference in my own assessment relative to the IPCC result in my being labeled a ‘denier’? Well, the political approach to motivate action on climate change has been to ‘speak consensus to power’, which seems to require marginalizing and denigrating anyone who disagrees. The collapse of the consensus regarding cholesterol and heart disease reminds us that for scientific progress to occur, scientists need to continually challenge and reassess the evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evidence." https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8158/full/

It's pretty clear we disagree on AGW and you are far more knowledgeable than I am or ever will be concerning the weather and related data. Having said that, I think it's important for transparency and examination of skeptical views especially when they are presented by those who are well credentialed but outside the "consensus" view.

Now you're saying that I'm somehow completely degenerating your line of rationale or better yet "speak consensus to power" like I'm using the consensus as the main piece to my argument? Umm no, that's complete nonsense. I've been pretty kind and civil to you, trying to instill advice on you because I was at one point in your very shoes on this issue, referred you to pieces of literature and my own website even (which also has tons of literature attached to it) on the 19th & 20th century reconstructions, and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm very certain I've yet to mention "well "x" number of scientists say this" or anything even remotely related to that statement. At best, I was referring to how certain websites that are often heavily ridiculed by skeptics like yourself are run by actual climate scientists while WUWT, Real Science, & notrickszone are not (some of these esp the last one, are funded by fossil fuel corps btw who have a particular, subjective, non-scientific interest in spreading climate misinformation to the public and those who don't have the necessary training to refute or deeply delve into their arguments).

The uncertainties in the data were at best glossed over and you're only now half-heartedly admitting they're size, but do you honestly think the uncertainities are small enough to where you can measure an actual signal in the data to claim the 1930s-40s was warmer or do you have any idea what the magnitude of the uncertainties are? That's all I really want to know. Instead you've chosen to side step this question or make very broadbrushed claims about the uncertainties without actually attempting to delve into them or produce literature that provided cold, hard numbers on these uncertainties.

Additionally, I don't think you actually understand what the HADCRUT4 data you were looking at shows. Remember that HADCRUT4 only produces values for grid boxes where there is data, and the average for many of those grid boxes where this is data, only constitute a couple stations (or even one!), if there's no data, it's excluded, which also means they're only measuring at best one-third of the arctic (even less before 1935), and what about the other two-thirds? We can't just ignore that. Also, what if those stations used in HADCRUT4 aren't equally spaced apart in the grid box or are better yet on the edge of the grid box in question, do you think they adequately represent the temperature variations at those points? Likely no. Berkeley, ERA-20C, ERA-20CM, GISS, and Cowtan/Way's interpolation w/ HADCRUT4 along with other datasets all agree this period wasn't as warm and was far more likely to be less warmer than it is today, if you want to dispute that, it's fine, publish your own peer reviewed study or rebuttal, I'd be glad to read it. The raw HADCRUT4 data doesn't really suffice to say the 1930s-40s were warmer than the 2000s because it's actually not even measuring the entirety of the arctic to begin w/.

Wrt skeptical science and your other point, I'm aware of obvious errors and the lean of the website, but real scientists run them and they do focus on literature at hand instead of overused talking points that have little basis in science and more to do w/ geopolitics. Don't take this statement the wrong way or blow it out of proportion for what it really means, but the science is in fact settled and irrefutable that carbon dioxide, water, and methane, HCFCs, etc. are in fact greenhouse gases which by definition selectively absorb and emit outgoing longwave radiation at particular infrared wavelengths, warming the earth's surface. This has been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt in the laboratory and the field. The part that's actually debated is how much these actually contribute to the warming of the climate and those who actually regularly published and are the most trained on the subject are far more likely to contend that it's a major player in the climate today and becoming a bigger player as time progress, those in the skeptical community have yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the forcings are in fact not "major" from these GHGs, or a solid, alternative theory and instead tend to often resort to "one-dimensional" oversimplified arguments and line of rationale using correlations between natural oscillations and AGW for example as I delved into above, which is often their undoing and completely misleads them into thinking that "well the climate has changed to "x" before so it's warming now, therefore it's still mostly "x", " when in reality, like anything in mathematics or science, there are multiple ways to arrive at the same answer and conclusion, as there are multiple avenues to warm the climate, and what we're doing today simply isn't the same as any other point in earth's history and doesn't make the two comparable at least in that sense but in other ways they are similar of course. I'm not saying yourself and others in the skeptical community are completely inferior, lacking the necessary meteorological or climate science background and/or secondary education to delve into the subject, but they're very important to have and you can't deny that if you possessed this general suite of knowledge your opinion would significantly change. Sure, many have tried to train themselves extensively on the issue on their own time for leisure, etc (as I did for several years before going into college), but in the overwhelming majority (but not all) of cases, it's definitely not the same as actually following through at a distinguished institution.

I just ask that you please stay on topic and stick with the discussion at hand on arctic 19th-20th century temperatures instead of trying to derail it and bring about a host of unrelated issues about so-called "groupthink" rationale, how politics are intertwined (which they definitely are) etc. because that's not what I'm actually concerned with nor what our previous dialogue was about. Those are certainly valid points of discussion for AGW in general, but I really would just like to stick to the actual science with climate change.

 

[Webberweather53]

Wrt the first bolded statement, it wasn't meant to demean or put you down, I'm honestly just stating the truth, because I do know what I'm talking about. Feel free to check out my website, all the papers linked at the bottom I've delved into extensively the last several years and had to incorporate into this project which is still being tweaked to this day.
https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

 

[BHS1975]

Democracy is about consensus so if the consensus is we are wrecking the planet we need to take action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GaWx]

I would definitely be interested in seeing how far south those counties in GA go. My thought is that the furthest south will be Dawson before you find a slight warming in Forsyth and Hall and perhaps Cherokee county as well due to population exploding rapidly and the overall expansion of what is considered Metro Atlanta.

Actually, they went as far south as Lamar, Pike, and Upson counties in central GA! I estimate that 1/2 of the counties between those 3 and the far north were cooler. Fulton and Cherokee were flat. Cobb, Douglas, Carroll, and Paulding were warmer. But Forsyth, Gwinnett, Dekalb, Clayton, and Fayette were cooler.
So, a much larger portion of GA than NC and SC was cooler. Also, 15 counties in far E TN, including the counties bordering the cooler far SW NC counties, were cooler. I haven't checked AL yet.
-------------------------------------
Forsyth county from here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/count...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2018

Whereas their lows cooled 0.07 F/decade, their highs actually warmed 0.03 F/decade resulting in means that cooled only a very slight 0.02/decade. But cooler it is. Despite this overall cooling since 1900, the warmest decade actually is the 2010s with the 2000s and 1930s tied for 2nd warmest. The coldest just as is the case just about everywhere is the 1960s:

Means at Forsyth
1900s: 59.5
1910s: 59.5
1920s: 59.8
1930s: 59.9
1940s: 59.3
1950s: 59.7
1960s: 58.1
1970s: 58.7
1980s: 58.9
1990s: 59.6
2000s: 59.9
2010s: 60.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just checked some of FL. All were clearly warmer. Based on preliminary analyses of cooler vs warmer counties in the SE US, it seems that being prettty far away from either the Gulf or Atlantic is required to have a reasonable chance to be cooler. Also, being at higher elevations seems to help chances.
A fair number of N and C AL counties were cooler as well as at least a few in MS. Going N of the latitudes of the SE US suggests increased warming, however.

 

[setxwx]

Maybe a solution for all this confusing discussion is to have multiple threads on specific topics within the overall Subject of Climate Change. Would help with political discussions too. I guess with a small forum it's not a problem, but as it gets bigger it will become more of an issue.

 

[MichaelJ]

Democracy is about consensus so if the consensus is we are wrecking the planet we need to take action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Science is not a Democracy, it is just about provable and verifiable facts