Well, for starters, this isn't a research paper at all. Its a...

Well, for starters, this isn't a research paper at all. Its a letter to the British medical journal. Not only that, but its an editorial from 1998 - over 25 years ago. You can see the full thing below.




Ok, so its not a research paper, they do cite some sources like when they say;

" Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994. Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?"

which the author of the letter cites (5. Balling RC. Global warming: messy models, decent data and pointless policy. In: Bailey R, editor. The true state of the planet. New York: Free Press; 1995. pp. 83–107) This is a book by the way, not a research paper. As you might be aware, you can basically write whatever you want in a book. But lets look at the claims anyway.

Lets look at the first one; "Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994"

The Author used this source to show "cooling" (Global Atmospheric Temperature Monitoring with Satellite Microwave Measurements: Method and Results 1979–84) When sourcing this graph showing "cooling"


Now, this is where the problem of using a letter from 1998 as source comes from. You see, Spencer et al (UAH - the brown line in the graph below) was the lower end of a range of data sets (that's what we in the biz call cherry picking).


Furthermore, a follow up on Spencer's data in 2005 showed that the satellite that was taking the reading was taking temperature readings later and later in the day instead of taking readings at the same time every day. (https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1114772)

When Spencer's data was corrected, they showed a warming trend of 0.193 degrees centigrade per decade - matching the other datasets in the graph above.


The second quote "why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?""

The book somehow makes the mistake of posting a rainfall graph twice, instead of the actual temperature graph of the artic that it presumes to reference. So I went to the source material, and unfortunately I dont have access to it. However, I can read the abstract, which does say;

"Recent homogenized near-surface temperature data over the land and oceans of both hemispheres during the past 130 years are combined to produce the first comprehensive estimates of global mean temperature. The results show little trend in the nineteenth century, marked warming to 1940, relatively steady conditions to the mid-1970s and a subsequent rapid warming. The warmest 3 years have all occurred in the 1980s."
(https://doi.org/10.1038/322430a0)

So, to recap;
1. Your source is not a research paper, its a letter to a journal.
2. Its over 25 years old (not that that is necessarily a problem, but its used dated and since corrected information)
3. The sources of information of the letter have been corrected as the originals were flawed - this was accepted by the authors Spencer et al.

That is how being a sceptic works. I'd love to see a reply from you.

Cheers,