re: You said:
So what was the max and min and bp on Mount Washington 100 years ago?
I do not know, there seems to be no such information on record or then I simply have not found it yet.
If you can locate the information please let me know, the barometric pressure reading in those days would also be of interest.
You said:
So the difference between max and min on that day 100 years ago should be no larger than about 12. Does that sound reasonable for a 6k mountain in winter to you.
I do not know what it should have been at that altitude, I believe that the 5C degree maximum change was for a lower altitude.
You are going to great pains to explain a phenomenon that you have not established as existing at all.
I have not established it beyond the shadow of a doubt, but all indicators that I observe point in that direction.
Believe me: if there was such a huge change in the difference between max and min temperatures over such a short period of time... and alternatively, if there was such a drastic change in worldwide barometric pressure over such a short time... then you would have heard about it from the scientific community. And it would be a bigger topic of study and with more funding thrown at it than any other, bar none. It would be in the news more often than global warming is.
Suppose that some scientists have noticed such changes but considered it as part of the climate change, therefore tied to the man made chemicals in the air and then it would be studied only as part of the "chemical" studies.
Consider another scenario, suppose that you were a scientist that would have noticed it and confirmed that the effects are real, but you did not know "why" they occur, would you write a thesis about it, describe it to anyone, or write a book about it.
If you do not know why the effect occurs then your research is not complete and who would believe in or publish an incomplete paper.
Another thing is that if all scientists behave the way that some of the people here at HZ behave, then nothing new will ever be studied.