Page 109 of 127 FirstFirst ... 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ... LastLast
Results 2,701 to 2,725 of 3156
  1. #2701
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Wa wa..tatic
    Posts
    3,281
    why are you guys even engaging with this gigantic fucking JONG??

  2. #2702
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,951
    Because I'm banging his imaginary wife, duh
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  3. #2703
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You guys will never live that down will you? All because I didn't look closely at a graph, because next to the graph in large font was the the number I expected to see.
    I'm OK with it.

    You on the other hand are the one not likely to live it down.

    No, really, skepticism is good. And it's a good lesson to see the difference.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  4. #2704
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,839
    Your initial assessment wasn't wrong because ron's tactics are an insult, too. Among the more insidious games ron plays is feigning ignorance about previously discussed topics.
    That alone is what makes me think this is a Bot.
    Ooof!

  5. #2705
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,793
    Diamond Joe is right but on the off chance anyone cares the the studies discussed earlier in this thread on 95th percentile extreme/heavy/etc., rainfall events are now part of the 2018 IPCC consensus:

    So contrary to ron's false accusations of cherry picking and ignoring the consensus, the IPCC's 2018 Report on Global Warming says "It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends" where per the earlier discussion heavy, extreme, and several other synonyms for outlier 95th percentile rainfall events were all discussed at length earlier in this thread.


    The study describing how climate change is exacerbating extreme heat events as well as droughts, all part of a long term pattern change in Australia is linked on page 107 in post #2652.


    And FWIW the two examples above were just two recent examples of ron's tactics. Anyone paying attention to this thread knows ron tries poison the well by among other things asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, without engaging in good faith.

  6. #2706
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,793
    As an addendum to the previous page,

    Earlier in this thread it was discussed how a shifting mean, associated with something like warming global temperatures, leads to large changes at the extremes, increases the odds of extreme heat events. Just like much of the planet, Australia has warmed over the past decade culminating in 2019 as the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.

    In the past decade Australian heatwave records were broken in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2019 across a much larger area even though a some of smaller area of records still stand. Some might even call that a trend.

    So while it true a lot of hot/cold pre-1950 records still stand, particularly in U.S. Midwest, the ratio of hot to cold records in the modern era are falling by 2 or 3 to 1 every year, that is hot/heatwave records are being broken at two to three times the rate as cold records are being set.

  7. #2707
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838
    WronG johnson doesn't really conveniently forget his out dated talking points have been debunked multiple times. He instead doubles and triples down claiming he proved the consensus wrong.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  8. #2708
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Diamond Joe is right but on the off chance anyone cares the the studies discussed earlier in this thread on 95th percentile extreme/heavy/etc., rainfall events are now part of the 2018 IPCC consensus:

    So contrary to ron's false accusations of cherry picking and ignoring the consensus, the IPCC's 2018 Report on Global Warming says "It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends" where per the earlier discussion heavy, extreme, and several other synonyms for outlier 95th percentile rainfall events were all discussed at length earlier in this thread.
    Link me to where heavy is a synonym of extreme. I've never seen a climate headline about heavy precipitation.

    The study describing how climate change is exacerbating extreme heat events as well as droughts, all part of a long term pattern change in Australia is linked on page 107 in post #2652.
    I'm sure no one in this thread, including yourself, is going to read your 200 page pdf. It should be apparent to you that there are climate scientists that try to blame everything on global warming. There is no way I am going to accept that that regional drought is due to CO2 when there is no increase in drought in Australia or the world.

    Even if we accept that drought to be the result of CO2, what does it even matter if drought isn't increasing in Australia or the world?

    And FWIW the two examples above were just two recent examples of ron's tactics. Anyone paying attention to this thread knows ron tries poison the well by among other things asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, without engaging in good faith.
    Your constant accusations against me are made up, and should be obvious to see to anyone actually paying attention.

  9. #2709
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,951
    My accusation of you probably being an incel is correct, though...
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  10. #2710
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    As an addendum to the previous page,

    Earlier in this thread it was discussed how a shifting mean, associated with something like warming global temperatures, leads to large changes at the extremes, increases the odds of extreme heat events. Just like much of the planet, Australia has warmed over the past decade culminating in 2019 as the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.
    You are using mean temperatures as a metric for extreme heat. That is not compatible.

    And it was discussed how your belief that that increasing means result in more extreme heat events is no guarantee, e.g. the US.

    In the past decade Australian heatwave records were broken in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2019 across a much larger area even though a some of smaller area of records still stand. Some might even call that a trend.
    Source?

    So while it true a lot of hot/cold pre-1950 records still stand, particularly in U.S. Midwest, the ratio of hot to cold records in the modern era are falling by 2 or 3 to 1 every year, that is hot/heatwave records are being broken at two to three times the rate as cold records are being set.
    Source?

    I can already tell you this is not correct for places we have long term records.

  11. #2711
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    WronG johnson doesn't really conveniently forget his out dated talking points have been debunked multiple times. He instead doubles and triples down claiming he proved the consensus wrong.
    You've been claiming this forever despite having never been able to point out any of my debunked talking points after many requests.

    I've largely been doubling and tripling down on the consensus to prove my points.

  12. #2712
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,951
    You haven’t successfully proven a single point yet, but hey, even a blind squirrel...
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  13. #2713
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,951

  14. #2714
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,793
    I doubt if anyone cares but the last time increasing extreme/heavy rainfall came up, like so many other discussions ron continued asking the same inane questions over and over, made all the same accusations, ignored the previous discussion, ignored the literature, and ignored that heavy and extreme were treated as synonyms for 95th percentile events, and on and on...

    At the end end of day, a person acting in good faith would accept the mathematical definition, or try to learn what that means, and move on:

    Name:  95th percentile.png
Views: 67
Size:  25.5 KB



    From over two months ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    What is heavy precipitation defined as?


    From the abstract it doesn't appear this paper is doing any analysis of trends in extreme rainfall?
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse

    - The extreme precipitation events in the paper are defined as 95th percentile.

    -- The quoted text is from the paper itself. The paper connects increasing odds of extreme precipitation events with a "different physical regime" i.e. a changing climate. The paper is focused on how the, "characteristics of extreme events will change under ongoing climate change."

    --- You can read more about the Northeast United States component here: https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme...limate-change/

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I get that, but what are heavy precipitation events defined as? Or are you saying heavy is the same as extreme?

    Okay I guess, but I'm still not seeing much evidence that shows increasing trends in extreme rainfall events.
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse
    - I'm deferring to the scientific literature which defines extreme rainfall as something like two or three standard deviations outside the mean.

    -- I found extreme rainfall event papers specific for each region mentioned above and I provided a link for the Northeast United States component sourced from the National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program).

  15. #2715
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838


    Check mate because i said everyone else is wrong!
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #2716
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    No surprise that you have learned nothing.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  17. #2717
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    You haven’t successfully proven a single point yet, but hey, even a blind squirrel...
    I have, but like I said, I could try to make the case for the sky being blue and you wouldn't accept it.

  18. #2718
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    It's a sad state for climate science when even a 16 year old can debunk their garbage: https://chrismartzweather.com/2019/1...tic-outbreaks/

  19. #2719
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I doubt if anyone cares but the last time increasing extreme/heavy rainfall came up, like so many other discussions ron continued asking the same inane questions over and over, made all the same accusations, ignored the previous discussion, ignored the literature, and ignored that heavy and extreme were treated as synonyms for 95th percentile events, and on and on...

    At the end end of day, a person acting in good faith would accept the mathematical definition, or try to learn what that means, and move on:

    Name:  95th percentile.png
Views: 67
Size:  25.5 KB



    From over two months ago:
    What paper are you referring to that defines extreme rainfall as 95th percentile? The top graph from your link defines 'very heavy' as top 1%.

    What is the approximate post # for these posts so I can go back and look at the discussion?

  20. #2720
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post


    Check mate because i said everyone else is wrong!
    That is MV strategy.

  21. #2721
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,793
    FWIW, and apart from ron since this is essentially the same discussion as last time and if he wants to rehash it he can look it up himself: even though there was an unbelievable number of record daily highs set in the U.S. in the 1930s the ratio between warm temperature and cold temperature has increasingly veered towards ever warmer temperatures. Without global warming the ratio between record highs and record lows should more or less even out. But that's not happening.

    Even though many of the 1930s dust bowl records still stand, the United States has seen roughly two record highs for every record low over the last few decades. Observed annual U.S. record high maximum compared to record low minimum daily temperatures shows that the ratio of about 2 to 1 through the 2000s are just the transient values of a ratio that has been increasing with mean annual temperature over the U.S. since the late1970s. Since 2010, and going back as far as 1895, an even geographic distribution of 60 cities show U.S. daily record highs outnumber lows 5 to 1.


    Sources:

    Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. (Meehl 2009)

    https://weather.com/news/climate/new...ce-record-lows

    https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/us...-lows-5-1-2010

  22. #2722
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    FWIW, and apart from ron since this is essentially the same discussion as last time and if he wants to rehash it he can look it up himself: even though there was an unbelievable number of record daily highs set in the U.S. in the 1930s the ratio between warm temperature and cold temperature has increasingly veered towards ever warmer temperatures. Without global warming the ratio between record highs and record lows should more or less even out. But that's not happening.

    Even though many of the 1930s dust bowl records still stand, the United States has seen roughly two record highs for every record low over the last few decades. Observed annual U.S. record high maximum compared to record low minimum daily temperatures shows that the ratio of about 2 to 1 through the 2000s are just the transient values of a ratio that has been increasing with mean annual temperature over the U.S. since the late1970s. Since 2010, and going back as far as 1895, an even geographic distribution of 60 cities show U.S. daily record highs outnumber lows 5 to 1.


    Sources:

    Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. (Meehl 2009)

    https://weather.com/news/climate/new...ce-record-lows

    https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/us...-lows-5-1-2010
    We have well established that nights have been less cool than in the past, resulting in higher mean temperatures, so this is not unexpected. This is not proof of more extreme heat in the US since very few state record highs have been set in the 21st century, and we know heat waves were much worse pre 1950.

  23. #2723
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,793
    If by "we" ron means that like so many other discussions ron continued poisoning the well by asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, ignored the previous discussion, ignored the literature, and on and on for page after page... then yeah "we" have established "that nights have been less cool than in the past, resulting in higher mean temperatures":


    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    What is interesting is that there were 12,083 US daily high max temperature records set this YTD, but there were 20,769 daily high min records. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be a high min record would mean that it was the lowest high temperature ever recorded for a specific date right? That would be an indication of less extreme heat. Also, there were 9,673 low min records set YTD even despite this being the warmest decade on the instrumental record.

    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
    Wrong, as usual. MIn is the low temp for the day.. Record high mins are when the low temp is higher than any other low on record for that day.. Exact same shit MV's been telling you for 10 pages or so..

    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx
    Damn RJ, I know you have no shame, but you gotta admit, that's kind of embarrassing.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    Wow, you were able to correct me for once!

  24. #2724
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    We have well established that nights have been less cool than in the past, resulting in higher mean temperatures, so this is not unexpected. This is not proof of more extreme heat in the US since very few state record highs have been set in the 21st century, and we know heat waves were much worse pre 1950.
    I thought we were supposed to be avoiding regional data and focusing on the bigger picture..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  25. #2725
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    If by "we" ron means that like so many other discussions ron continued poisoning the well by asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, ignored the previous discussion, ignored the literature, and on and on for page after page... then yeah "we" have established "that nights have been less cool than in the past, resulting in higher mean temperatures":
    You are so full of shit its getting to be ridiculous. You accuse me of asking the same questions over and over when I rarely even ask you questions, I mostly just respond to your junk with information. I reserve the questions for trying to make sense of your incoherent responses. The quotes you have highlighted are out of context and irrelevant to our current discussion. I wasn't sure what a high min record was, so what? A high min record doesn't suggest less extreme heat, but neither does the ratio of record highs to record lows guarantee more extreme heat.

    BTW, do you ever notice how I pick apart all of your posts piece by piece while you pick and choose what is convenient for you to respond to?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •