Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[old goat]

Why do you guys keep arguing the past when the problem is the future?

[Garbowski]

Why do you guys keep arguing the past when the problem is the future?

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

[MultiVerse]

Why do you guys keep arguing the past when the problem is the future?

Because past heat records are used to imply or tell the lie that average air and sea temperatures are not increasing.

By focusing on max records instead of averages it becomes possible for frauds to make completely specious arguments about what is happening today in order to cast doubt about future projections.

Deniers say things like the data shows a region or the planet isn't warming because of past hot records. They'll say NOAA, or the U.S. National Climate Assesment, or Australia's Bureau of Meteorology are frauds because how can the state, country, or the planet be warming when old max records still stand.

For statistical reasons explained in the Meehl paper referenced on the previous page records will be set less frequently as time goes by making the odds that a given temperature record, especially outliers, will be broken incredibly small. The average of tens of thousands of weather stations accumulating millions of data points is what really matters.

What matters is globally 18 of the 19 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the five hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the U.S. the four hottest years on record occurred in this decade and of the 10 hottest years on record, only two came before 1998 (1934, 1921).

[SkiCougar]

CNN overnight did a story on the flooding of London. It projected out to 2200 and had miles and miles of London flooded from the rise of water from the Thames, even though there has been no mearsurable sea rise at points all over in 100 years.

I suppose Summit and Eagle counties are the only places it will be safe.

[rideit]

Houston will be fukd

[rideit]

You'd have to be a moron to think your personal experience of 30? 40? 50? years of weather is proof of anything.

Ok, Boomer Shill.
How is the weather above the submarine today?

https://news.google.com/articles/CAI...S&ceid=US%3Aen

[SumJongGuy]

CNN overnight did a story on the flooding of London. It projected out to 2200 and had miles and miles of London flooded from the rise of water from the Thames, even though there has been no mearsurable sea rise at points all over in 100 years.

I suppose Summit and Eagle counties are the only places it will be safe.

https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends

[ron johnson]

Because past heat records are used to imply or tell the lie that average air and sea temperatures are not increasing.

By focusing on max records instead of averages it becomes possible for frauds to make completely specious arguments about what is happening today in order to cast doubt about future projections.

When people talk about global warming they aren't thinking about average temperatures. They are thinking about hotter days/more extreme heat/the earth is on fire!! Looking at historical max temperatures show that this isn't happening. What is happening is its getting less cold, not hotter (in the US and Aus where we have good long term records). Not exactly a headline worthy!

Deniers say things like the data shows a region or the planet isn't warming because of past hot records. They'll say NOAA, or the U.S. National Climate Assesment, or Australia's Bureau of Meteorology are frauds because how can the state, country, or the planet be warming when old max records still stand.

Deniers don't say NOAA, NASA, and the BOM are frauds because old max records still stand. They say they are frauds because they adjust past temperatures and refuse to make public their adjustments.

For statistical reasons explained in the Meehl paper referenced on the previous page records will be set less frequently as time goes by making the odds that a given temperature record, especially outliers, will be broken incredibly small. The average of tens of thousands of weather stations accumulating millions of data points is what really matters.

What matters is globally 18 of the 19 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the five hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the U.S. the four hottest years on record occurred in this decade and of the 10 hottest years on record, only two came before 1998 (1934, 1921).

Again, the recent high mean temperatures in the US are driven by it being less cold, not more extreme heat.

[ron johnson]

Why do you guys keep arguing the past when the problem is the future?

History, why does it matter?

[MultiVerse]

I guess we're back once again to conspiracies instead of last week's "conforming to consensus".


Anyway, temperature extremes tell us less than average temperatures when it comes to warming because the odds that a given temperature record, especially outliers, will be broken becomes incredibly small over time.


Think about a thermometer with a finite range of possibilities for its location. The likelihood that an extreme will occur is 1/n, with n as the number of days after the thermometer was set up. On day one the odds of an extreme reading is 1/1 or 1, day 2 is ½, day 3 is 33%, day 4 is 25%, day 100 is 1%, day 1000 is 0.001%, day 10000 is 0.0001% and so on.

Early on a bunch of records are set but over time in a randomly variable closed system with a fixed range of possibilities the odds of breaking previous records becomes incredibly small.

In Utah, for example, the hottest temp ever recorded was 117F and the coldest was -69F so those are the current range of possibilities but that doesn’t tell us much about overall warming in the state. If there was no overall warming or cooling at all then over time we’d all but cease to hit daily records as time progresses.

Instead, what we’re seeing is increasingly higher average global temperatures. It’s counterintuitive, but the fact that the ratio daily max highs to max lows records are increasing, by 2:1 in the past couple of decades, or 3:1 in the past decade, or 5:1 in recent years, instead of balancing out over time is one of the strongest indicators that the planet is in fact warming. Is in fact getting hotter not just "less cold."

[Mofro261]

Just when you thought stupidity had reached a new low, along comes Ron to argue that LESS COLD does not mean WARMER.

[rideit]

History, why does it matter?

Just because the speeding car didn’t hit the brick wall doesn’t mean that the speeding car won’t hit the brick wall in the future.
Dumbass.

[ron johnson]

I guess we're back once again to conspiracies instead of last week's "conforming to consensus".

Nope, just correcting you on why some people call NASA and the BOM fraudsters.

Anyway, temperature extremes tell us less than average temperatures when it comes to warming because the odds that a given temperature record, especially outliers, will be broken becomes incredibly small over time.

Think about a thermometer with a finite range of possibilities for its location. The likelihood that an extreme will occur is 1/n, with n as the number of days after the thermometer was set up. On day one the odds of an extreme reading is 1/1 or 1, day 2 is ½, day 3 is 33%, day 4 is 25%, day 100 is 1%, day 1000 is 0.001%, day 10000 is 0.0001% and so on.

Early on a bunch of records are set but over time in a randomly variable closed system with a fixed range of possibilities the odds of breaking previous records becomes incredibly small.

In Utah, for example, the hottest temp ever recorded was 117F and the coldest was -69F so those are the current range of possibilities but that doesn’t tell us much about overall warming in the state. If there was no overall warming or cooling at all then over time we’d all but cease to hit daily records as time progresses.

Instead, what we’re seeing is increasingly higher average global temperatures. It’s counterintuitive, but the fact that the ratio daily max highs to max lows records are increasing, by 2:1 in the past couple of decades, or 3:1 in the past decade, or 5:1 in recent years, instead of balancing out over time is one of the strongest indicators that the planet is in fact warming. Is in fact getting hotter not just "less cold."

Yes, it becomes more unlikely to break a record each year forward, but it's application isn't great here because we don't have a large sample size. If you are given the option of choosing a 25 year sample size or a 100 year sample size, which do you think is more likely to capture an area's highest temperature? Knowing nothing about a regions climate, would you be more likely to capture it's record high temperature in 1895-1920 or 1921-2021? You are also ignoring the fact that increasing CO2 is supposed to make it hotter, and you have been arguing that higher average temperatures cause more extreme heat.

Also, the graphs I have posted are comparing measures of extreme heat over time, not isolated record highs. You can see clearly from these graphs that daily average maximum temperatures, percent of hot days, and heat waves haven't been increasing in the US and Australia.




So yes, despite mean temps increasing in the US and Australia, this is due to warmer cold temperatures, not warmer hot temperatures.

[ron johnson]

Just when you thought stupidity had reached a new low, along comes Ron to argue that LESS COLD does not mean WARMER.

You are being obtuse, you know what I am saying.

[ron johnson]

Just because the speeding car didn’t hit the brick wall doesn’t mean that the speeding car won’t hit the brick wall in the future.
Dumbass.

Definitely never implied such a thing.

[rideit]

You are being obtuse, you know what I am saying.

What we don’t know is who is paying you to say it...because nobody could be that obtuse without some financial remuneration.

[Mofro261]

You are being obtuse, you know what I am saying.

You are saying that the world is becoming warmer.

because you just did.

despite mean temps increasing in the US and Australia, this is due to warmer cold temperatures, not warmer hot temperatures.

[dan_pdx]

Definitely never implied such a thing.

Sounds like we're on the same page then, that the speeding car is headed for the brick wall. Glad we were able to resolve this!

More seriously, I think about our conversation with "Ron" here as kind of like the public-spirited work that people showcase on 419eater.com. By constantly calling out his inconsistencies and half-truths, we occupy him here, taking time away that might otherwise be spent scamming more credulous audiences elsewhere. So Padded Room, give yourselves a big holiday pat on the back!

[rideit]

That’s where I am at.
It’s enjoyable swatting around a fairly pathetic mouse before going in for the kill.

[ron johnson]

You are saying that the world is becoming warmer.

because you just did.

Did you actually think I have been claiming the world is not warming and that was a gotcha moment or something?

[rideit]

‘You’ haven’t been claiming anything, your boss has.

[Mofro261]

Did you actually think I have been claiming the world is not warming and that was a gotcha moment or something?

Based on 500 posts of yours in this thread, it's clear and evident you don't have the acumen to understand basic concepts of mean, min, or max, let alone the words "climate" and "global".

Koch-sucker.

[rideit]

Koch-sucker.

Exactly.
Like Mr. Burns’ sycophantic sidekick Smithers.

[ron johnson]

Sounds like we're on the same page then, that the speeding car is headed for the brick wall. Glad we were able to resolve this!

More seriously, I think about our conversation with "Ron" here as kind of like the public-spirited work that people showcase on 419eater.com. By constantly calling out his inconsistencies and half-truths, we occupy him here, taking time away that might otherwise be spent scamming more credulous audiences elsewhere. So Padded Room, give yourselves a big holiday pat on the back!

Where did you get the idea that I implied a speeding car is headed for a brick wall?

My 'inconsistencies and half truths' is some made up talking point to try to discredit me. Care to point out some of them?

[rideit]

Where did you get the idea that I implied a speeding car is headed for a brick wall?

You just failed rhetorical discourse 101.
Go back to go.