Page 111 of 138 FirstFirst ... 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ... LastLast
Results 2,751 to 2,775 of 3430
  1. #2751
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,014
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    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).

  2. #2752
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Loveland, Chair 9.
    Posts
    4,338
    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.
    Eat em up Houston Cougars !

  3. #2753
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Houston will be fukd
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  4. #2754
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post

    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
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  5. #2755
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiCougar View Post
    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
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #2756
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    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.
    Name:  NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif
Views: 91
Size:  136.2 KB
    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.

  7. #2757
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Why do you guys keep arguing the past when the problem is the future?
    History, why does it matter?

  8. #2758
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,014
    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 , 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."

  9. #2759
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,629
    Just when you thought stupidity had reached a new low, along comes Ron to argue that LESS COLD does not mean WARMER.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  10. #2760
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  11. #2761
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    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 , 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.
    Name:  aus.png
Views: 59
Size:  59.5 KB
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Percent-Of-Days-Above-900F-Vs-Year-1918-2018-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-R.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	172.5 KB 
ID:	304537
    Name:  hwmi.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  29.6 KB

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

  12. #2762
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    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.

  13. #2763
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    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.

  14. #2764
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  15. #2765
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  16. #2766
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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!

  17. #2767
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    That’s where I am at.
    It’s enjoyable swatting around a fairly pathetic mouse before going in for the kill.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  18. #2768
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    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?

  19. #2769
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    ‘You’ haven’t been claiming anything, your boss has.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  20. #2770
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  21. #2771
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post

    Koch-sucker.
    Exactly.
    Like Mr. Burns’ sycophantic sidekick Smithers.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  22. #2772
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    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?

  23. #2773
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,824
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  24. #2774
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,770
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    It's entertaining watching you paint yourself into a corner.
    By all means, carry on.

  25. #2775
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    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.
    So go find an example of me not understanding mean, min, or max. It's 'clear and evident' so it shouldn't be difficult, but you won't because its just made up slander.

    dislaimer: the max min thing doesn't count, because who has ever heard of max mins?

Posting Permissions

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