Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Of Course, When They First Started Keeping Records _Everything_
Was a Record.
Posted:
Jul 10, 2012 12:59 PM
|
|
> > > > > > > Very interesting debunking of "unprecedented number of heat records"
> > > > > > > here:
>
> > > > > > > <http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/heatwaves-were-much-wor...>
>
> > > > > > > Heatwaves Were Much Worse Through Most Of US History
> > > > > > > Posted on July 8, 2012
>
> > > > > > > We are bombarded with statistics comparing the number of record lows to
> > > > > > > record highs, the number of record highs, etc. So I decided to look at
> > > > > > > what the actual numbers are in the USHCN database.
>
> > > > > > > The graph below shows the number of daily record highs set per year for
> > > > > > > all USHCN stations (through 2011) which have records going back at
> > > > > > > least to 1930. The results are astonishing. 1934 and 1936 both set
> > > > > > > nearly five times as many record daily highs as 2011 did. It appears
> > > > > > > that the entire period from 1910 until 1960 was hotter than recent
> > > > > > > decades.
>
> > > > > > > There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature
> > > > > > > records in the US since 1895. 84% of them were set when CO2 was below
> > > > > > > 350ppm.
>
> > > > > > Funny, he left out the record lows.
>
> > > > > > Anyone know why?
>
> > > > The lows may not have been relevant enough to the argument to enter
> > > > into the argument.
>
> > > The entire denier "big-fish-in-a-small-pond" scam, the point of the
> > > thread, went right over, or possibly under, your head.
>
> > > Here, we'll try starting off very very slowly:
>
> > > What is the more meaningful "record?" Being the fastest in the Tour
> > > of California?
>
> > > Or the fastest in the Tour de France?
>
> > > It is pure nonsense to compare records from the small data set at or
> > > near the beginning of record keeping, here the 1930s, to the records
> > > being toppled today in the much older/larger data set.
>
> > > > Or it may have been a case of statistical bias.
>
> > > The denier's scam so stupid it's not even that.
>
> > > It's in the self parody category.
>
> > > If that scam has any use it's to determine who asleep and who's awake.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Ewe deniers of the AGW scam must bang your heads in frustration when
> > ewe hear or read news items like "coldest temperature on record" or
> > "coldest June in 38 years"
>
> > MG
>
> Actually we feel vindicated that in the US this year, 22,000 record
> highs have been set or tied compared to 2400 record lows.
Some climate scientists believe all the extremes will increase, the
record lows as well as the record highs.
All this ignores the essential point of this thread, the denier "big-
fish-extreme-in-a-small-data-set-pond" scam, an argument so specious
it amounts to a self parody of denial nonsense.
If you go back early enough every day would be a record simply because
the data set was so small.
Going back to the 1930s records that do not include the much larger
extremes from the much larger / older data set of today is a complete
farce. It's like the winner of the Tour of California bragging to 2nd
place in the Tour de France.
It's maybe good for a chuckle but that's about it.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
