Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Are there any people on alt.global-warming who are interested in
having a rational scientific discussion about the meaning of the ratio of
warm records to cold records.
Posted:
Jul 10, 2012 1:18 PM
|
|
> > > > >>> Are there any people on alt.global-warming who are interested in having a
> > > > >>> rational scientific discussion about the meaning of the ratio of warm
> > > > >>> records to cold records.
>
> > > > >>> I have tried to do this with Dawlish and erschroedinger, but they are not
> > > > >>> interested in discussing anything which might contradict their AGW belief.
> > > > >>> This, of course, proves that they are not scientific. Because a scientific
> > > > >>> person will always consider data which might disprove his or her beliefs.
>
> > > > >> 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.
>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Belief In Catastrophic Global Warming Is Consistent With Being Stupid
>
> > > > > Uh, we're talking 2012, not 2011. Places are setting all-time record
> > > > > highs (not just daily records) this year.
>
> > > > Uhm, the graph is on a yearly basis.
> > > > Last time I checked, 2012 wasn't over yet.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Belief In Catastrophic Global Warming Is Consistent With Being Stupid
>
> > >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/06/00?sts[]=US#records_look_up
>
> > ==========>
> > => Check the number of highs set or tied in Jan-Jun, and the number of
> > => lows. Over 20,000 highs set or tied vs 2000 lows.
>
> > See how Schroedy cherry-picks the time-frame to suit AGW.
>
> I picked this year because you all keep saying warming has stopped.
> Well, if it stopped, why are there 10 record highs for every 1 record
> low?
Extreme highs vs extreme lows isn't the most basic problem here. Some
climate scientists believe _both_ extremes will increase.
The scam here is deniers are trying to use records from a much smaller
data set, the one from the 1930s.
A record from the 1930s isn't equal to a record today for the simple
reason a record today much compete against 3X many more years of
extremes.
It's ok to use the 1930s records as long as they are also records in
the contemporary data set.
Analogously, it's OK for the winner of the Tour of California brag
about winning to the 2nd place finisher in the much larger data set
Tour de France _if and only if_ he also won the Tour de France.
Otherwise all he'll get is a chuckle.
The 1930s data set nonsense is so silly falls into the self parody
category.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
