Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

a reply to: Blaine91555

So, you don't think things are warming up. Fake data.

I copied monthly averages they had on TWC sourced from NOAA for where I live as a starting point. Then I took the raw numbers and calculated an average. In every case NOAA's average was 3 degrees higher than the real number from raw data.

Were the averages from TWC based on NOAA's data, or from NOAA? What did they use for the "average"? Average daily temperature, average high, average low? Did they consider the time of day at which the readings were taken? Because that kind of thing can make a difference.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Phage

Again NOAA. Are they all time highs, or just the highest recorded accurately in recent times, since real data has been measured and kept instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.

Remember the NOAA averages are given out already weighted, factoring in data that is best guess at best IMO.

NOAA does have quite scary graphs... might want to look at them - though usually people see the cooler (due to the slower to warm oceans) than this:


However, It's not just NOAA.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: BlissSeeker

Total BS without Exact Scientific Evidence . Has the UN also started Mining Green Cheese on the Moon yet ?

It's all in the public record to see. Here are two for you:
UAH lower troposphere data:
1970s Mean : -0.284583 (1978 & 1979)
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017)

Radiosonde surface data going back to 1958, which shows a much larger change:
1950s mean: -0.05 (1958 & 1959)
1960s mean: -0.118
1970s mean: -0.13
1980s mean: 0.06
1990s mean: 0.185
2000s mean: 0.352
2010s mean: 0.739 (through 2016)

Such a remark is a smokescreen anyway. Why don't you share the real reason for your skepticism again?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly my point. Science is not a consensus. We had scientists warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age, we had scientists warning us about global warming, we had scientists predicting all major marine life would be extinct before 2000, and we had scientists warning us that the coasts would be uninhabitable because of the stench of rotting marine life.

Think critically is all I ask.

Almost 20% of people approve of Congress.

There are always a few cranks out there - in any field.

What an off-topic post...

Clearly you either didn't read the post I responded to or understand the response.

Clearly , I did not feel the need..

The Mud Pit is that-a-way.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee
121 hot enough for you?

www.bing.com...

Yuma is hell on Earth. I honestly don't know how or why people live there. It has always been one of the hottest cities in the world.

I Love it here!

Of course, it did take me a full 5 years to get acclimated. Been here full time about 30 years now.

At least when I say I'm on the border, you know I really am.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

I said recorded.
What's your point? That the Earth was warmer when dinosaurs roamed?

You are finally "starting to "Get It"

a reply to: Gothmog

Yes. The Earth has been warmer in the past.

That's your point.

Ok.

a reply to: Greven

The degree of change is entirely dependent on the baseline, which is why these types of statistical recordings are used rather than actual temperatures given. Pick a particularly cool year as your baseline and a hot year looks SCORCHING. Pick a particularly warm year as your baseline and a cold winter looks FRIGID.

At no point in this planet's history has the climate remained stagnant... Even where record highs and lows are concerned, there are factors which play a major role. For example, concrete and asphalt act like heat sinks... the more development occurs around a city's temperature recording station over the years, the more latent heat that station will record whether the actual day was warmer or not. It's why you place rocks around a campfire ring... your food cooks faster than it does over a fire laid on the ground with no rocks to collect and radiate the heat from the fire. The fire itself stays the same temperature.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes. The Earth has been warmer in the past.

That's your point.

Ok.

Yes. You are getting "warmer"
It was warmer , then it got much colder , then warmer....
Of course you are still not using basic math properties
( I will not use the terms Probability and Statistics yet as I fear that you would be "mind blown")

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah. "Heat islands."
Cities are indeed often warmer than farmlands

Thing is, stations in rural areas show the same trends as those in cities. Both are getting warmer.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee
121 hot enough for you?

www.bing.com...

Yuma is hell on Earth. I honestly don't know how or why people live there. It has always been one of the hottest cities in the world.

I Love it here!

Of course, it did take me a full 5 years to get acclimated. Been here full time about 30 years now.

At least when I say I'm on the border, you know I really am.

I was born and raised in the NM bootheel, had relatives in Yuma and worked for awhile in southern AZ out of college. No thank you! I got my fill of that crap my first 24 years of life.

My folks' place in NM has seen 120 degrees and its seen -20 degrees (thankfully not on the same day, LOL). Those high country deserts will kill you if you're not tougher than an old boot.

a reply to: Gothmog

I was expecting something having to do with what's happening now.
My mistake.


I see you edited.

There's plenty of math involved, not so much probabilities though. More things like radiative forcing. Solar insolation. That sort of thing.

There are things that cause the Earth to cool, and warm. Measurable things.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

I was expecting something having to do with what's happening now.

My mistake.

Look at my edit...
You were too quick to post .
And I should have included it at the start

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah. "Heat islands."
Cities are indeed often warmer than farmlands

Thing is, stations in rural areas show the same trends as those in cities. Both are getting warming.

Most stations, even in rural areas, are located at airports. These airports have developed a lot over the past 30-40 years, even in rural America. Hell, just the materials used make a difference. If you use a concrete mixture for runways and tarmacs which is made with a light colored aggregate, you're reflection will be greater and you'll store less heat. If you use asphalt, it's going to change the overall temperature around the station. Asphalt is the preferred surfacing at smaller airports because it's a flexible surface and easier to perform maintenance sealing on. 40 years ago, a lot of these airports were bare earth runways.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee
121 hot enough for you?

www.bing.com...

Yuma is hell on Earth. I honestly don't know how or why people live there. It has always been one of the hottest cities in the world.

I Love it here!

Of course, it did take me a full 5 years to get acclimated. Been here full time about 30 years now.

At least when I say I'm on the border, you know I really am.

I was born and raised in the NM bootheel, had relatives in Yuma and worked for awhile in southern AZ out of college. No thank you! I got my fill of that crap my first 24 years of life.

My folks' place in NM has seen 120 degrees and its seen -20 degrees (thankfully not on the same day, LOL). Those high country deserts will kill you if you're not tougher than an old boot.

My first husband's family had a cabin in Yucca Valley, CA. Not as high as yours, but still high desert.

I just always loved the desert.

I'm from the Los Angeles coast/beaches. But, I prefer the desert (except having to wear shoes)

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

The degree of change is entirely dependent on the baseline, which is why these types of statistical recordings are used rather than actual temperatures given. Pick a particularly cool year as your baseline and a hot year looks SCORCHING. Pick a particularly warm year as your baseline and a cold winter looks FRIGID.

At no point in this planet's history has the climate remained stagnant... Even where record highs and lows are concerned, there are factors which play a major role. For example, concrete and asphalt act like heat sinks... the more development occurs around a city's temperature recording station over the years, the more latent heat that station will record whether the actual day was warmer or not. It's why you place rocks around a campfire ring... your food cooks faster than it does over a fire laid on the ground with no rocks to collect and radiate the heat from the fire. The fire itself stays the same temperature.

And?

Humans are emitting massive amounts of CO2.
These CO2 emissions are mostly sticking around in the atmosphere year-to-year.
CO2 further redistributes heat to the surface.
Ergo, humans are warming the planet.

This is not hard, nor is it a debate anywhere but America.

originally posted by: Greven
Saying humans are responsible for only 3-4% of CO2 emissions is factual, yet it's also misleading.

For example, plants are carbon-based lifeforms, and as such, plants need oxygen to breathe. When any carbon-based organism respires, it emits carbon dioxide (P+). Fortunately, plants also photosynthesize, and their collective CO2 output is roughly half of what their collective CO2 intake is (P- = (P+ * 2)).

The oceans also emit carbon dioxide due to various processes (O+), but they too take up more CO2 from the atmosphere than they release to the atmosphere - albeit only around 2% more (O- = (O+ * 1.02)). Oceans emit approximately 50% more CO2 than plants (O+ = (P+ * 1.5)).

Various life and other chemical processes on land release more CO2 than they consume, which is almost equivalent to the net CO2 removed from the atmosphere by plants and the oceans (L+ = (P- + O-) * 0.995).

Volcanic eruptions on average are included in land release (L+), but make up only a small portion of CO2 emissions (V+ = (P- + O+) * 0.001). However, some massive eruptions in the distant past emitted far more CO2 for a brief period - perhaps ten to twenty times the annual average for thousands of years. These eruptions dated geologically correspond well to increased CO2 levels, but also to mass extinction events in the fossil record.

You can see from this that we have a small buffer for human CO2 emissions, where CO2 levels would remain nearly static (B = ((P- + O-) - L+)). However, human emissions are not included in this calculation. The addition of human CO2 emissions is rather significant - they're approximately 1/10th of what all plants on Earth combined emit (H+ = (P+ * 0.1)).

This is where we have a problem, because human emissions greatly exceed that buffer (H+ > B):
H+ = (P+ * 0.1)
P+ = (H+ * 10)
P- = (P+ * 2) = ((H+ * 10) * 2) = (H+ * 20)
O+ = (P+ * 1.5)) = ((H+ * 10) * 1.5) = (H+ * 30)
O- = (O+ * 0.98) = ((H+ * 30) * 1.02) = (H+ * 30.6)
L+ = (P- + O-) * 0.995) = (((H+ * 20) + (H+ * 30.6)) * 0.995) = ((H+ * 50.6) * 0.995) = (H+ * 50.347)
B = (P- + O-) - L+)) = ((H+ * 50.6) - (H+ * 50.347)) = ((H+ * 0.253))
H+ > B = H+ > (H+ * 0.253)

As you can see, our emissions are exceeding the buffer by nearly 400%, despite only making up about 4% of total (natural and human) annual CO2 emissions.

There is some elasticity in where CO2 goes, as our emissions don't increase atmospheric levels at the same rate as we emit CO2, but we can clearly see through tracking atmospheric CO2 levels that total CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing at a rate of over +0.5%/yr.

All this 'debate' really is, is people conflating reality with myth and skepticism based on nonsense and fear of the government / taxation - based on one (of many) potential (but idiotic) remedy proposed by *shock* economists.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In some cases what you say is true, certainly.
But that whole "heat island" excuse is pretty much dead, except for the die hard deniers.

Can I chalk you up for one who doesn't think the world is warming then?

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
So global warming isn't a thing ?

Sure. It sure does get hot and hotter. But is that man-made?

The Earth has gone through cyclical climates for millennia. Didn't you learn that in elementary school? We had a fairly recent iceage, so now the sea level is rising, and that's normal.

We've only been recording temperatures for a very short period of time compared to how long we've survived these climates.

Except actual Scientists look at ice core samples and tree rings and other indicators and have a pretty good idea what the climate was hundreds, thousands, even millions of years ago. Actual scientists have written thousands of peer reviews scientific papers that indicate that most of this recent warming is man made. I learned in school that it's generally good to listen to scientists over bloggers and news pundits.

Except "actual scientists" don't agree on this. As a matter of fact "actual scientists" are very very often wrong. I implore you to go back to the 70's and listen to what "actual scientists" told us about where we'd be at today. Seriously, do it.

That said, I'm an "actual scientist" because I've been in the field observing physics for decades.

Btw, "you learned in school" xyz. I learned in school that white people were devils, that Al Gore was a prophet, and that the most important part of journalism is selling the story over facts. Be careful of what people teach you. Think critically.

What kind of school did you go to? LOL The only thing my kids learned in school is that Al Gore was Vice President to Bill Clinton...nothing about being a prophet and they nor I ever learned that white people are devils. They've gone to several different public schools in Oregon and Nevada. I went in Maryland.

Also, I said there have been thousand of scientific papers that "Indicate' that the recent rising temps over the last several decades were man made. I am careful what I believe. I read a lot of articles on global warming and climate science.

Thirdly. I remember the 70s lived through them.. there were never more than a handful of scientists advocating for an ice age. very few. Most scientists weren't on board with that. The key was, I think it was time magazine ran a huge article on it. There was way less magazines and no internet back then so each individual magazine like that carried more weight. That's why so many people think there was this huge scientific concensus on a looming ice age. There never was.

Google it. seriously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In some cases what you say is true, certainly.
But that whole "heat island" excuse is pretty much dead, except for the die hard deniers.

Can I chalk you up for one who doesn't think the world is warming then?

Not exactly. I don't view this as a one side or the other issue. I don't believe human emissions are contributing to a warming Earth. I think humans are contributing to warmer spots at the surface via development, but I also believe temperature changes are cyclic in nature. We'll start cooling down sooner or later, and in man's terms it may take a long while, but in geologic terms it could happen "tomorrow." no telling, too many variables and factors I don't even believe mankind understands yet.

As an engineer, I cannot take the global temperature crisis seriously because I have done due diligence on the subject.


What equipment was used to measure the temperatures?
What variance studies were conducted to ascertain the differences in equipment over time?
What calibrations were done on the equipment?
Who collected the data? Were they vetted?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
As an engineer, I cannot take the global temperature crisis seriously because I have done due diligence on the subject.


What equipment was used to measure the temperatures?
What variance studies were conducted to ascertain the differences in equipment over time?
What calibrations were done on the equipment?
Who collected the data? Were they vetted?

Read some studies. There are plenty to keep you busy.

Go forth and discover, if you actually care and are not once again blowing smoke. Probably nothing climate related would ever pass whatever standard you have for 'vetting.'