Deniers getting pretty desperate

[Gravitymaster 0]

So a statement such as

"So far this year, there have been 15,055 record highs, but only 1,343 record lows in the USA. That's a ratio of 11:1 "

Would be an incorrect assessment?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So a statement such as

"So far this year, there have been 15,055 record highs, but only 1,343 record lows in the USA. That's a ratio of 11:1 "

Would be an incorrect assessment?

Not necessarily. With record highs and lows, we are talking about daily temperatures. Therefore, "so far this year" represents about 200 units of time. And for each unit of time, there are two important data points (daily high and daily low) for each of many different geographic locations, each of which has its own temperature records for comparison, to see if a record has been broken.

In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs. If there are lots more record highs than record lows, then we would expect it to be a warmer than average year. 11:1 is a pretty significant imbalance.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[FreefallSnoopy 0]

I'm not going to say I know very much about this subject . But isn't arguing about it beyond just friendly debate ridiculous? We'll all be dead before anything truly bad happens and even the bad shit won't be for a very long time as I understand it. Saying it is or is not absolutely happening is like saying for sure the earth is the center of the universe or that the earth is flat (see mariners disappearing over the horizon never to return as proof). What seems apparent now can easily be disproved in a 100 years time.

just my last couple of pennies though

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Saying it is or is not absolutely happening is like saying for sure the earth is the center of the universe or that the earth is flat.

Science knows nothing with absolute certainty. That's just not how science works. It is known at a very high level of confidence that the atmosphere is warming. The consequence of that warming may not be fully understood, but scientists have a pretty thorough understanding of various ways to measure temperature.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[FreefallSnoopy 0]

So try it like this and you'll see my point:

Quote

It is known at a very high level of confidence that

the earth is flat (circa a long ass time ago)

That was my point, high levels of confidence can always be proven wrong in the future when someone makes a new discovery.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So try it like this and you'll see my point:

Quote

It is known at a very high level of confidence that

the earth is flat (circa a long ass time ago)

That was my point, high levels of confidence can always be proven wrong in the future when someone makes a new discovery.

You're overlooking the fact that between the flat earth era and now, the scientific method was developed. Our knowledge of global temperatures, especially those of the last century, is based on systematic experiments and sound logic. No new discovery will change their validity.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[FreefallSnoopy 0]

I'm sorry I ran out of pennies to give to this conversation

[winsor 186]

Not the most definitive source, but a fun counter nevertheless.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So a statement such as

"So far this year, there have been 15,055 record highs, but only 1,343 record lows in the USA. That's a ratio of 11:1 "

Would be an incorrect assessment?

I wonder if research looking back 2000 years will make any of the alarmists take a second look?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for
>40 years.

They never "leveled out." Look at the graph. Average temperatures have been incredibly noisy, because it's an inherently noisy system. El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, global wind circulation patterns, ice coverage, land use, high altitude particulates, even 11 year solar cycles all affect the climate in a way that looks pretty chaotic.

However, there was a massive peak in 1880 that was not exceeded again for even longer - 60 years. Then there was another peak around 1945 that was not exceeded for 38 years. Then there was a peak in 1998 that was not exceeded for 7 years. Notice a pattern? It's almost as if that chaotic system now has an underlying slope that's getting stronger.

And here's a prediction for you - we'll see another record year pretty soon (2012 is breaking records so far) and then there will be another stretch - 5 years? 6 years? - where temperatures average lower. And RushMC will post "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2012!" And MnealTX will post "oh yeah? If CO2 is a problem, and it's been rising the whole time, then why wasn't 2013 warmer than 2012?"

And average temperatures will continue to rise.

Hmm,

it seems a may have to amit my error given the info in the natrue link I just provided

Because for it to have ended it would have to have started to begin with

Query, is a 2000 year trend a good indicator ?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

>Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for
>40 years.

They never "leveled out." Look at the graph. Average temperatures have been incredibly noisy, because it's an inherently noisy system. El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, global wind circulation patterns, ice coverage, land use, high altitude particulates, even 11 year solar cycles all affect the climate in a way that looks pretty chaotic.

However, there was a massive peak in 1880 that was not exceeded again for even longer - 60 years. Then there was another peak around 1945 that was not exceeded for 38 years. Then there was a peak in 1998 that was not exceeded for 7 years. Notice a pattern? It's almost as if that chaotic system now has an underlying slope that's getting stronger.

And here's a prediction for you - we'll see another record year pretty soon (2012 is breaking records so far) and then there will be another stretch - 5 years? 6 years? - where temperatures average lower. And RushMC will post "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2012!" And MnealTX will post "oh yeah? If CO2 is a problem, and it's been rising the whole time, then why wasn't 2013 warmer than 2012?"

And average temperatures will continue to rise.

Hmm,

it seems a may have to amit my error given the info in the natrue link I just provided

Because for it to have ended it would have to have started to begin with

Query, is a 2000 year trend a good indicator ?

You do realize that the trend in the paper is only up to 1900? And that this is for one spot in the subarctic in Finland, not a global temperature reconstruction? And that the variance in this limited data set is so large that the global warming signal would be undetectable?

[quade 3]

Quote

And that the variance in this limited data set is so large that the global warming signal would be undetectable?

Actually, it's quite detectable! That is not a question at all with 99.9% of climate scientists around the world. I don't know where you're getting your data from. You can and probably will quibble about the exact cause (scientists pretty much don't though), but the temperature of the planet is unquestionably rising.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skiskyrock 0]

I'm referring to the trend in Rush's Nature link.

[billvon 2,393]

>Because for it to have ended it would have to have started to begin with

That's true! Are you flip-flopping back to a Type I denier?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs.

Yes, we would expect to see that if all of the thermometers were in rural areas. But most are in fairly urban or suburban areas. Even in rural areas they are often at airfields.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/urban-heat-island.htm

There's your explanation. And as paradise gets paved over and parking lots are put up, expect more highs and fewer lows in more places. I don't think kallend or skiskyrock would disagree with this as a pretty plausible and highly scientific explanation for this phenomenon. Hell, I'm surprised the ratio is as low as 11:1.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs.

Yes, we would expect to see that if all of the thermometers were in rural areas. But most are in fairly urban or suburban areas. Even in rural areas they are often at airfields.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/urban-heat-island.htm

There's your explanation. And as paradise gets paved over and parking lots are put up, expect more highs and fewer lows in more places. I don't think kallend or skiskyrock would disagree with this as a pretty plausible and highly scientific explanation for this phenomenon. Hell, I'm surprised the ratio is as low as 11:1.

That's a fair hypothesis. We can test it pretty easily. If the heat island effect is responsible for the record high temperatures this year, we would expect the locations of those record high temperatures to be clustered around areas of high population density. Let's check:

Population density
Record temperatures

As you can see, there is little correlation between locations with record high temperatures and areas with high population density. We can therefore reject your hypothesis that the abundance of record high temperatures is due to the heat island effect.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As you can see, there is little correlation between locations with record high temperatures and areas with high population density. We can therefore reject your hypothesis that the abundance of record high temperatures is due to the heat island effect.

It doesn't matter if the entire state is less densely populated if the thermometer is sitting in the midst of the cities surrounded by farmland. The effect would still be there.

Personally I feel daily records to be much less useful than, say monthly or weekly averages. By definition they are outliers.

[quade 3]

Quote

Personally I feel daily records to be much less useful than, say monthly or weekly averages. By definition they are outliers.

And yet even if you were to look at 5 year moving averages, you'd still see the temperature of the earth increasing.

By definition, that's not an outlier.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's a fair hypothesis. We can test it pretty easily. If the heat island effect is responsible for the record high temperatures this year, we would expect the locations of those record high temperatures to be clustered around areas of high population density. Let's check:

Population density
Record temperatures

As you can see, there is little correlation between locations with record high temperatures and areas with high population density. We can therefore reject your hypothesis that the abundance of record high temperatures is due to the heat island effect.

I'm talking about daily record highs and record lows. Not blocking highs.

Comparing 5 months of average temperature smoothed to daily record highs and lows isn't really synonymous. The heat island effect is localized. Meaning that Central Park actually lowers the temperature of Manhattan in the summer.

here's a useful map of weather stations in the world. And US. http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cdo/

Take a look at Wyoming, for example. Pretty much along the highways is where they are. Take a look at a few off of main roads and find out how many are airports.

But - your graphic pointed to weather. If it was cliimate - global climate - we'd see it nationwide (and not the nice cool mild first part of the year we've had in Cali). The hot area is reflected by the presence (known) of the blocking high that kept the continental US warm but hammered Europe and Alaska.

It's weather. Not climate. like daily highs and lows. And record highs and lows? Daily? Check out your sources for weather data.

Don't reject the argument of heat island affecting daily highs and lows by pointing to a five month average deviation. It's green aples and green lizards.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It doesn't matter if the entire state is less densely populated if the thermometer is sitting in the midst of the cities surrounded by farmland. The effect would still be there.

Personally I feel daily records to be much less useful than, say monthly or weekly averages. By definition they are outliers.

The effect would be very, if not most, prominent in highly populated areas, where there isn't lots of farmland surrounding the cities, requiring a much larger percentage of the temperature readings to come from cities instead of farmland. That's not the pattern observed. We can rule out the heat island effect as a significant reason for the abundance of record highs.

When we see in a sample more outliers from one side of the distribution than the other, e.g., more record highs than record lows, that often correlates with a sample mean higher than the population mean. I agree that counting outliers is not the best way to determine if the sample mean is greater than or less than the population mean, but it's far from a useless method. In this particular case, it is consistent with the fact that "the first six months of 2012 were the warmest on record for the contiguous United States."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm talking about daily record highs and record lows. Not blocking highs.

Fair enough. The graphic I used would actually favor your hypothesis if that hypothesis were true, but we'll go with a graphic that plots only record highs instead. We still don't see the expected correlation here. That's just a map of daily record high temperatures. We can (still) safely reject your hypothesis.

Quote

But - your graphic pointed to weather. If it was cliimate - global climate - we'd see it nationwide (and not the nice cool mild first part of the year we've had in Cali).

The record daily temperatures that we are discussing are considered weather, not climate.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We still don't see the expected correlation here. That's just a map of daily record high temperatures. We can (still) safely reject your hypothesis.

Hmmm. I like this graphic. But I'm looking at the lower left (San Diego/Los Angeles) that show unbroken red dots of record heat. But cooler than normal temperatures recorded. So how's that happening?

And 2000 daily max temperatures reached over 31 days of march. Okay. I see that.

But here's my position: 11:1 record heat versus record cold is something that has effects of a couple of things: (1) UHI; and (2) hot weather. It's undeniable that this last winter was very warm here but colder than my blackened heart other places.

I don't think that anything here proves or disproves UHI or AGW. But some interesting stats.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Hmmm. I like this graphic. But I'm looking at the lower left (San Diego/Los Angeles) that show unbroken red dots of record heat. But cooler than normal temperatures recorded. So how's that happening?

And 2000 daily max temperatures reached over 31 days of march. Okay. I see that.

But here's my position: 11:1 record heat versus record cold is something that has effects of a couple of things: (1) UHI; and (2) hot weather. It's undeniable that this last winter was very warm here but colder than my blackened heart other places.

Don't forget to check out the Miami metro area, which suffers badly from urban sprawl, which would certainly result in the effect that you hypothesize if your hypothesis were true. Also, notice the abundance of record highs in areas with lots of farmland and few cities.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

And high population densities? Unlike deserts and such?

As I mentioned, UHI isn't responsible for all records. But the high v. low ratio is something that is pretty consistent with it. And - heat islands being "urban" are also seen in rural areas. As stated by the EPA here: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/about/measuring.htm

Quote

•comparisons between urban and non-urban temperature records become less valid as areas around airports become urbanized, because airports often are used as the source of "non-urban" data.

My ideas and thoughts aren't my own. When the EPA is saying to be warned, then dontcha think that the effect may be a bit bigger than you are considering? Open your mind. It's okay to look at other causes. "Population density" is a nice determination, but Manhattan is pretty dense, Los Angeles is not as dense. But LA will have a bigger heat island signature because it's such a large area.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As I mentioned, UHI isn't responsible for all records. But the high v. low ratio is something that is pretty consistent with it.

You can say that, but the evidence we've seen so far isn't consistent with your hypothesis.

Another consequence of your hypothesis is that there would be few record lows in metropolitan areas, since the temperature difference between developed and rural areas, due to heat island effect, is greatest at night. Here we see well developed locations like Jacksonville, Daytona Beach, Orlando, Sanford, and St. Petersburg, Florida all setting record low temperatures.

If you know of a legitimate dataset that does support your hypothesis, I'm certainly willing to take a look. (The onus is, of course, on you.) Absent such evidence, it's best to stick with the most logical and probable explanation for the high ratio of record highs to record lows, that the temperatures in the US this year have been above average (especially since we know that to, in fact, be true).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!