Temperature records: More highs than lows
Roger Coppock
area; I'd like to see global data.
9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
a longer interval.
However . . .
For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
and use extrema over short intervals to measure
climate trends, here it is.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Temperature records: More highs than lows
Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
twice as often as record lows.
According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
record lows at various locations.
"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather
in the United States," said Gerald Meehl, a researcher at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the study.
In addition to NCAR, the research was done by scientists at the
Weather Channel and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It is being published in Geophysical Research Letters.
JohnM
How interesting that denialists haven't jumped onto this, Roger. We
all know this is just what should happen under "Global Cooling"
leona...@gmail.com
> 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> 9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
> a longer interval.
>
> However . . .
> For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
> and use extrema over short intervals to measure
> climate trends, here it is.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Temperature records: More highs than lows
> Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
> twice as often as record lows.
>
> According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
> the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
> record lows at various locations.
•• Temperature levels in USA are at best shoddy
and any release from NOAA is purely political
following the party line as per Ms Pelosi
Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing
“Public Communications.” This new order covers the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open
dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific
ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any
relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time
as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-
of-command: . . .
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
James
Weather Channel is a giant advocate of global warming. NOAA corrupt.
JohnM
Perhaps you would care to post a rebuttal of the actual records
themselves?
tunderbar
Niiiice cherry picking.
Is that all ya got? James Hansen specifically said that average temps
are the way to properly measure and identify global warming. Or has he
agreed that whatever cherry picked crap data that shows even a hint of
warming somewhere is adequate for a scientific determination? Did not
think so.
Zorro
So Roger Coppock won't use extrema to prove climate trends, UNLESS
they support his bigoted view.
And JohnM is either too stupid to spot the scam, or is a part of the
scam.
This study has so many holes, you could use it as a sieve. I will just
mention a couple for now.
Consider why they only went back to the 1950's. (Hint: it is called
cherrypicking).
Most of the ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS (not the weak DATE record highs that
this study uses) occurred in the 1930's.
If they had gone back to the 1930's, then there would be very few
record high temperatures in latter years. It would be embarassing to
the alarmists to have a bigger ratio of highs to lows in the 1930's,
than in all following decades.
While you are thinking about that one, consider this. Isn't this
exactly the pattern that you would expect, from the problems that have
been pointed out with the weather station network:
- urban heat island effect (UHI)
- poor siting of weather stations
- painting weather stations with white latex paint
- etc, etc
Publishing an alarmist study like this, would make you think that
there was a major alarmist climate conference coming up.
Have a cool day,
Zorro
JohnM
I have a better idea. Everyone read the report here and come to their
own conclusions.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/record-highs-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us-27194.html
bz noo
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ddd4e59b-b963-4976...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> 9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
> a longer interval.
>
> However . . .
> For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
> and use extrema over short intervals to measure
> climate trends, here it is.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Temperature records: More highs than lows
> Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
> twice as often as record lows.
>
> According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
> the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
> record lows at various locations.
>
So what would you expect when you site climate stations in highly urbanised
areas??
You're measuring URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect not global temperature!
Poor Station Location Causes Warm Temperature Bias
Roger Pielke Sr
February 19 2008
Photographic Documentation of Poor Sitings - Part III From Our JGR Paper
Part I and II of this series of weblogs, discussed the serious limited value
of the use of a global average surface temperature anomaly to diagnose the
global radiative imbalance (i.e., global climate heat system changes), and
of a warm bias in the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature
trend when the minimum temperatures are used in its construction.
In Part III, we discuss yet another serious issue that we raised in our
paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229,
where we report,
Major problems with the microclimate exposure of a subset of surface
Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites have been photographed Easterling et
al. 1996; Davey and Pielke 2005]. The temperature instruments that are used
in the HCN are often sited close to buildings, under trees, and near other
local influences on the microclimate. These microclimate influences also
change over time."
The issue of the spatial and temporal representation of the temperature data
that is collected is so fundamental that it is a scandal for any climate
assessment that constructs a global average surface temperature to ignore
this issue.
Anthony Watts has, therefore, provided us a critically important study to
document these surface temperature measurement sites, since the US
government agency tasked with this responsibility (the National Climate Data
Center; NCDC) has refused to provide this photographic documentation,
despite information that they actually have accomplished this task (the
implication is that they are too embarrassed to show them to the public).
The extensive photographic library already completed under the direction of
Anthony Watts with his volunteers can be accessed at "Weather Stations".
This a rich source of information, and I urge readers of Climate Science to
access his website.
Two further excellent examples of further analysis of the issue of poor
station exposure can be read at
Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster, and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile
metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record
revisited International Journal of Climatology
and
Brooks, Ashley Victoria. M.S., Purdue University, May, 2007. Assessment of
the Spatiotemporal Impacts of Land Use Land Cover Change on the Historical
Climate Network Temperature Trends in Indiana. Major Professors: Dev Niyogi
and Michael Baldwin.
The message from these analyses is that the use of the surface temperature
record from such observation sites to construct regional-, zonal- and
global- averages introduces a bias (which is expected to be a significant
warm bias) of an unknown magnitude. That this issue has not been questioned
in the climate assessments nor by most of the media reports of the
assessments is a scandal.
The conclusions we have reached with respect to the poor siting of the
surface temperature measurement sites, for use in multi-decadal trend
assessments, include:
the poorly sited locations can not be "corrected" by using nearby better
sited locations in order to provide added sources of independent data; see
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N.
Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X.
Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases
associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change
assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928., where we concluded
that"The use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a
false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air
temperature trend assessments".
The serious problem with poor sited surface temperature stations is a
worldwide problem, based on our sampling so far (e.g., see for Mongolia and
see for a range of locations around the globe).
The World Meteorological Organization and the National Climate Date Center
have been derelict in obtaining photographic documentation of these
observing sites.
Readers of Climate Science are encouraged to photograph the surface
temperature sites in their country of residence, that are used to construct
the land based contribution to the global average surface temperature
anomalies, and send to Anthony Watts in be included in his very important
(and essential) archiving of this information (his website for this is Watts
Up With That and at Anthony Watt's Searchable Online Data Base ).
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
bz noo
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ddd4e59b-b963-4976...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> 9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
> a longer interval.
>
> However . . .
> For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
> and use extrema over short intervals to measure
> climate trends, here it is.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Temperature records: More highs than lows
> Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
> twice as often as record lows.
>
> According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
> the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
> record lows at various locations.
>
leona...@gmail.com
> On Nov 13, 12:13 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> > area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > Temperature records: More highs than lows
> > Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
>
> > WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
> > twice as often as record lows.
>
> > According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
> > the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
> > record lows at various locations.
>
> > "Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather
> > in the United States," said Gerald Meehl, a researcher at the National
> > Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the study.
>
> > In addition to NCAR, the research was done by scientists at the
> > Weather Channel and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> > It is being published in Geophysical Research Letters.
>
> Niiiice cherry picking.
>
> Is that all ya got? James Hansen specifically said that average temps
> are the way to properly measure and identify global warming. Or has he
> agreed that whatever cherry picked crap data that shows even a hint of
> warming somewhere is adequate for a scientific determination? Did not
> think so.
•• Oh! but he does He cares not a whit, what he
claims is usually a decade or three hence and
when he gets caught by mother time he says
"Oh maybe in another 20 or 30 years more."
Raymond
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bon z0
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> from natural variation."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------
Presently, we are at the 'tail end' of the most recent Ice Age
More than two-thirds of the world's metropolitan centers are in areas
vulnerable to global warming as a result of rising sea levels.
Global warming will continue at an accelerated rate and every coastal
region that is presently (2008) at or below 30 feet above sea level is
absolutely going to wind up (this century) in a "Venice" situation.
Global warming and the Precession of the Equinox both have a common
cause.
Note: ICE AGES are periods in the earth's history when a significant,
extended cooling of the atmosphere and ocean took place. Although
continental ice sheets withdrew from North America and Europe about
10,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, many scientists
believe that the Quaternary Ice Age is not over yet. Evidence of
earlier ice ages also suggests a recurring or cyclical pattern of the
Earth's cooling and then heating and this has caused many scientists
to conclude that Milankovitch Cycles do not supply all of the answers.
Precession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
The common cause is a natural astronomical cycle called "Orbital
Variance �".
Carbon emissions seriously magnify the issue but are not the primary
cause of Global Warming.
Presently, we are at the 'tail end' of the most recent Ice Age and at
the almost 'half way' point between the extremes (global tropical
conditions / Ice Ages) of the Orbital Variance � cycle.
Mr Right
Have a look at this thread from Feb 2009, in which I presented data on
all time record highs for the 50 states of America (covering approx
125 years).
Record highs, record lows, and references
http://groups.google.co.nz/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/94e1d5b4e2a3aa91?hl=en#
It directly contradicts the recent study (Record High Temperatures Far
Outpace Record Lows Across U.S) referred to by Roger and others.
In the thread, Roger said "Greenhouse gas warming should not result in
increasing high temperature records. Greenhouse gases trap heat most
during winter nights. See the Arrhenius paper and Easterling, David
R., et al. “Maximum and Minimum Temperature Trends for the Globe.”
SCIENCE Vol. 277. 18, July 1997: pp.
364-367."
Perhaps Roger should contact the authors of this new paper (Gerald A.
Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry
McDaniel), and tell them that they have got it all wrong.
JohnM
>
> It directly contradicts the recent study (Record High Temperatures Far
> Outpace Record Lows Across U.S) referred to by Roger and others.
>
> In the thread, Roger said "Greenhouse gas warming should not result in
> increasing high temperature records. Greenhouse gases trap heat most
> during winter nights. See the Arrhenius paper and Easterling, David
> R., et al. “Maximum and Minimum Temperature Trends for the Globe.”
> SCIENCE Vol. 277. 18, July 1997: pp.
> 364-367."
>
> Perhaps Roger should contact the authors of this new paper (Gerald A.
> Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry
> McDaniel), and tell them that they have got it all wrong.
As you have boasted here many times about your legendary prowess in
statistics, the authors are much more likely to take criticism of
their work seriously if it comes from a grand master such as yourself.
Bwahahahaha......
mrbawana2u
> 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> area; I'd like to see global data.
You still have no proof of agw, you brain cancered fucktard.
Mr Right
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good evasion of the topic under discussion. Does this qualify as Ad
Hominem?
Surfer
>
>So what would you expect when you site climate stations in highly urbanised
>areas??
>
The arctic isn't urbanized and is still melting.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
(See the plot at right.)
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
JohnM
> Good evasion of the topic under discussion. Does this qualify as Ad
> Hominem?
As your attention span seems to be limited to less than 24 hours, let
me refresh your miniscule mind about the "topic under discussion" -
introduced, I might add, by you as you can see:
bz noo
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:7qnuf59d2i53qalff...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:35:30 +1100, "bz noo" <i...@j.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>So what would you expect when you site climate stations in highly
>>urbanised
>>areas??
>>
>
> The arctic isn't urbanized and is still melting.
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
> (See the plot at right.)
And the Antarcric ....?
Arctic Melting More Rapidly Than Expected
Urgent Action On Climate Change Required.
2 May 2008
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at
many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast
shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north,
are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
A RealClimate blogger?
No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/print.html
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> Larger image here
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
>
>
>
Woofoo
Turn tens of thousands of scientists loose on a problem for two decades, and
the results will seem pathetic for the first few years, because it takes
time to gather the data-even to build the equipment with which you gather
the data. But slowly the flow of data will grow, and at the end of 20 years
you can expect major new insights every month or so.
That's where we are now with climate change. September's unwelcome news from
the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, was that
if fossil fuel use continues on the present trend line, the planet will be
an average of 4 degrees Celsius warmer by the 2060s.
This contrasts with the prediction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, published in 2007, that we might see 4 degrees Celsius, at the most,
by 2100.
This month's bad news came from the drilling ship JOIDES Resolution (Joint
Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling), which brought up cores
from the ocean bottom containing sediments dating back 20 million years.
Scientists reported that when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was last
at 450 parts per million, the average global temperature was 3 to 6 degrees
Celsius hotter than now, and the sea level was 25 to 40 metres higher.
That is bad news because 450 parts per million is where we are hoping to
halt the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this time around. (We are
currently at 390 parts per million.)
All the world's major governments have agreed in principle that the warming
must never be allowed to exceed 2 degrees Celsius, because beyond that we
risk runaway warming-and it was thought that 450 parts per million would let
us stop at that point.
Not so, it would appear, or at least not for long. The leader of the JOIDES
research team, Aradhna Tripati of the University of California at Los
Angeles, put it bluntly: "What we have shown is that in the last period when
CO2 levels were sustained at levels close to where they are today, there was
no icecap on Antarctica and sea levels were 25-40m higher."
Suspicions that the 450 parts per million target is much too high have been
growing for some time. Late in 2007 James Hansen, the director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, made a public appeal at a
meeting of the American Geophysical Union to move to a 350 parts per million
target.
Hansen's study of ancient climates had led him to the conclusion that the
first time permanent ice appeared on the planet-after a complete absence for
tens of millions of years-was when the amount of carbon dioxide fell to 425
parts per million some 35 million years ago.
His calculations had a possible error of plus or minus 75 parts per million,
so for safety's sake he settled on 350 parts per million as the long-term
target for human stewardship of the atmosphere.
Did that word "stewardship" throw you? Many people instinctively recoil from
any direct human intervention in the atmosphere, on the grounds that we don't
know enough to get it right. But when we have already been changing the
atmosphere unintentionally for two centuries, since the start of the
industrial revolution, it's a bit late for such qualms.
We have already destabilized it, and only we can reverse the changes we have
caused.
Hansen even thought that 350 parts per million might still be too high,
because the "normal" level of CO2 during the 10,000 years of human
civilisation, before we began burning fossil fuels, was only 280 parts per
million. Now JOIDES has given us a more accurate measure of ancient climate,
from closer to the present.
By 20 million years ago, almost all the ice on the planet had been lost
again, due to a prolonged period of volcanic activity in the Columbia River
basin of North America.
The carbon dioxide emitted by that activity had raised the average global
temperature to 3 to 6 degrees Celsius above the current level, and all the
melted ice had raised the seal level by 25 to 40 metres. But the actual
level of CO2 that caused all that was only 400 parts per million.
We will be there in five years, but we must not stay there for very long or
history will repeat itself. In reality, we are going to go to at least 450
parts per million, and more likely 500 parts per million, before we get our
emissions under control.
Then we will have to commence the long and arduous task of getting the CO2
in the atmosphere down to a level that will preserve our present climate
over the long term. That may have to be as low as 300 parts per million.
And all through that time, we must prevent the warming from exceeding 2
degrees Celsius, which means that a resort to various methods of
geo-engineering to keep the heat down is almost unavoidable. That is what
these numbers are telling us, and we would be wise to listen.
no ob
Watch out for a plague of (WT) � during the coming weeks as we approach a
new international convention on economic suicide.
It is shorthand for Worse Than Was Thought.
Suddenly, it is urgent. We have only ten years to save the shellfish.
Strange how such things always become urgent just before one of these
international jollies.
No doubt infidels will come up with various quibbles, such as the dreaded
gas being less soluble in the supposedly warming waters or the negligible
proportion of it that is being produced by humans or the relatively
smallness of the change in the partial pressure of said terror gas.
More to come, no doubt!
"Woofoo" <W...@Foo.com> wrote in message
news:qB1Mm.52195$Db2.1812@edtnps83...
APR
"Woofoo" <W...@Foo.com> wrote in message
news:qB1Mm.52195$Db2.1812@edtnps83...
>
There are several nocuous assumptions being made here.
You are assuming that CO2 is in fact causing climate warming when that has
not been demonstrated to be factual, it is all assumption.
The text suggests ice appeared because CO2 levels fell when ice actually
formed because temperatures decreased. Where is the science that supports
CO2 level reduction being the driver for temperatire reduction. See if you
can find research that states this as fact, not some nebulous statement that
says it is possible/likely, or may even use the word probable.
It is easy to make a statement like.."maintaining CO2 below 350 PPM will
maintain or reduce global temperatures" with the unsung proviso added when
necessary "if increased CO2 level is the main driver of temperature
increase."
Too many idiots are being led by the nose and are accepting the
unfounded/poorly founded assumptions as gospel.
Surfer
wrote:
>
>"Woofoo" <W...@Foo.com> wrote in message
>news:qB1Mm.52195$Db2.1812@edtnps83...
>> The news is bad, and it's coming in fast.
>
>
>Where is the science....
>
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Woofoo
for the 2060s is an average global temperature that is as much as 4 degrees
C warmer. Speaking at a conference called '4 degrees and beyond' at Oxford
University, Dr. Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Meteorological
Office's Hadley Centre, one of the world's most important centres for
climate research, laid it all out.
"We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future
generations," said Dr. Betts, "but people alive today could live to see a 4
� C rise. People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme
scenario, but it's also a plausible scenario."
All we have to do is go on burning fossil fuels at the rate we do now, and
we'll be there by the 2080s. Keep increasing our carbon dioxide emissions in
pace with economic growth, as we have done over the past decade, and we'll
be there by the 2060s. "There" is not a good place to be.
At an average of 4 � C warmer, 15 percent of the world's farmland will
become useless due to heat and drought, and crop yields will fall sharply on
half of the rest: an overall 30-40 percent fall in global food production.
Since the world's population will grow by two billion by then, there will be
only half the food per person that we have now. Many people will starve.
In western and southern Africa, average temperatures will be up to 10 � C
higher than now. There will be severe drying in Central America, on both
sides of the Mediterranean, and in a broad band across the Middle East,
northern India, and South-East Asia. With the glaciers gone, Asia's great
rivers will be mostly dry in the summer. Even one metre of sea level rise
will take out half the world's food-rich river deltas, from the Nile to the
Mekong.
So there will be famines, and massive waves of refugees, and ruthless
measures taken to hold borders shut against them. The bitter irony is that
the old-rich countries whose emissions did the most to bring on this
disaster will suffer least from it, as least in the early stages. By and
large, the further away you are from the equator, the less you are hurt by
the changes.
The trouble is that 4 � C is not a destination. It is a waystation on the
way to 5 � C or 6 � C hotter, where all the ice on the planet melts and the
only habitable land is what's still above sea level around the Arctic Ocean.
Once we have passed 2 degrees hotter, we are at an even greater risk of
triggering the big "feedbacks" that take control of the warming process out
of our hands.
At the moment, we are in control of the situation if we want to be, for it
is our excess emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing the warming.
But if melting permafrost and warming oceans begin to give up the immense
amounts of greenhouse gases that they contain, then we find ourselves on a
climate escalator that inexorably takes us up through 3 � C, 4 � C, 5 � C,
and 6 � C with no way to get off.
The point where we lose control, most scientists believe, is when the
average global temperature reaches between 2 � C and 3 � C warmer. After
that, it hardly matters whether human beings cut their own emissions,
because the natural emissions triggered by the warming will overwhelm all
our efforts. If we don't stop at 2 � C, our current civilization is probably
doomed.
That is why the leaders of all the world's big industrial and developing
countries, meeting in Italy last summer, adopted 2 � C as their joint
"never-exceed" goal. (Interestingly, they didn't explain the reasoning
behind that goal to the rest of us. Mustn't frighten the children, I
suppose.)
Meanwhile, the people tasked with negotiating a new climate treaty at
Copenhagen in December struggle bravely onwards, but show no signs of coming
up with a deal that will hold us under 2 � C. Global emissions must start
dropping by three percent a year right away, but over the past decade they
have been rising at three percent annually.
Everybody involved in the process understands the stakes and agrees on the
goal. Almost everybody knows what the treaty will eventually look like, but
they don't believe they can yet sell that deal to the folks back home, so it
probably won't happen this year. Or next. Tick tock.
Peter Webb
> Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling), which brought up
> cores from the ocean bottom containing sediments dating back 20 million
> years.
> Scientists reported that when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was
> last at 450 parts per million, the average global temperature was 3 to 6
> degrees Celsius hotter than now, and the sea level was 25 to 40 metres
> higher.
All this seems to prove is that CO2 concentrations have very little to do
with temperature, if similar CO2 levels produce very different climates (now
versus 20 million years ago).
Surfer
>
>The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
>places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
>Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
>from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
>radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
>the Arctic zone.
>
<snip>
>
>A RealClimate blogger?
>
>No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
>
Are you sure? It reads more like journalese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalese
For comparison:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#presatellite
<Start extract>
What was sea ice like before the satellite era?
The satellite record only dates back to 1979. However, scientists have
used historical records of sea ice conditions to estimate sea ice
extent before 1979.
To extend the satellite record back to 1953, scientists have used
shipping records and ice charts from several countries in combination
with satellite data. One such record, called the Hadley data set,
indicates that Arctic sea ice has been declining since at least the
mid-1950s. To view a graph derived from the Hadley data set, please
see State of the Cryosphere: Sea Ice.
Before 1953, the historical record is less reliable. Shipping records
go back to the 1700s, but only for limited areas and dates, and they
do not always provide information about Arctic sea ice conditions.
However, scientists do know that the Arctic was generally cooler up
through the 1950s compared to recent years; the exception is a period
during the 1930s and 1940s that was warmer than surrounding decades
but still not as warm as recent years. Sea ice in the 1930s and 1940s
was probably lower than it was during the 1950s. However, analysis of
limited sea ice records from Russian ice charts indicates that while
sea ice conditions were low, they were likely not as low as they have
been during the 2000s. Plus, the trend in the 1930s and 1940s was both
seasonal and regional in nature. The current decline touches all parts
of the Arctic and affects all four seasons.
<End extract>
o, n o b
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:47:26 +1100, "bz noo" <i...@j.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
>>places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to
>>the
>>Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
>>from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
>>radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures
>>in
>>the Arctic zone.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>A RealClimate blogger?
>>
>>No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
>>
> Are you sure? It reads more like journalese.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalese
>
>
> For comparison:
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#presatellite
>
> <Start extract>
>
> What was sea ice like before the satellite era?
>
> The satellite record only dates back to 1979. However, scientists have
> used historical records of sea ice conditions to estimate sea ice
> extent before 1979.
>
I'm glad you asked ...
Arctic Melting More Rapidly Than Expected
Urgent Action On Climate Change Required.
2 May 2008
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at
many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast
shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north,
are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
A RealClimate blogger?
No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/print.html
o. n.o.b
"Woofoo" <W...@Foo.com> wrote in message
> It is the Meteorological Office's job to make forecasts, and its forecast
> for the 2060s is an average global temperature that is as much as 4
> degrees C warmer. Speaking at a conference called '4 degrees and beyond'
> at Oxford University, Dr. Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the
> Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre, one of the world's most important
> centres for climate research, laid it all out.
>
> "We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future
> generations," said Dr. Betts, "but people alive today could live to see a
> 4 � C rise. People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme
> scenario, but it's also a plausible scenario."
>
> All we have to do is go on burning fossil fuels at the rate we do now, and
> we'll be there by the 2080s. Keep increasing our carbon dioxide emissions
> in pace with economic growth, as we have done over the past decade, and
> we'll be there by the 2060s. "There" is not a good place to be.
>
Putting this whacko alarmism into perspective ...
Imagine a 1km long tube of atmosphere.
How much of that length is represented by CO2?
ANSWER: 38cm!
And the human CO2 contribution?
ANSWER: Less than 1mm!
jason
Wow. Such small amounts can make such a huge difference? No wonder the
world is concerned about any increase!
.o.n.o.b
"jason" <z.y...@live.com.au> wrote in message
news:2c9fb20a-47d7-42ab...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
======================================
The problem with greenhoax is that such infinitesimal amounts make virtually
no difference!
jason
>
> - Show quoted text -
The earth starts the centrury with 200 PPM say from only natural
processes in balance in and out.
Each year 180 PPM goes in from natural processes. But that same 180
PPM gets extracted by natural processes.
5 more PPM goes into the atmosphere from human sources, but only 3
comes out from natural processes.
CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of say 100 years.
Therefore in 100 years we have a PPM of 200.
It is correct to say that in the year the emmissions were 5 human and
200 natural, but the increase over the 100 years from human is 200 PPM
over the starting natural 200 PPM.
You know that as well as I do.
.o.n.o.b
======================================
WRONG!
MEASUREMENTS say otherwise ...
Atmospheric CO2 Lifetime Is Only 5-10 Years According To MEASUREMENTS
Measurements Trump Models
July 7 2007
QUOTE: "Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide
staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2
enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until
recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in
the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans'
near-limitless ability to absorb CO2."
We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body
that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the
world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere
and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented
buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere,
threatening us all.
"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at
the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC.
He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a
knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view,
since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,"
he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the
IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."
Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in
the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the
globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the
world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere
for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless
ability to absorb CO2.
"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural
carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing,
it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established
by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has
been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been
established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by
many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has
often relied upon such measurements.
Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that
carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change
scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought
must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models
calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the
real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere.
Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such
measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.
Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are
erroneous.
"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence
that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute
their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the
process."
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in
the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much
CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2,
meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain
chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the
present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of
fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas,
and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."
Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance
calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the
atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists,
the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because
this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the
CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought
this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without
success.
"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2
lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that
an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,"
Prof. Segalstad concludes.
"It is all a fiction."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural
History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the
Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the
Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and
program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of
Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard
(Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology,
metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis
(how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's IPCC's
Third Assessment Report.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e
jason
Are you saying that every degree that the 1 / 51 of CO2 released into
the atmosphere causes, that the atmospheric CO2 will increase by 59.1
PPM, causing an increase in T, causing an increase in the amount of
CO2 released into the atmosphere, and that while oil may be inadequate
to do the job, the ocean has plenty to take care of the shortfall?
jason
And on an unrelated topic, as this global warming thing draws to a
close, at least from an Australian political perspective, I have to
say know one could knock you on your enthusiasm for your cause. If I
had something to ramp I can think of no one better than yourself to
grab for the cause!
Agent Orange
> 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> 9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
> a longer interval.
>
> However . . .
> For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
> and use extrema over short intervals to measure
> climate trends, here it is.
Or, for those of you that are looking to use short-term, cherry-picked
data to support your view, here it is.
<snip>
> "Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather
> in the United States," said Gerald Meehl, a researcher at the National
> Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the study.
What an obvious - and yet utterly meaningless - statement. Of
*course* climate change is making itself felt. It always has, and
always will. The climate is always changing...sometimes slowly,
sometimes very rapidly (yes, global temps have increased by similar
(or more) amounts in the past as they have been the past 100
years...long before mankind was "polluting" the atmosphere with CO2).
But it is never steady and unchanging. The climate is a dynamic,
chaotic system. As it changes, local weather is going to change as
well.
So thanks Gerald Meehl, for a completely uninteresting and pointless
statement.
.o.n.o.b
Did I say that?
Woofoo
Sorry you young people. We've really allowed our greed to destroy us. Far
too late to resolve the problem. The politicians we have elected are far too
stupid to grasp the enormity of the problem. Actually the human race in
general is far too stupid or we wouldn't have gotten to this point in the
first place.
JohnM
> > > On Nov 14, 6:13 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 48 US states are a small fraction of the globe's
> > > > area; I'd like to see global data.
>
> > > > 9 and 3/4 years is a short period; I'd like to see
> > > > a longer interval.
>
> > > > However . . .
> > > > For those of you who lack statistical sophistication
> > > > and use extrema over short intervals to measure
> > > > climate trends, here it is.
>
> > > > Temperature records: More highs than lows
> > > > Nov 12, 12:38 PM (ET)
>
> > > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Record high temperatures are occurring more than
> > > > twice as often as record lows.
>
> > > > According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year
> > > > the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420
> > > > record lows at various locations.
>
> > > > in the United States," said Gerald Meehl, a researcher at the National
> > > > Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the study.
>
> > > > Weather Channel and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> > > > It is being published in Geophysical Research Letters.
>
> > > they support his bigoted view.
>
> > > And JohnM is either too stupid to spot the scam, or is a part of the
> > > scam.
>
> > > This study has so many holes, you could use it as a sieve. I will just
> > > mention a couple for now.
>
> > I have a better idea. Everyone read the report here and come to > > their own conclusions.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/record-highs-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us-27194.html
> No.
Of course you won't read it. It might upset your previously assumed
ideas and you don't want that to happen, do you?
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
wildfire evacuation warning on Tuesday, as a parching heatwave
intensified over the country's south
Created in the wake of February's devastating Black Saturday
firestorm, which killed 173 people, the new warning urges residents to
flee due to conditions being at their most extreme.
It replaced a "stay or go" policy allowing homeowners to remain and
fight extremely risky blazes, which came under heavy criticism after
the February disaster.. etc
full article at :
http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/63b9e9df615644598a03e1fe6cdede31/17-11-2009-11-35/Code_Red_as_heat_intensifies
2009-11-17 11:35
Probably Black Saturday Monster Barbecue beginning of this year is
going to look like aperitif in light of the Megafires brewing & ready
to start the most stupendous demonstration of Divine Wrath against a
whole congregation of Greedy, ,Unfair, Lying, Thieving, Defrauding &
Murdering Degenerated blood-sucking carrion-feeding Humanity !
***************************************************
Something overlooked by Mr Spartan is the Port Arthur Mass Murders by
Howard's & Co Govt :
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm
(thanks Carole)
Quote
******
Port Arthur Massacre
There is reason to think the Port Arthur massacre was planned as early
1987 when, after a specially called Premier's meeting in Hobart in
December 1987, the New South Wales Labour Premier, Mr. Barry Unsworth
stated, "there would be no effective gun control in Australia until
there was a massacre in Tasmania"
On Sunday, 28 April 1996, at a sleepy little tourist location known as
Port Arthur, something went down that will long live in memory of
Australia's collective psyche. An unknown professional combat shooter
opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In
less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single
shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving
shooter.
The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on
intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who was held in illegal strict
solitary confinement for more than 120 days, until he was "ready" to
plead guilty. There was no trial. Within a matter of weeks legislation
was passed to removed semi-automatic weapons from the Australian
population and a gun buy-back proceeded. It is now illegal to own any
semi-automatic gun in Australia.
The Port Arthur Massacre has come to be known in conspiracy circles as
a "psyop". The definition of a psyop is a psychological operation or
an event designed to drum up public support for some piece of
legislation that would be otherwise be unpopular and probably be
defeated.
It is one of the signs of a propaganda campaign when the media
continuously plays up scenes that are designed to appeal to gut level
instincts to soften people up for the solution to be offered.
The media were totally oriented around sensationalising the distress
and trauma, played the scenes over and over, always cutting to updates
on any developments and in effect the public were bombarded
continuously day in and day out for weeks over the issue. At the same
time a long list of facts or discrepancies were overlooked. Any calls
for a royal commission fell on deaf ears, the media were later
instructed not to talk about the subject anymore and the files have
been closed for 30 years.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred on 28 April there was legislation
prepared by mid May with plans for a national buyback of automatic and
semi-automatic rifles.
Prior to 1996 Australia had huge number of sporting shooters
traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our
miniscule armed forces.
However, since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve
forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government.
- Joe Vialls
While gunlaws should make a country a safer place to live, in reality
they are a move against the freedom and self-defence of the people.
THOMAS JEFFERSON
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and
bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in
government".
Endquote
***********
WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE PAY BACK FOR THAT HIGH TREASON OF BOTH HOWARD
& CO AS WELL AS THE CONSECUTIVE COVER UP BY RUDD & CO !
...and as well the cold blood Murder of Australia Prime Minister
Harold Holt by ASIO ... and the Telfer Mine Massive Collective Swindle
cover up by West Australia Premier Barnett
The present DDD or Divine Drudging Drought which is implemented in
Australia, on my express Order since 11 years is a most proper legal
& just response to hard necked & arrogant Antipodean Criminals
No forgiveness indeed for Collective Crimes according to Celtic Divine
Laws of Justice !
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
Gold Mine)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
jason
>
> Did I say that?
Yes. In the quote above you said as far as CO2 gas and water is
concerned the rate of exchange at the surface as a result of
equilibrium moving changes is in the order of 50 to 1.
JohnM
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 3:27 am, Peter Muehlbauer
> > <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> > > JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snip redundant text>
> > > > I have a better idea. Everyone read the report here and come to their own conclusions.
>
> > http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/record-highs-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us-27194.html
>
> > > No.
>
> > Of course you won't read it. It might upset your previously assumed
> > ideas and you don't want that to happen, do you?
>
> Meanwhile my "previously assumed ideas" have been evidenced by CRU.
Good. That means you have finally realised the seriousness of the
current climate change.
Zorro
> own conclusions.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
JohnM,
Can you tell everyone how many record lows were expected for the
period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
So that people can compare the expected number of record lows to the
number that actually occurred.
I suspect that you, like most people, have no idea how many were
expected.
So why didn't the nice pseudo-scientists who did this study, tell us
how many record lows were expected?
They probably didn't want people to know the truth, because it
wouldn't suit their political views, or their scam.
Real scientists don't hide the data that doesn't suit them. They
present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
You can tell a pseudo-scientist, or an alarmist, by what they don't
tell you, as much as by what they do tell you.
JohnM
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> JohnM,
>
> Can you tell everyone how many record lows were expected for the
> period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
>
> So that people can compare the expected number of record lows to the
> number that actually occurred.
>
> I suspect that you, like most people, have no idea how many were
> expected.
>
> So why didn't the nice pseudo-scientists who did this study, tell us
> how many record lows were expected?
They did.
"The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as
a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of
record lows than to a large number of record highs."
Don't hesitate to post further pseudo-questions, as these always give
me a good laugh.
o.n.0.b.
" .o.n.o.b" <k...@l.com> wrote in message news:4b04...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Did I say that?
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
o.n.0.b.
Well blow me down!
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
Zorro
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > JohnM,
>
> > Can you tell everyone how many record lows were expected for the
> > period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
>
> > So that people can compare the expected number of record lows to the
> > number that actually occurred.
>
> > I suspect that you, like most people, have no idea how many were
> > expected.
>
> > So why didn't the nice pseudo-scientists who did this study, tell us
> > how many record lows were expected?
>
> They did.
> "The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as
> a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of
> record lows than to a large number of record highs."
>
> Don't hesitate to post further pseudo-questions, as these always give
>
> - Show quoted text -
JohnM,
You did NOT answer my question.
I did not ask what the ratio of highs to lows was.
I asked HOW MANY record lows were expected for the period January 1,
2000, to September 30, 2009.
If you can work out or find the answer, you will find that the study
is wrong.
JohnM
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > JohnM,
>
> > > Can you tell everyone how many record lows were expected for the
> > > period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
>
> > > So that people can compare the expected number of record lows to the
> > > number that actually occurred.
>
> > > I suspect that you, like most people, have no idea how many were
> > > expected.
>
> > > So why didn't the nice pseudo-scientists who did this study, tell us
> > > how many record lows were expected?
>
> > They did.
> > "The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as
> > a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of
> > record lows than to a large number of record highs."
>
> > Don't hesitate to post further pseudo-questions, as these always give
> > me a good laugh.
>
>
> You did NOT answer my question.
>
> I did not ask what the ratio of highs to lows was.
>
> I asked HOW MANY record lows were expected for the period January 1,
> 2000, to September 30, 2009.
I told you the answer was in the original publication. Go there and
read it if you are that interested
Zorro
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > JohnM,
>
> > > > Can you tell everyone how many record lows were expected for the
> > > > period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
>
> > > > So that people can compare the expected number of record lows to the
> > > > number that actually occurred.
>
> > > > I suspect that you, like most people, have no idea how many were
> > > > expected.
>
> > > > So why didn't the nice pseudo-scientists who did this study, tell us
> > > > how many record lows were expected?
>
> > > They did.
> > > "The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as
> > > a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of
> > > record lows than to a large number of record highs."
>
> > > Don't hesitate to post further pseudo-questions, as these always give
> > > me a good laugh.
>
> > JohnM,
>
> > You did NOT answer my question.
>
> > I did not ask what the ratio of highs to lows was.
>
> > I asked HOW MANY record lows were expected for the period January 1,
> > 2000, to September 30, 2009.
>
> I told you the answer was in the original publication. Go there and
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read everything about this study that I can find. Nowhere does
it report how many record lows were EXPECTED for the period January 1,
2000, to September 30, 2009.
They do report the number of record lows that actually occurred for
the period January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009.
But of course, without knowing the number of record lows that were
expected, you can not tell whether there were more than expected, less
than expected, or what.
They do say that there was a comparatively small number of record
lows, knowing that people will interpret this as less record lows than
expected. By they are NOT telling the truth. There were MORE record
lows than expected. But they wouldn't want people to know the truth,
would they.