ADVERTISEMENT

NOAA Temp Extremes Data wrong!!

liberator74

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2013
368
166
43
MSN has a story today highlighting the lowest and highest temperatures ever recorded in each state for a total of 100 standing records according to NOAA

Before 1900 , 8 record temps
1900-1920 , 17 record temps
1921-1940 , 34 record temps
1941-1960 , 9 record temps
1961-1980 , 10 record temps
1981- 2000 , 18 record temps
2001-2019 , 4 record temps

Funny in the first sixty years there are 68 records standing

In the last sixty years there are only 32 records on the books with 12 of those records for high temps and 20 of them for LOW temperatures

Would make a non scientist think that climate is more stable now than in the past, and if anything extremes are on the cold side not hot

This data must be wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerbleach
MSN has a story today highlighting the lowest and highest temperatures ever recorded in each state for a total of 100 standing records according to NOAA

Before 1900 , 8 record temps
1900-1920 , 17 record temps
1921-1940 , 34 record temps
1941-1960 , 9 record temps
1961-1980 , 10 record temps
1981- 2000 , 18 record temps
2001-2019 , 4 record temps

Funny in the first sixty years there are 68 records standing

In the last sixty years there are only 32 records on the books with 12 of those records for high temps and 20 of them for LOW temperatures

Would make a non scientist think that climate is more stable now than in the past, and if anything extremes are on the cold side not hot

This data must be wrong

You're confusing weather and climate. Individual records mean nothing, what are the averages over 25, 50, 100, 1000 years? Paints a more accurate picture.
 
MSN has a story today highlighting the lowest and highest temperatures ever recorded in each state for a total of 100 standing records according to NOAA

Before 1900 , 8 record temps
1900-1920 , 17 record temps
1921-1940 , 34 record temps
1941-1960 , 9 record temps
1961-1980 , 10 record temps
1981- 2000 , 18 record temps
2001-2019 , 4 record temps

Funny in the first sixty years there are 68 records standing

In the last sixty years there are only 32 records on the books with 12 of those records for high temps and 20 of them for LOW temperatures

Would make a non scientist think that climate is more stable now than in the past, and if anything extremes are on the cold side not hot

This data must be wrong
It's not just these stats. There is very little factual stats to show global warming. The claims of more severe weather isn't supported by stats. The claims of doom I grew up with have not materialized. The AOC claim of 12 years left is the shortest prediction i've ever heard because most libs are smart/devious enough to make longer term claims so they can't be called out when they fail.
 
You're confusing weather and climate. Individual records mean nothing, what are the averages over 25, 50, 100, 1000 years? Paints a more accurate picture.
There isn't any actual data from 1000 years ago but we did have an ice age that would have sent the climate changers over a cliff.
There isn't a lot of actual stats from 100 years ago but that is about when most records started being kept. There isn't much in that data to support vast climate change.
Any shorter time frame really is insufficient to draw long term conclusions from. The climate has always changed wildly over long periods.
 
There isn't any actual data from 1000 years ago but we did have an ice age that would have sent the climate changers over a cliff.
There isn't a lot of actual stats from 100 years ago but that is about when most records started being kept. There isn't much in that data to support vast climate change.
Any shorter time frame really is insufficient to draw long term conclusions from. The climate has always changed wildly over long periods.

Ice core samples can give a pretty solid idea of what the climate was like over a long period of time. The last Ice age was 10,000 years ago and we are recently coming out of a "mini-ice age" so it stands to reason that it would be warmer.

However, to claim greenhouse emissions haven't had any affect is preposterous.
 
Ice core samples can give a pretty solid idea of what the climate was like over a long period of time. The last Ice age was 10,000 years ago and we are recently coming out of a "mini-ice age" so it stands to reason that it would be warmer.

However, to claim greenhouse emissions haven't had any affect is preposterous.
The mini ice age was what I was referring to.
I didn't say they haven't.
There is nothing alarming in the data. It's ALL happened before. If there was legitimate reason for concern, they wouldn't have to exaggerate threats that never transpire.
 
The mini ice age was what I was referring to.
I didn't say they haven't.
There is nothing alarming in the data. It's ALL happened before. If there was legitimate reason for concern, they wouldn't have to exaggerate threats that never transpire.

With respect, are you a climatologist? Geologist? Scientist in any capacity? I'll admit I'm not and that all that is above my pay grade.
 
With respect, are you a climatologist? Geologist? Scientist in any capacity? I'll admit I'm not and that all that is above my pay grade.
Nope.
I am old enough to have 50 years of doomsday predictions come and go with ZERO accuracy though.
Show me ONE prediction that has come true (predictions made by those "experts" you trust) and I will listen more closely.
 
Nope.
I am old enough to have 50 years of doomsday predictions come and go with ZERO accuracy though.
Show me ONE prediction that has come true (predictions made by those "experts" you trust) and I will listen more closely.
Smoking causes cancer
 
  • Like
Reactions: wccards21
MSN has a story today highlighting the lowest and highest temperatures ever recorded in each state for a total of 100 standing records according to NOAA

Before 1900 , 8 record temps
1900-1920 , 17 record temps
1921-1940 , 34 record temps
1941-1960 , 9 record temps
1961-1980 , 10 record temps
1981- 2000 , 18 record temps
2001-2019 , 4 record temps

Funny in the first sixty years there are 68 records standing

In the last sixty years there are only 32 records on the books with 12 of those records for high temps and 20 of them for LOW temperatures

Would make a non scientist think that climate is more stable now than in the past, and if anything extremes are on the cold side not hot

This data must be wrong
When are you gonna get another wc handle? You must have been really scared of bolivar

Sad!!! Bigly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wccards21
And that has what to do about climate change/global warming/rising tides/storm frequency or intensity?
Its science son. Your rich masters denied for a long time and dullards bought in (and died a lot)

Science was doubted Just like now
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wccards21
Nope.
I am old enough to have 50 years of doomsday predictions come and go with ZERO accuracy though.
Show me ONE prediction that has come true (predictions made by those "experts" you trust) and I will listen more closely.

When you (or your family) get sick do you go to the doctor? Do you trust that medicine works?

Are you typing this on a phone?

Do you drive a car and use gas that someone refined into a fuel?

You dont get to be selective with science. Either you trust that people smarter than us are capable of making observations and extrapolating that data into conclusions or you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wccards21
When you (or your family) get sick do you go to the doctor? Do you trust that medicine works?

Are you typing this on a phone?

Do you drive a car and use gas that someone refined into a fuel?

You dont get to be selective with science. Either you trust that people smarter than us are capable of making observations and extrapolating that data into conclusions or you don't.
I'm old enough to have seen medicine work.
Don't use a smart phone.
Cars and fuels are tangible items not theories.
Extrapolating is not reality. It might become reality but for 50 years it hasn't. I see no reason it will. It's all about controlling people.
 
I'm old enough to have seen medicine work.
Don't use a smart phone.
Cars and fuels are tangible items not theories.
Extrapolating is not reality. It might become reality but for 50 years it hasn't. I see no reason it will. It's all about controlling people.

If the meteorologist on the news says it's going to rain, do you prepare for rain? If so, you have some faith in science.
 
If the meteorologist on the news says it's going to rain, do you prepare for rain? If so, you have some faith in science.
I keep being told there is a big difference in weather and climate. I do agree there is. I must say though, the weather predictions for the next day are pretty faulty let alone for the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years. I just the other day layghed at a comercial for a local weather forecaster citing how modern technology allowed them to pinpoint snowfall accuracy while the current prediction of impending 6" snowfall amounted to 1/2 an inch.
Claims compared to reality are what I cite. Show me predictions that have been realized.
 
Its science son. Your rich masters denied for a long time and dullards bought in (and died a lot)

Science was doubted Just like now

Congrats. You found a case where science said what everyone knew and they were right!
Imagine that, Veer siding with a liberal position again.
 
I've lived through all these impending dooms.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

A list like this has to start with the “climate change” catastrophe the environmentalists were all warning about in the 1970s: global cooling and a descent into a new ice age.
They had the evidence of the temperature record, which showed global temperatures generally declining from about 1940 to 1970. Which led to fevered predictions like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

When environmentalists said that we were destroying the Earth, they meant it directly and literally. The biggest problem was the very existence of humans, the fact that there were just too darned many of us. We were going to keep growing unchecked, and we were going to swarm the surface of the Earth like locusts, destroying everything in our path until we eventually used it all up.To fully grasp how badly the “population bomb” predictions failed, you have to realize that the biggest demographic challenge today is declining population. Japan faces a demographic death spiral in which declining population and fewer workers leads to economic stagnation, which discourages people from having kids, which makes the problem worse.

To fully grasp how badly the “population bomb” predictions failed, you have to realize that the biggest demographic challenge today is declining population. Japan faces a demographic death spiral in which declining population and fewer workers leads to economic stagnation, which discourages people from having kids, which makes the problem worse. I love the part about how “demographers agree almost unanimously.” Sound familiar? I don’t know whether that was really true in 1970, but if they did, they were almost unanimously wrong.

In addition to running out of food, we were also supposed to run out of natural resources, such as nickel and copper, and above all we were running out of oil.
Here’s our friend Kenneth Watt again, with his present trends continuing: “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.

At the first Earth Day, its political sponsor, Senator Gaylord Nelson, warned: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

At the first Earth Day, its political sponsor, Senator Gaylord Nelson, warned: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

No wonder all of these environmental hysterias seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, while agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. We don’t just sit around using up our currently available oil reserves; we go out and find new reserves of oil and new ways to extract it.

And that’s the real issue. The environmental doomsayers don’t just extrapolate blindly from current trends. They extrapolate only from the trends that fit their apocalyptic vision while ignoring trends that don’t fit. They project forward the current rate at which we’re using up our resources, but ignore the history of our ability to innovate and create. They get all excited by 20 years of rising temperature or rising oil prices—but ignore two centuries of rising wealth and longevity. It’s almost as if they started with a preconceived conclusion and cast about for evidence to support it.
 
Congrats. You found a case where science said what everyone knew and they were right!
Imagine that, Veer siding with a liberal position again.
That wasn't a liberal position. Its just facts and thats what you liberal repubs can't handle
 
More:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardiannewspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardiannewspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.

After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.

Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.” The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Many experts now predict the ongoing expansion of Arctic ice to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.
 
Congrats. You found a case where science said what everyone knew and they were right!
Imagine that, Veer siding with a liberal position again.
Do you ever get tired of being stupid?

Everyone knew how bad they were, which is why doctors were used as advertising for Lucky Strike, Philip Morris & Camel.
 
Do you ever get tired of being stupid?

Everyone knew how bad they were, which is why doctors were used as advertising for Lucky Strike, Philip Morris & Camel.

I'm sure they weren't compensated for their help. Why do you think they needed doctors? Could it be because everyone knew they were unhealthy?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT