Jump to content

3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure this can be dismissed (except by a few here) ....this comes from Accuweather.com...... before either side gets their panties in too much of a bunch, Jessie Ferrel (the author) precedes his piece with an excellent clarification:

1. The article was not meant to be a commentary on Climate Change or Global Warming (which is why I uttered neither phrase), though I understand why some thought that it was, given the link source :) Cold OR warm outbreaks, by themselves, are not signs of Climate Change. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic myself, though I feel that we don't have enough data to make a decision.

I think there was a warming trend, that should be undeniable to anyone, and what should be just as undeniable is that, that trend seems to have peaked and we are now on the way down from it. meaning Man Made Global Warming is and always has been a hoax perpetuated and exaggerated by persons looking to profit from the hysteria. The phenomena itself was a real occurrence that could easily be charted.....the cause of it was conjecture and opinion backed up by hyperbole. Not meant as proof either way, but an interesting trend.

AccuWeather.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this can be dismissed (except by a few here) ....this comes from Accuweather.com...... before either side gets their panties in too much of a bunch, Jessie Ferrel (the author) precedes his piece with an excellent clarification:

1. The article was not meant to be a commentary on Climate Change or Global Warming (which is why I uttered neither phrase), though I understand why some thought that it was, given the link source :) Cold OR warm outbreaks, by themselves, are not signs of Climate Change. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic myself, though I feel that we don't have enough data to make a decision.

I think there was a warming trend, that should be undeniable to anyone, and what should be just as undeniable is that, that trend seems to have peaked and we are now on the way down from it. meaning Man Made Global Warming is and always has been a hoax perpetuated and exaggerated by persons looking to profit from the hysteria. The phenomena itself was a real occurrence that could easily be charted.....the cause of it was conjecture and opinion backed up by hyperbole. Not meant as proof either way, but an interesting trend.

AccuWeather.com

how many record high temps were set around the country in june/july? oh wait, that was one of hte updates to the blog that you and snake left out:

2. My blog entry was not meant to cover all the weather on the Globe in July, it was meant to cover the unusually cool weather that most of the U.S. has experienced this month. I even went out of my way to mention the Southwest Heat Wave, but clearly some readers were only skimming. :) My blog is not meant to cover all weather worldwide all the time, I just pick out the interesting stories, and yes, I am more likely to blog about them if they affect me (due to limited blogging time) and I do live in the Northeast. We have a team of meteorologists publishing other stories if you're interested, just visit AccuWeather.com and check them out..

3. The year, overall, from a records perspective, is still biased to record-breaking highs. Blog reader Bill C. points out that, when you compare the number of Record Lows to Record Highs for 2009 so far on a monthly basis, you come up with more lows than highs since May, but more highs than lows before that. All said and done, he says, year-to-date there have been 1,820 more highs than lows broken.

so there have been more highs than lows year-to-date...can you easily dismiss THAT as it relates to global warming?

also, the source is a BLOG on accuweather, it's not an article by the site itself. that's like citing a blog on Obama's website praising che guevara and claiming that obama is a che supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is his "Blog" no different than what you do here everyday?

You are "blogging here and don't even realize it... :lol::lol:

good lord you are dense.

nobody cites posts on this MB as a credible news article. snake (and silentbob) both cited an internet blog as a credible news source.

derrr...

sober up before you post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many record high temps were set around the country in june/july? oh wait, that was one of hte updates to the blog that you and snake left out:

so there have been more highs than lows year-to-date...can you easily dismiss THAT as it relates to global warming?

also, the source is a BLOG on accuweather, it's not an article by the site itself. that's like citing a blog on Obama's website praising che guevara and claiming that obama is a che supporter.

I didn't leave anything out, I posted the article's link......that said, you are correct about the highs vs lows, but if GW were a continuing trend rather than one that had reached its peak, would the temperatures not continue to rise from any given point? After all, India, China, and Mexico's carbon emissions have continued to rise over the last decade and show no signs of dissipating...why then if the "cause" of GW continues to rise does the effect (the temps) not match the trend, but actually begin to fall instead?

One point about those highs as well.....if (as I conceded) temperatures did indeed rise above the highest point from a decade+ ago, does it not stand to reason that in the infancy of the fall of those temperatures from their peak they would still be above the point from which they started?

We don't have to be jackasses to debate this.....if I'm wrong, or not seeing a smoking gun, I will readily admit as much once this theory has been proved, until then it is merely theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good lord you are dense.

nobody cites posts on this MB as a credible news article. snake (and silentbob) both cited an internet blog as a credible news source.

derrr...

sober up before you post again.

A blog citing confirmed and proven data. Is that not correct? Are you challenging the veracity of the information contained within? Unless you are, you are using smoke and mirrors to challenge data that does not support your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A blog citing confirmed and proven data. Is that not correct? Are you challenging the veracity of the information contained within? Unless you are, you are using smoke and mirrors to challenge data that does not support your position.

What about the data in the Blog that says that their have been more high records than lows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the data in the Blog that says that their have been more high records than lows.
One point about those highs as well.....if (as I conceded) temperatures did indeed rise above the highest point from a decade+ ago, does it not stand to reason that in the infancy of the fall of those temperatures from their peak they would still be above the point from which they started?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't leave anything out, I posted the article's link......that said, you are correct about the highs vs lows, but if GW were a continuing trend rather than one that had reached its peak, would the temperatures not continue to rise from any given point? After all, India, China, and Mexico's carbon emissions have continued to rise over the last decade and show no signs of dissipating...why then if the "cause" of GW continues to rise does the effect (the temps) not match the trend, but actually begin to fall instead?

One point about those highs as well.....if (as I conceded) temperatures did indeed rise above the highest point from a decade+ ago, does it not stand to reason that in the infancy of the fall of those temperatures from their peak they would still be above the point from which they started?

We don't have to be jackasses to debate this.....if I'm wrong, or not seeing a smoking gun, I will readily admit as much once this theory has been proved, until then it is merely theory.

fair enough. however, you have to distinguish random daily/monthly/yearly variation from a long-term trend. el nino/la nina effects along with solar radiation and other short-term patterns cause the peaks and values you see when looking at yearly global temperatures. the question is what the long-term trend has done. to that end, there is no reason to think the trend has changed from it's warming.

a lot of deniers like to pick an arbitrarily high year (such as 1998) and compare it to an arbitrarily low year (2008) and say "see! see! look it's going down!". that ignores the entire temperature record. again, look at a graph plotting all years over the last 100 or so years...the trend is still moving in the same direction:

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A blog citing confirmed and proven data. Is that not correct? Are you challenging the veracity of the information contained within? Unless you are, you are using smoke and mirrors to challenge data that does not support your position.

first, it's still a blog. a link to the primary source is more appropriate. blogs can (do) manipulate and misinterpret the data. anyone can make a blog, so without looking at the primary source of hte data any blog (left or right) is inherently suspicious.

it's like people who post from james inhoffe's blog (not you, but one of hte nutjobs posting in this thread)...it's opinion, not facts.

whenever i post information about global average temperatures there is always a link to the raw data itself from UAH, RSS, or GISS. people can go look at the data or they can dump the .txt file into statistical software (or excel) and analyze it themselves.

again, anyone can create a blog and say anything they want, so all of them are inherently suspect to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good lord you are dense.

nobody cites posts on this MB as a credible news article. snake (and silentbob) both cited an internet blog as a credible news source.

derrr...

sober up before you post again.

You don't even realize what you have become. You are the exact same thing that you chastise Snake for being, only on the other side of the political spectrum. It doesn't make you any more right, or wrong then him. You both have exceeded the "being a tool on ABF" level however.

ROFLMAO!!! your edit is worst than your original typo!!!

i am "embarrest" for you.

:lol: :lol:

I really lol'd.

I'll put all ideology aside for a good laugh. That's just how I roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even realize what you have become. You are the exact same thing that you chastise Snake for being, only on the other side of the political spectrum. It doesn't make you any more right, or wrong then him. You both have exceeded the "being a tool on ABF" level however.

we both post global warming threads, and the similarity ends there.

he posts countless threads about local record low temperatures, ignoring the record highs (which apparently are more numerous than the record lows). i respond by posting GLOBAL average temperatures from several different scientific sources or otherwise showing how his pasted articles don't support the conclusions he is drawing from the Drudge headlines.

IOW, he posts a bunch of trolling spam and i correct his factual errors. it's superficial to say "look you both post a bunch of GW stuff so you're both exactly the same". in that regard, i am the polar opposite of snake--i post credible facts, including the raw data from scientific sources, and will argue those facts on their merits. i will engage in discussion with people like silentbob in a dialogue. snake never responds, he simply cuts and pastes whenever somebody points out his factual errors.

you need a new set of glasses if you can't see the difference.

I really lol'd.

I'll put all ideology aside for a good laugh. That's just how I roll.

;) not much else anyone can do but laugh at that exchange. i thought snake was the only one who brought unintentional comedy to the boards, but it looks like he's got some competition with BTL. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I made a spelling error and this Jac*A** makes a sig.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What am I gonna do!!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

it's not that you made a spelling error.

it's that you made a spelling error while accusing someone else of being like Snake.

and then you "corrected" your spelling error by misspelling the same word a second time!

all while accusing someone else of being just like Snake.

honestly, it doesn't get more comical than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and who thinks that "embarrest" is a correct spelling of that word?? :blink:

realizing that you made a mistake, you should have at least used the spell check or looked it up in a dictionary.

good lord, man! just stop digging your hole deeper than it already is.

or keep digging, i don't care. i imagine that poor silentbob is giving himself a double face palm over what you've done to his thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...