Reptile & Amphibian Forums

We are currently going through a heat wave here in northern Ca. Lots of records broken. The city I live in has broken a record that was last set in 1926. Some say this kind of event is evidence of global warming. I heard a former climatologist (now a radio talk show host) say that this actually is evidence that there is NO global warming, and it may be evicence of slight global cooling. I never thought of it that way before, but I came up with 2 other reasons why this heat wave actually tends to disprove global warming. (all 3 reasons are slightly related)

Care to guess what they are?

I'll post the reasons tomorrow.

Really shows what critical thinking can do to make data make sense.

Rodney

Interesting....In South Florida we are becoming more arid. which has made our springs cooler than usual. How are the humidity levels in CA? Could there be a relationship here....

Our historically high Humidity tended to hold in higher temps at night which made the days warmer. The moist air acted as a buffer against cold fronts. Since over developement has seriously impacted the Everglades (the major source of that humidity)cold fronts effect us more seriously each year than before.

With that in mind...How about others here in the USA and elsewhere...How has your weather changed (or not) in recent years?

If you are going to do this right Rodney, it might work better if we get as many different localities as possible rather than depend on just a local climatic effect...to determine if your theory is correct.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

HI Frank,

Here, we have highly variable humidity. Since we are only about 40 miles from the coast, we get a lot of our weather systems coming from the ocean. For instance, if the jet stream comes to us from the North (from Alaska), we get cold dry air. If the Jet stream dips further south, we get our weather from Hawaii--humid and warm. If we are on the southern part of a "high" pressure system (highs rotate clockwise) we get our air coming in from the inland areas instead of from the ocean-from the deserts (Arizona, death valley) and it is hot and dry. We typically have the same weather for about 4-7 days, and then we get different weather as the "fronts" move around. Then there is the famous San Francisco fog. Typically this occurs anytime we are not having an off shore flow (when we are in the southern part of a high system). I have lived here for about 40 years, and there is no change that I can see over years past.

In my previous post, I was trying to get at the fact that there are 3 good arguments why any record heat wave that breaks long standing records is contraindicative of global warming instead of indicative of global warming, like some global warming alarmists claim. I was not really trying to support any theory of mine. I was hoping to get some people to think about this and see if they could logically come up with some of those reasons.

I'll post the 2 reasons I came up with, along with the one reason I heard from a former climatologist, when I get back from making deliveries.

Rodney

Look forward to reading it.

As I am writing this another cold front is pushing thru here (hopefully with some rain). It's been a few weeks since we have had any. lately we are getting more in the way of severe winds and hard rain that moves thru fast, not our usual lingering spring-summer showers.

One example of the changes here is that lately when we water our lawns the evaporation is so rapid that most our lawns have brown spots even with daily watering.

There have been changes in our vegetation (what survives and what doesn't).

Don't know what you want to call it, but things are becoming different here.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

First, let me say, I heard this one argument on the radio. I thought it was interesting, and it got me thinking a bit.

argument #1) (This is the one I heard on the radio from a former climatologist)

There was a heat wave 78 years ago. The weather, on this day, has been cooler than this event for the last 78 years! This clearly does not show a warming trend.
---------------------------------------------------------
argument #2)

The heat wave we are experiencing now is similar to the weather we were having back then, thus no major change, thus no global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------
argument #3)

Since this heat wave broke the 1926 record, that means that there is a previous record that it didn't break! (The news would have made a big deal out if it, if it had.) That means that it has been cooler, on this day, for a period of time more than the last 78 years mentioned in argument #1! If the 1926 heat wave, for instance, broke the previous record set in 1902, then it has to have been cooler, on this day, since way back then! Again, this does not indicate warming!

----------------------------------------------
So, all heat waves records tend to be evidence of global cooling, not warming.

If there was global warming, we should be seeing a couple of things happening. We should be seeing heat waves that break records that are very recent. Heat waves that break old records indicate cooling, not warming. We should also be seeing heat waves that not only break recent records, but also break all the records we have! After all, if there is warming, this heat wave should have broken one a few years ago, the one a few years ago should have broken one a few years before that, the one before that should have broken one a few years before that, and every one of those must have set a new record (since records have been kept) each time one occurred. This hasn't been happening. For a heat wave to show an indication of global warming, that heat wave must meet 2 criteria. It must be:

1) An all time record.
2) Beating a recent record.

The media, and global warming alarmists, will emphasize that an old record being broken is evidence of global warming. The older the record the better! It's more sensational that way. After all, this sticks in the mind and seems to make sense until you analyze it. A little logic and common sense shows this is not the case at all. It is basically just a manipulation of the publics views, since few people will bother to logically analyze what they hear.

It's too bad that records haven't been kept for the last 20,000 years instead of just the last 200 years or so. Then these arguments would be even more dramatic.

Rodney

Here is some simple statistical analysis.

If you assume that temperatures are completely random (no global warming). Then in the last 200 years or so that temp. records have been kept, you would have a one in 200 chance that today is the warmest (this date) in recorded history. (04-27-04 temps. vs. 04-27-03 temps., vs 04-27-02 temps., etc.) Today, then, also has a one in 200 chance of being the coldest (on this date). And today has a 198 out of 200 chance of being neither the coldest or warmest.

That means that on average, you should hear a news report that your city is the warmest it has been on this day every 200 days, or every 7 months or so. (And this is assuming that temps. are totally random!) Now throw in the global warming theory, and that 7 months should be considerably shorter! Do you think that you hear, on the news, that your particular city is experiencing the warmest day ever recorded for this date at a rate of considerably less than once every 7 months? After all, we have been warming for a long time if you believe the alarmists!

I sure don't! But maybe my memory is just bad due to old age!-LOL

Rodney

The really sad thing about this is that rodney is actually serious - gives you a pretty good idea what he's got going on upstairs, no?

Its nuggets of wisdom like this that tell everyone reading this board to ignore rodney's bizarre attempts at reasoned thinking!

Hey rodney - could we be experiencing global warming and NOT experience record high temps on average once every 200 days?

Think about it genious! I assume you heard this too from your talk show host, former climatologist too, huh?

Cripes.

"Hey rodney - could we be experiencing global warming and NOT experience record high temps on average once every 200 days?"

As long as you assume that global warming is a long term phenomenon, which everyone who believes in global warming seems to say it is, then no, we could not. If global warming was very recent, and there was cooling for most of the first part of last 200 years in which data was kept, then it is possible, but that is a huge assumption that is in violation of all the data we have. (Even data from the alarmists.) We know, for instance, that the vast majority of any warming that occurred in the last 150 years or so occurred in the first 2/3rds of that period, and almost none in the last! So, to answer your question, no, it is not possible unless you assume some things that we know are not true.

Let me put it this way, so it is easier for you to understand. Assuming no global warming, so everything is totally random.

If you took every Jan 1st temp. for the last 200 years, every Jan 2nd temp for the last 200 years, every Jan 3rd temp for the last 200 years, etc., you would record a record high temp that was higher than any temp ever measured on that date exactly once (on average) every 200 days. You could then expect to see this in each and every city you measured, again, on average, once every 200 days. There can be local warming or cooling not related to global warming, which is why it has to be done on average.

If, for instance, you have a local news weather report that gives you temperatures of 30 cities every night, just by randomness, you would have to hear of one record high temp, in one of those cities, (higher than ever recorded before on that day) on average 200/30 or every 6.67 days! You should also hear of a record low temp. at the exact same frequency, without global warming.

And with global warming, it would have to be more often since global warming would make it nonrandom and weighted toward the warm side! And that's not even taking into consideration the foolish alarmists that say that global warming is so very dangerous because it is accelerating!

By the way, you ought to look into statistical analysis using nonrandom samples to help you better understand our previous debate about huge margins and how 100 randomness in sampling is not necessarily needed to make generalizations with margins that huge.

I was hoping to get some people to think about this. About how their perceptions are incorrect, or how they can be fooled by sensational stories, but I guess my attempt was lost on you, sorry.

Rodney

Reading all this pleasant prattle,
about the temperature we battle.
Is it going up or down?
Is Rodney a genius or a clown?
It is all per point of view...
So what my friends are we to do?
I looked inside my almanac
Looking for some wise attack.
To use to sway the tide-but no,
pullatus please where can I go,
To quench the battle with a truce?
Or figure out who's screw is loose?
At least it's not about Iraq...
Or jumping on the Bush attack
But tis' a bit to over done...
Gee guys what else is there for fun?

Sorry guys (couldn't resist) all in fun.

Here's a thought. When I was in high school there was a theory that the the true (magnetic North and South) poles were shifting. This would dramatically change the world's climate. Any work being done on that theory?

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I'd say to get an accurate state of the world look to the ice caps. And then try to explain why there are melting.

And shouldn't we also look at why some other ones are growing at a record pace!

But that little fact never seems to get mentioned. Always look at just one side of the picture, and you too can call yourself an environmentalist.

Just use a search engine to find many examples of these, but global warming alarmists always leave out that little fact.

Rodney

Your right Rodney....we should. But in our zeal to prove we are right we should be careful not to automatically label opposing viewpoints as wrong.

I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I want to see hard data. Why are some Ice fields growing and others shrinking? I want to see an answer (that makes sense) and that can be backed up with fact.

The biggest mistake we can make my friend is to be so convinced we are right that we ignore or down play the whole picture in favor of evidence that supports our beliefs. (that includes enviromentalists). And all too often that is what I see on these forums. Frankly...As I suggested in my poem, all this month after month posturing on just three topics is BORING!

This is not my area of science but since you are so deeply involved in this whole issue, let's se what you can come up with.

Why don't you take the data (namely...what ice fields are growing and what fields are shrinking) plot it out on a map and see if there is any correlation between the two events. Mayhaps this in turn could be compared to data in reguards to polar (magnetic) shift. Cause and effect? In any case, it would provide an answer (possibly) to some questions.

Personally I am aware of the fact that statistics can be manipulated to prove any point. Which really did not impress me with your earlier arguement which struck me more as rationalisation. Here's a chance to use something real and measurable to find answers.

Who knows...maybe it will add weight to your claims.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Your right Rodney....we should. But in our zeal to prove we are right we should be careful not to automatically label opposing viewpoints as wrong.

I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I want to see hard data. Why are some Ice fields growing and others shrinking? I want to see an answer (that makes sense) and that can be backed up with fact.

I consider myself to be sitting on the fence also. It's not so much that I believe global warming can't be (or isn't) happening as it is that I see no reason to believe it is happening without some good evidence. It is all the ridiculous arguments that some say are evidence of global warming that I have a problem with. If those arguments can be disproved, or simply make no sense, I will point it out. It's easy for all these arguments to sway the general publics opinion. If they hear argument after argument that try to support global warming, they will eventually begin to believe in global warming whether it is true or not. While I don't know if global warming is happening for sure or not, I do know a bad, irrational argument when I see one. Until I do see some good hard evidence to prove that global warming exists, I will take the cautious, skeptical position that it doesn't, until it is proven. I don't believe in many other things for the same reason. (ghosts, psychics, numerology, horoscopes, etc.) It has always amazed me how some people, who seem completely rational, will make decisions or put more faith in their feelings and beliefs than in what they actually know to be fact. It is also amazing how many predators (like cult leaders, psychics, psychic healers, faith healers, etc.) can prey on these people because of their beliefs over riding their knowledge.

Rodney

Rodney, Your right, they never mention that some are growing. I've never heard this. Can you direct me to a site that says this?

www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

pay particular notice to the comment at the top of this one.
www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3504064&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

There are many others, but I tried to point you to a few articles about growing glaciers in different parts of the world.--So it is less likely to be just a local "one area" phenomenon.

Rodney

Interesting articles......Hey maybe they got it backwards and it's Global Cooling? (lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

i have read that the reversal of the magnetic poles is inevitable, and that it should not only cause great climatic changes, but with it death and chaos.

many migrating animals go where they go due to their ability to sense earth's magnetic field.

there is even a much larger hazard here, though...what if the earth loses it's magnetic field altogether andis therefore subject to the mass amounts of radiation that we rely on it to protect us from?

here is a cool link about it from a nova i watched:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/

later,

amanda

Well done.

I really should just ignore pulatus, but when he personally attacks me, instead of trying to prove I am wrong about something, I can't help but fire back him. I really don't care much about his opinions, since I don't respect him anyway, but I do care about what others reading this may think, and his tactic of attacking anything but the facts does irk me a bit.

While I know firing back at him is just as childish as his attacks, I hate to let this kind of thing just go. I wish he would take a statistical analysis course or three, and stop this nonsense.

Rodney

"...but I do care about what others reading this may think, and his tactic of attacking anything but the facts does irk me a bit."

but i don't know why you should care so much what everyone else thinks. anyone reading his post would just know that it was immature and not supported statistically. how does this reflect negatively on you?

i have been lurking here in the open discussion forum for a while, and even though i don't necessarily agree with all of your political views , you appear to have a grasp of what you are talking about and i, as well as the majority on this forum, respect you and are very interested in what you have to say.

with that said, i don't really understand your no. 3 reason argument you posted earlier. if this heatwave beat the 1926 record, why would it then be true that there was "a previous record that it didn't break?" doesn't it just mean that it has been the hottest now than it has been since they have been recording temperatures?

looking forward to your explanation, i can be a bit daft at times.

amanda

I'm more than happy to answer a question. Especially when it is a civil as yours!

My point was, that everytime a new record is set, that breaks all records since records were kept, the news reports it as breaking all historical records, not as breaking a previous record set some time ago. As in my example that happened here last week were the temp. broke a 1926 record.

For instance, lets say that records were taken from 1800 until today for the city I live in.

If the following temps. were measured on a particular day during the following years.

1800 thru 1849------ all below 99 degrees
1850 ------------------ 101 degrees
1851 thru 1929------ all below 98 degrees
1930-------------------- 98 degrees
1931--------------------thru 2003 all below 98 degrees
2004--------------------99 degrees

Then the 2004 temp. would have broken the 1930 record of 98, and the news would report it as such. It would not have broken the 1850 record of 101.

If the 2004 temp. had broken the 1850 record, the news would have reported it as being so hot that it broke all recorded temps. So, while it sounds sensational to say that it broke a record set in 1930 record, in fact, it was hotter on this day in the year 1850. This means that there have been 154 years in a row of temps. that have been cooler on this day than the recorded 1850 temp.

So, unless the temp. recorded in 2004 broke all historical records, then it tends to indicate cooling instead of warming. Not at all the same impression that global warming alarmists would try to make with this data. A superficial analysis with some editorializing would make you think this indicates warming, but a more thorough analysis would show you the opposite.

Interestingly, the longer a record has stood (and the more sensational it sounds), the more likely it is that this indicates global cooling. (because there have been more years in a row that were cooler on that date.--except for the case when all records are broken which would indicate warming.) Global warming would cause recent records, and more importantly, all time records, to be broken frequently.

I hope that makes sense to you, it did to me.

Rodney

"Then the 2004 temp. would have broken the 1930 record of 98, and the news would report it as such. It would not have broken the 1850 record of 101.

"If the 2004 temp. had broken the 1850 record, the news would have reported it as being so hot that it broke all recorded temps. So, while it sounds sensational to say that it broke a record set in 1930 record, in fact, it was hotter on this day in the year 1850. This means that there have been 154 years in a row of temps. that have been cooler on this day than the recorded 1850 temp."

please correct me if i am wrong, perhaps i have been misled in my knowledge of the definition of records. i thought that a 'record' meant that it was the most extreme. so in your example, if there was a record temp. of 98* in 1930, wouldn't that mean that in 1930 there were no temperatures higher than 98* in previous recorded history? otherwise there would be nothing at all sensational about the temp. hitting 98* in 1930--no one would care, and the record temp would still have been the 101 of 1850.

thanks for your reply--i like this forum . it's a lot nicer than that war zone known as the leopard gecko forum.

amanda

Hi Amanda,

i thought that a 'record' meant that it was the most extreme. so in your example, if there was a record temp. of 98* in 1930, wouldn't that mean that in 1930 there were no temperatures higher than 98* in previous recorded history? otherwise there would be nothing at all sensational about the temp. hitting 98* in 1930--no one would care, and the record temp would still have been the 101 of 1850.

While I like your reasoning, "record" has two definitions, and I think you are confusing the two. One definition is "something that is recorded" and another definition is "the most extreme." When a statement is made that the temperature today broke the 1930 record, it means that the temperature that was recorded in 1930 was broken. It does not mean that 1930 was an all time "record/extreme" high temperature.

You are absolutely correct, that in 1930, no one cared that the temperature hit 98. But today, when you look back at history, and look at all the temperatures recorded over the last 200 years, it then becomes a significant reading. (For example, if you look back at the example I made up in the previous post, and consider the 2004 reading of 99 degrees, then you would look back at the temperatures of previous years until you found a higher temp. (the one in 1850) Once you found the date of that higher temp.(1850), you would then look between that date(1850) and today's date to find the next highest temperature. That would bring you to 1930. So you would say that today's temp. broke the "record" in 1930. You must look between todays temp. and a higher temp. to find this next highest "record", in order for this next highest temp. to be broken.) When you say today's temperature broke the "record" of 1930, you are saying that today's temperature is higher than it was in 1930, and that the 1930 "recorded" temperature was higher than every year's "recorded" temp., on this day, from 1930 until today's temp. broke it. And by omitting the statement that it broke "all historical records", you are also saying that there was at least one higher "recorded" temp previous to 1930.

I hope I am explaining this well.

-----

Another way to look at it. If 1930 had been a maximum record, then today's temp. would have broken all recorded historical data. The news makes a distinction between a heat wave breaking all recorded historical data, and breaking a record on a previous date. This distinction wouldn't even exist if the 1930 reading was indeed a "maximum" record.

Rodney

Rodney,

My suggestion would be to re-think your statistical analysis but keep in mind that record high temps are not random events.

It would be entirely possible, for example, to see a spike in temps producing record high temps, then a return to normal. If "normal" were in fact, gradually rising temps, then we would see a long term increase in average temps (i.e. global warming) without any new record highs for much longer than your 200 days.

What matters in a global warming analysis is the average temperature, not the average high temperature.

While I agree that heat waves are not random events, that is really irrelevant to the argument.

You said "It would be entirely possible, for example, to see a spike in temps producing record high temps, then a return to normal. If "normal" were in fact, gradually rising temps, then we would see a long term increase in average temps (i.e. global warming) without any new record highs for much longer than your 200 days."

While this may be true, it is irrelevant to the statistical analysis of the situation.

For instance, let's use a shorter time frame to demonstrate statistically what I'm saying. If we just use the last five years of data for instance, then we will have five different temperature readings. There can be only one "highest" temperature, one "lowest" temperature, and three temperatures somewhere between the low and the high. This means there is a 20 percent chance that the "highest" temperature recorded occurred in year 1, there is a 20 percent chance it occurred in year 2, there is a 20 percent chance it occurred in year 3, there is a 20 percent chance it occurred in year 4, and there is a 20 percent chance it occurred in year 5. This also means that there is a 20 percent chance that a record high will be recorded each day, or a record high will be recorded, on average, once every five days. (record high meaning the highest ever recorded on this day, during this five-year period)

Whether global warming primarily causes changes in median temperatures, or not, does not change the above percentages. Whether heat waves are random events or not does not change the probability that a particular heat wave occurred in year 1,2, 3, 4 or 5. So, if records had only been kept for five years, you should see a maximum recorded temperature, on average, every five days. -- regardless of whether heat waves are random or not. Their probability of it occuring is equal for each of the years in question. The relevant information is only the period of time in which records have been kept.

For instance, if records were kept for 100 years, you would expect, without any global warming or cooling, a record high every 100 days. If records were kept for 500 years, you would expect to see a record high temperature recorded every 500 days. If records were kept for 2000 years, you would expect to see a record high temperature every 2000 days(on average).

----------------
It would be entirely possible, for example, to see a spike in temps producing record high temps, then a return to normal.

While this is true, and it would be possible to see this happen, it would only happen if you were not talking about things happening on average. This "spike" in temperatures would have just as good of a chance of occurring now as it would have 10 years ago, 100 years ago, or 200 years ago (assuming no global warming). And if there was global warming, it would be more likely to occur today than in the past.

Also, you must consider the nature of global warming. Global warming is said to occur because the insulating affect of the atmosphere is increasing a small amount. If this is true, you would see a greater change in temperatures when it is hot.

For instance, lets assume that space is 200 degrees below zero. Now, let's look at what would happen at 2 different earth temperatures. To make things easy to demonstrate, let's use zero degrees for our cold temperature and 100 degrees for our warm temperature. Since there is a difference of 200 degrees (between Earth and space) using our cold temperature and a difference of 300 degrees using our warm temperature, what do you think would happen if we increased the insulating properties of our atmosphere? It is obvious that the high-temperature would go through a greater increase than the low temperature due to the fact that higher differences in temperatures will "benefit" more from added insulation. Because of this fact, global warming would cause greater increases during hot periods than it would during cooler periods. (assuming global warming is caused by the insulating effects of green-house gasses).

What matters in a global warming analysis is the average temperature, not the average high temperature.

While I agree that this is somewhat true, average temps. do matter a lot, I do not agree that the average high-temperatures will not be affected by global warming, due to the effects of insulators in a system as argued above. A much greater effect should be seen during temp. spikes, or heat waves, and this does not appear to be the case at all.

Rodney

A couple of thoughts....

Rodney-Have by any chance you had the opportunity to check the lows for the same dates? A green house effect is more noticable at night than it is by day. The same cloud cover that blocks the sun and keeps our temps cooler in the day also retains that heat more effectivly at night. A progressively higher Low (evening) temperature, would thus be a more accurate measure of possible global warming.

Spikes as well are not a good measure. The average mean temperature is a better indicator

Another question that pops up is that the greenhouse effect aka Global warming is supposed to be a product of the industrial revolution. To prove or (disprove) one would really have to just assess data from the last 175 years.

Some things to play with...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thats exactly right. Record high temps are not random therefore the lack thereof can't be proof against global warming.

And your right - the higher global average temps are the result of less low, low temperatures rather than higher high temperatures.

In summary. Record high temps are not random, so nothing can be derived by analyzing them as if they were. The lack of record high temps every 200 days isn't statistically relevant.

It is important not to complicate these issues - they are difficult enough to understand without people trying to obfuscate reality with illogical assertions.

Thats exactly right. Record high temps are not random therefore the lack thereof can't be proof against global warming.

First of all, why wouldn't any records of temps be random. Highs, lows, or medians? Why would record highs not be random if there was no global warming or cooling? That simply doesn't make any sense. Why do you think a "heat wave" or a "spike" wouldn't have exactly the same chance of happening this day in this year as it did ten years ago, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, if there wasn't global warming or global cooling? Why do you think that one particular year would have an advantage over any other? Any year would have the same probability as any other year of having a heat wave, a cold spell, tornadoes, or any other weather condition -- without global warming or cooling preventing this randomness.

Secondly, even if you don't fully understand statistics, you could prove this point using more conventional, "non-statistical" math methods.

For instance, if you took all the temperature measurements for three years and put them into a data base, you would get one "highest" temp. out of the three temps. taken on Jan the 1st. You would also get a highest temp. out of each of the three temps taken on Jan the 2nd., etc. At the end of 3 years, you would have exactly 365 "highest" temps, and 730 "non-highest" temps. This would give you exactly one out of every 3 days on average of being a historical record high. Randomness does not matter when things are taken on average with this type of analysis.

It is important not to complicate these issues - they are difficult enough to understand without people trying to obfuscate reality with illogical assertions.

I agree. But I have always found mathematics and statistical analysis to be very simply and easy for me to understand. It is the articles that say things like "a heat wave is evidence of global warming" that obfuscates reality. It looks simply at the heat wave to try to reinforce peoples concept of global warming, and it doesn't look at history or probablilities to try and explain what is really happening.

Rodney

Again rodney, we can have a record high temperature and then have gradually rising temps without experiencing your statistically random record high temp again within 200 days. Just because we don't experience record high temps every 200 days doesn't mean we aren't experiencing gradually warmer temps.

I fully understand your simplistic statistical analysis - we learned that in high school math. But the point is you've applied it incorrectly - it doesn't disprove global warming, as your initial post claims it does.

I fully understand your simplistic statistical analysis - we learned that in high school math. But the point is you've applied it incorrectly - it doesn't disprove global warming, as your initial post claims it does.

First of all, I agree that my argument doesn't disprove global warming. I don't think I ever said that it did. I simply said that this statistical analysis is yet another reason that I don't believe global warming is occurring. It doesn't dis-prove it, but it is yet another reason that makes me lean toward that conclusion. But, I don't think you understand the statistical analysis I made at all, based on what you have been saying.

When using statistical analysis that is based soley on the probability of future results which are in turn based soley on the size, or number of readings of historical data, randomness of that data doesn't matter, so what else could be wrong to make this analysis incorrect? My analysis is correct because my analysis is based on the fact that you are looking at a sample that consists of 200 recorded temps, and what those temps. are. My analyisis compeltely ignores what position (or year) that those temps occured on (except for the data that corresponds to this years dates.) Either today's temperature will exceed all historical records (a one in 200 chance), or it will not (a 199 out of 200 chance), again assuming 200 years of records exist. Therefore, the randomness of the readings, or the randomness of heat waves, or the randomness of what year they occured in, is totally irrelevant. So, as for this statistical analysis being applied incorrectly, how? I don't see it.
-----------

I clearly see the mistake in your argument, though. I will demonstrate it here with a simple coin toss analogy.

Let's assume you flip a coin 5 times, and it comes up heads every time.

Is this possible?

Answer: yes.

What are your odds on the nest flip?

The answer is 50% heads and 50% tails. The previous scenario of 5 heads in a row is irrelevant.

What will your results be (on average)?

The answer is heads will occur once out of every two flips. Again, the previous scenario of 5 heads in a row is irrelevant.

The exact same thing can be said about your scenario.

You said, "we can have a record high temperature and then have gradually rising temps without experiencing your statistically random record high temp again within 200 days"

First let me correct one thing. I said that you would record a record high temperature once every 200 days on average. That is completely different from saying that you will experience a record high temp. again within 200 days.

Except for this correction, is this scenario possible?

The answer is yes.

What are the odds that you will see a historical high temperature tomorrow, or any day that occurs this year?

Answer is 1 in 200(assuming 200 years of records) or .5 % The previous scenario you mentioned is irrelevant, the odds are still the same.

Will the future odds, of a historical record high temp. occurring, on any day this year be affected by this scenario?

Answer is no, the odds will still be one in 200. Again, the previous scenario is irrelevant.

Just like the coin toss, past results do not influence future odds or results. While the percentages in these two examples are different, the concept is identical.

Rodney

Why can't you just say, geez, I guess I was wrong? Its not possible for you is it? You would rather backpeddle, equivicate, modify, reformulate and obfuscate. Curious.

Show me how I was wrong, and I will be happy to admit it. I have found errors in you argument, so your argument doesn't prove me wrong. I will never admit I was wrong when I not only believe I was right, but when no one can show me how I have erred. I have reexamined what I said before, and it appears to be 100% correct. People have proven me wrong in the past, and I have learned from it. There is no disgrace in being wrong, but I do see disgrace in saying I am wrong, just for the purpose of "buckling under", when I see no valid evidence of it.

Did you not see me say that median temps. are more important than spikes are? (more important doesn't mean that spikes are totally irrelevant) Doesn't the ease with which I admitted this point show you I have no problem in saying I am wrong, when I am?

(Here's a little story for you. (it is true) Last week I was feeding snakes. I always feed live rodents. I feed about 20 cages, then come back and clean, water, and replace the cages in a rack, and move on to the next 20 snakes. Somehow, I "missed" a rodent. I thought it had been eaten by a snake (my favorite, most valuable one). I put that cage back in the rack. I never would have done this with a live rat in the cage intentionally. A couple of days ago, I found my favorite snake with rat gnaw marks all over it. It looks like it will be fine. I was wrong. The weanling rat was still in the cage when I put it back in the rack. While I am upset by this mistake, I have no problem admitting that I was wrong when I thought this rat had been eaten.

Does that help you out any?

Rodney

No, I haven't checked low or mean temperatures, and I do agree that spikes aren't the best indicator. And while they may not be the best indicator, that doesn't mean they are irrelevant either.

I was just trying to point out how articles and activists stating that heat waves that break old records are in indication of global warming is simply not true. (You and Pulatus both seem to agree with me on this, based on your statements.) My original post was made because of these "alarmist" statements that don't hold up to scrutiny.

As for "Another question that pops up is that the greenhouse effect aka Global warming is supposed to be a product of the industrial revolution. To prove or (disprove) one would really have to just assess data from the last 175 years

I agree completely, and this has been looked at in detail. The interesting thing is that vast majority of warming (from ground based records) during this period occurred prior to 1940, and very little has occurred since then. Also, most green house gasses have been produced since 1940 and very little before then. This "non-correlation" between greenhouse gasses and temps. seems to indicate that we are not the cause, if it is happening.--or maybe it isn't greenhouse gasses at all?

However, the Urban sprawl theory of biased temperature measurements does explain these readings quite well.

Rodney

Its really not a complicated issue. You claimed that if global warming were occurring we would see record high temps every 200 days. This is fundamentally incorrect since record high temps are not random events.

As I explained, it is entirely possible that a record high temp could be followed by, for example, 3 years of gradually warming temps without reaching that record high temp again.

In otherwords, global warming could be occurring without record high temps every 200 days.

You claimed that if global warming were occurring we would see record high temps every 200 days.

No, that is not what I said. I said that without any warming or cooling, statistically, we would have to have temps. that broke all historical data every 200 days (if historical records have been kept for 200 years.) If there was a warming trend, that would bias this "once every 200 days" event to a more frequent occurrence.

This is fundamentally incorrect since record high temps are not random events.

No, it is not. Without global warming or cooling, you would have randomness in these "spikes". Record high temps. are just as likely to occur this year as they are to occur any other year, that records have been kept (assuming no warming or cooling again). When you look at a set of 200 items, and one is "the most" of something (so that there can be only one of these) Statistically, you will find that item once every 200 times you look for it. Just because you happen to have found it on your third "pick" this time, doesn't mean that it isn't random. Your next try could result in you finding it on your 200th pick.

As I explained, it is entirely possible that a record high temp could be followed by, for example, 3 years of gradually warming temps without reaching that record high temp again.

I agree, but this throws out the on average statement I made. You are basically arguing that the sample size isn't large enough, so there can be instances where what I said might not be true. I agree that there are instances when this might not be true. But, when things are taken on average this sample size issue becomes non-important, and what I said will be true most of the time.

For instance, you could see 600 days of no records broken, then 3 days in a row of all historical data being broken. On average, you would have 1 out of every 200 days breaking all historical data. If you look at the data on day 500 and see no records broken, this doesn't mean that the 1/200 is invalid.

In otherwords, global warming could be occurring without record high temps every 200 days.

No, not on average it couldn't.

Rodney