Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

My question - for the third time - is, 'where are you getting your data from, that they use the mid-point and not the average of temperatures from these stations?'

My question - for the first time - is, 'why dont you ask questions rather than vague hints '?
To answer your question, this has been discussed and referenced previously in this thread. I am sure you can find it if you take the time. These weather stations only measure the min and max of temp, the max water fall and (sometimes) the air speed and direction.

2 Replies

@parados,

So, let's examine what you are saying, or rather think you are saying.

You are saying that the high temperature and low temperature have no real relationship to the actual energy/heat that a certain place gets?

I could accept that if it wasn't for the fact that we are dealing with one heat source that is fairly constant. Are you arguing that the sun varies enough that it would cause the highs and lows to change over time without changing the actual amount of energy?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

These weather stations only measure the min and max of temp, the max water fall and (sometimes) the air speed and direction.

Excuse me? When was this said and shown to be true?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Oh.. so the midpoint of the high and low is the same as the average of high and low

Wrong. That is your argument.

Quote:

You just want to argue that it isn't the average of some selected other numbers.

Correct ! Well done ! Go to the front of the class but dont take your books. You wont be there long.

Quote:

You claimed the midpoint of the high/low was not the same as the average while not specifying what you were averaging. So, it's your English skills that are lacking.

Wrong. We are talking about temp and its relevance to Global Warming. I thought you knew that ? Have you been on this thread all that time and have no idea what it is about ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I have no idea what you are talking about because you make statements that then change in meaning when you are questioned.

The midpoint of the high/low is the same as the average of the high/low. There is no other way to describe them. The midpoint of the high/low may not be the same as the average of readings throughout the day but it clearly is the average of the high/low.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You are saying that the high temperature and low temperature have no real relationship to the actual energy/heat that a certain place gets?

Correct.

Quote:

I could accept that if it wasn't for the fact that we are dealing with one heat source that is fairly constant. Are you arguing that the sun varies enough that it would cause the highs and lows to change over time without changing the actual amount of energy?

You are unaware of what causes climate ? Ocean currents, position of continents, mountains, large bodies of water, etc. You are unaware of what causes weather ? Cloud, moisture, surface reflection and retention of heat, stored heat from previous weather, etc. You think there is only the sun influencing weather ?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Excuse me? When was this said and shown to be true?

Is your memory failing you ? Thats a shame because you werent the brightest star in the sky to begin with. You were involved in that, some months ago.

1 Reply

@parados,

I travel frequently, and most weather reports show "averages" and the highs and lows. I prefer to go with "averages," because I can compare them to what current readings are against those averages to prepare what clothes to take. What is interesting about weather records is that they're not always reliable. On my recent trip to Vietnam during the "rainy" season, our group missed most of the rain. We visited locations on the east coast of Vietnam that were flooded before and after we were there. The groups following us couldn't visit those locations because they were flooded.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about because you make statements that then change in meaning when you are questioned.

Spoken like a true lawyer, but long ago the judge would have ruled that we have established you are wrong on certain points and have been proven so by the facts. So move on...

Quote:

The midpoint of the high/low is the same as the average of the high/low. There is no other way to describe them. The midpoint of the high/low may not be the same as the average of readings throughout the day but it clearly is the average of the high/low.

It can not and should not be called the average temp for a day. That is exactly what Global Warming Thuggees want it to be. It is the average of the min and max and has no relation to the average temp. That is clearly wrong.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

You may not like averages, but I do, and I'm not a global warming thuggie! To each their own.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have no problem with people using averages for weather. They are measured by the weather people, put out by the weather people and are an approximation that has its uses. I do not think they are accurate enough for re-arranging the world's economies.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I agree; they should nt be used to re-arrange the world's economies. It would also be stupid to apply different rules for developed countries vs China and India, because they will increase their carbon output at much greater growth as the world economy picks up again. They represent about 40% of the world population, and their consumption rate (and carbon output) will increase exponentially.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

You are unaware of what causes climate ? Ocean currents, position of continents, mountains, large bodies of water, etc. You are unaware of what causes weather ? Cloud, moisture, surface reflection and retention of heat, stored heat from previous weather, etc. You think there is only the sun influencing weather ?

So.. what causes clouds? That would be energy from the sun evaporating water
What causes moisture? That would be energy from the sun evaporating water that can condense to form moisture
What causes changes in surface reflection? Ice? Snow? or lack of it caused by energy from the sun
What causes heat retention? green house gases like CO2 perhaps
What causes heat that can be retained? The sun.
What stores heat from previous weather? The atmosphere perhaps? And the reason it stores it would be green house gases.

As to the sun being the only thing that influences weather? No, however it is the source of weather and without it there would really be no weather.

Why does the atmosphere hold heat Ionus?
If the atmosphere can hold heat because of this, why would CO2 not affect the atmosphere's ability to hold heat?

Do you really want to argue that the atmosphere holds heat but at the same time you want to argue it won't change the amount of heat it holds if we change the make up of the atmosphere?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Excuse me? When was this said and shown to be true?
Is your memory failing you ? Thats a shame because you werent the brightest star in the sky to begin with. You were involved in that, some months ago.

And back to your old tricks of attacking instead of discussing? The only shame should be yours for not being able to hold a civil conversation.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

So are you willing to argue that an increase in the high/low for a day in no way reflects an increase in temperature?

Are you also willing to argue that it is as likely for the average temperature to be lower as it is higher if the high/low is higher?

1 Reply

An interesting graphic comparison of positions:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus

Surprisingly, none of the arguments address the real problem which is that as the Earth warms by whatever process is causing/contributing to it, the end result is going to be the same: a dramatic change back into a glaciation.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
My question - for the third time - is, 'where are you getting your data from, that they use the mid-point and not the average of temperatures from these stations?'

My question - for the first time - is, 'why dont you ask questions rather than vague hints '?
To answer your question, this has been discussed and referenced previously in this thread. I am sure you can find it if you take the time. These weather stations only measure the min and max of temp, the max water fall and (sometimes) the air speed and direction.

Okay, so I looked in the thread and couldn't find the data that you are asserting is there.

As the one making the positive assertion, the burden of proof falls on you. I think that you are incorrect in both your assessment and your limited understanding of thermal dynamics and climatology.

Please present your evidence, or stop making claims for which you have no supporting evidence.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Yes, and the sun will go supernova at some point too. What's your point rosborne?

The only question is will humans still be here to see either of them if we do something that causes the climate to dramatically change before then.

Your link points to the rather strange way the skeptics view the evidence. On one hand they argue the ice cores aren't accurate but then they use the ice core data to argue that it was warmer in the past.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
but believe it's a good idea to minimize carbon output as much as possible.

That statement ci. sits oddly with your well known propensity to spend all your spare time in travel agent's shops looking for somewhere unusual to go and then going.

Bearing in mind your international travel record I presume that what you mean is that the lower orders should minimise carbon output. Not you yourself.

Great post, spendi. ci and Al Gore must think alike?
It is up to the "lower orders" to reduce "carbon output." For example, that means that the homeless should no longer burn trash under the bridges to keep warm. So that ci can still jetset around the world and not feel guilty. After all, somebody has to limit the emissions if he doesn't, and so it is up to the "lower order." And I suspect the "lower order" may also include "okies" in ci's opinion?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Yes, and the sun will go supernova at some point too. What's your point rosborne?

The sun isn't massive enough for a supernova. It will, instead become a red giant and expand to fry and then absorb the inner planets.

parados wrote:

The only question is will humans still be here to see either of them if we do something that causes the climate to dramatically change before then.

That isn't the ONLY question at all. The geological record of the earth reveals multiple mechanisms; ranging from plague, to volcanism, ice ages, asteriod impacts, and more that could extinguish human life.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know