New records have significance

Crick

Platinum Member
May 10, 2014
30,696
6,048
1,140
N/A
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.

 
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century. Folks claiming that this is all natural variation or that the planet is actually cooling are taking your for fools. Don't let them.

 
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.


This significance is usually reported as standard deviation in the scientific literature ... the link you give provides absolutely NO error margins ... a scientific impossibility ... [shakes head] ...

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change.

Next time, try reading the article and not just the damn headlines ... God this makes you look stupid ...
 
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.


From YOUR link is this:

"Weather stations in Antarctica shattered records Friday as the region neared autumn. The two-mile high (3,234 meters) Concordia station was at 10 degrees (-12.2 degrees Celsius),which is about 70 degrees warmer than average, while the even higher Vostok station hit a shade above 0 degrees (-17.7 degrees Celsius), beating its all-time record by about 27 degrees (15 degrees Celsius), according to a tweet from extreme weather record tracker Maximiliano Herrera."

bolding mine

=====


according to a tweet.... :laughing0301: no links for all of the temperature "data" in your article.

Here is the funniest part:

"And in the Arctic, which has been warming two to three times faster than the rest of the globe and is considered vulnerable to climate change, warm Atlantic air was coming north off the coast of Greenland."

Yet ZERO link to back up that claim which is misleading anyway since it is well below freezing the entire time which I have showed many times but gets ignored despite that it is from DMI.

Now I went into the Arctic link looking for the data which isn't there but found this bullshit:

“The trends are consistent, alarming and undeniable,” U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Rick Spinrad said presenting the findings by 111 scientists from 12 countries at the American Geophysical Union conference Tuesday. “The loss of the great white cap that once covered the top of the world is one of the most iconic indicators of climate change.”

Just a long line of gobblegeddlygook crap is all they can drum up to make their boring scaremongering propaganda.

=====

Now to top it off it appears the narrative was mostly bullshit in the first place as this article with GASP! links and charts all over it showing what really happened at the poles,

MSM Scares Themselves, Confuse ‘Unprecedented’ Weather Model Temperature Spikes with Actual Temperatures​

5 hours ago

Anthony Watts

EXCERPT:

From the load of crap journalists are either too stupid or too lazy to do basic research department.

This past week two left-leaning media outlets, MSN (via The Washington Post aka WaPo), and the always alarmed UK based The Guardian ran stories saying the Arctic and Antarctic, had experienced “unprecedented” high temperatures. These claims can’t be verified since they were the results from a set of weather model simulations, indicating variations of above normal temperatures for the regions, not actual surface temperatures measured by ground-based weather stations.
The Guardian headline was full of worry courtesy of author Fiona Harvey:

LINK

===

It turns out that the Media is as usual making up freaking LIES!
 
Last edited:
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.

For the last forty years, I've been keeping measured records of my poos. Last week, I broke the record for girth and length. That means in the earths history, poos are getting bigger and extreme.
 
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.


Means what? We're in a 100,000 year cycle, do we have records for before?

We KNOW it was hotter 120,000 years ago than now. Must have been industrializing pigs or something.
 
What I see in the commercial press is a mis-use of the word "normal" ... when they mean "average" ... this is deceitful and why it's never seen in the scientific press ...

Meteorological data and the averages that can be calculated from this data tend towards very large standard deviations ... and this allows for data points to be quite removed from the average value ... this is compounded by the fact that Antarctica is a desert climate ... where even larger extremes in temperature are common ... and it's expensive as fuck to maintain a weather stations there ...

[yawn] ...

More lies ...
 
Nothing to see here. Go back to Defcon 5.

"Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change. But if it happens again or repeatedly then it might be something to worry about and part of global warming, they said."
It has happened repeatedly.

 
It has happened repeatedly.


You fell for a media generated lie since it was mostly based on models not using actual data in a lot of it already posted on this recently showing actual data on the day in question where no such heat wave showed up in most places.

Your pathetic desperation is evident when you so easily fall for a single weather day lie because you have run out of valid arguments long ago to maintain your sick delusions.
 
We are headed to food shortages soon. People getting raped at the pump.
US heading towards total dystopia.

Nobody gives a fuck about the new records. Might as well be posting up threads about the migration habits of North American slugs.
 
My favorite part is records going ALL the way back to 1979.
This particular record is not based on satellite imagery. There are temperature data for the poles going back over a century and, of course, ice cores going back hundreds of millenia.
 
The primary cause of the current warming is human GHG emissions. It is not natural, it is synthetic.

What's the secondary cause? ... how are you numerically separating the two? ...

This particular record is not based on satellite imagery. There are temperature data for the poles going back over a century and, of course, ice cores going back hundreds of millenia.

Who carried a thermometer on the Amundsen or Scott expeditions in 1910? ...

I think you'll find that systematic measuring of weather at the South Pole didn't start until after WWII ... for the few location on the Antarctic continent, we only have about 50 years running data ... and how well can we characterize North American weather with only a dozen weather stations? ...
 
What's the secondary cause? ... how are you numerically separating the two? ...



Who carried a thermometer on the Amundsen or Scott expeditions in 1910? ...

I think you'll find that systematic measuring of weather at the South Pole didn't start until after WWII ... for the few location on the Antarctic continent, we only have about 50 years running data ... and how well can we characterize North American weather with only a dozen weather stations? ...
1648858327973.png


And I am quite certain that Scott and Amundsen carried thermometers with them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top