Page 14 of 18

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:22 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote:On Sunday, February 11, Altus, Oklahoma, recorded a high temperature of 97 degrees Fahrenheit. That seems to me unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February. --Bob
What's your point?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/weather.co ... tmobile-us

https://watchers.news/2016/12/19/record ... mber-2016/

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:35 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:On Sunday, February 11, Altus, Oklahoma, recorded a high temperature of 97 degrees Fahrenheit. That seems to me unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February. --Bob
What's your point?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/weather.co ... tmobile-us

https://watchers.news/2016/12/19/record ... mber-2016/
Just another example of another warmest year on record for the planet as a whole. I intended "unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February" as deliberate understatement. Perhaps, though, it's been more common than I realized for Oklahoma temperatures to reach the high 90s in February. --Bob

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:44 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:Just another example of another warmest year on record for the planet as a whole. I intended "unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February" as deliberate understatement. Perhaps, though, it's been more common than I realized for Oklahoma temperatures to reach the high 90s in February. --Bob
From Intellicast for Durant, OK
Feb 22 34° 59° 12° (1963) 92° (1996) 0.1" NA
Feb 23 34° 60° 14° (1914) 93° (1996) 0.11" NA
Feb 24 34° 60° 12° (1914) 93° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 25 35° 60° 14° (1910) 89° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 26 35° 60° 11° (1934) 88° (1917) 0.11" NA

Almost 100 years ago for 93

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:51 pm
by Estonut
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Just another example of another warmest year on record for the planet as a whole. I intended "unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February" as deliberate understatement. Perhaps, though, it's been more common than I realized for Oklahoma temperatures to reach the high 90s in February. --Bob
From Intellicast for Durant, OK
Feb 22 34° 59° 12° (1963) 92° (1996) 0.1" NA
Feb 23 34° 60° 14° (1914) 93° (1996) 0.11" NA
Feb 24 34° 60° 12° (1914) 93° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 25 35° 60° 14° (1910) 89° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 26 35° 60° 11° (1934) 88° (1917) 0.11" NA

Almost 100 years ago for 93
Isn't the first year for temperature and the second for precipitation? There were consecutive days of 93° 103 years ago.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:57 pm
by BackInTex
Estonut wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Just another example of another warmest year on record for the planet as a whole. I intended "unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February" as deliberate understatement. Perhaps, though, it's been more common than I realized for Oklahoma temperatures to reach the high 90s in February. --Bob
From Intellicast for Durant, OK
Feb 22 34° 59° 12° (1963) 92° (1996) 0.1" NA
Feb 23 34° 60° 14° (1914) 93° (1996) 0.11" NA
Feb 24 34° 60° 12° (1914) 93° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 25 35° 60° 14° (1910) 89° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 26 35° 60° 11° (1934) 88° (1917) 0.11" NA

Almost 100 years ago for 93
Isn't the first year for temperature and the second for precipitation? There were consecutive days of 93° 103 years ago.
This table is: Day, avg low, avg high, record low(year), record high(year), average precip, average snow.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:43 pm
by Estonut
BackInTex wrote:
Estonut wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
From Intellicast for Durant, OK
Feb 22 34° 59° 12° (1963) 92° (1996) 0.1" NA
Feb 23 34° 60° 14° (1914) 93° (1996) 0.11" NA
Feb 24 34° 60° 12° (1914) 93° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 25 35° 60° 14° (1910) 89° (1918) 0.11" NA
Feb 26 35° 60° 11° (1934) 88° (1917) 0.11" NA

Almost 100 years ago for 93
Isn't the first year for temperature and the second for precipitation? There were consecutive days of 93° 103 years ago.
This table is: Day, avg low, avg high, record low(year), record high(year), average precip, average snow.
OK, then you only need to go back 21 years for 93°.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:09 pm
by mrkelley23
Esto, I think his point is that they were having 93 degree days in Oklahoma a hundred years ago, so how is this proof of global warming? Which is a salient point, and why I get as angry with people who say these kinds of things as I do with people who say what about global warming? every time we have a record low. Temperature is not climate, and local is not global.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:32 pm
by Bob78164
mrkelley23 wrote:Esto, I think his point is that they were having 93 degree days in Oklahoma a hundred years ago, so how is this proof of global warming? Which is a salient point, and why I get as angry with people who say these kinds of things as I do with people who say what about global warming? every time we have a record low. Temperature is not climate, and local is not global.
Agreed. But I'm seeing a lot more record (and near-record) highs than I'm seeing record or near-record lows. And in my experience it takes local experience to really drive the point home for many people. --Bob

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:56 pm
by BackInTex
Wow, almost 3 months since the last post. No wonder I had trouble finding it.

Anyway, yesterdays Dilbert is applicable.

Image

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:13 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Peer Review = Settled Science?

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neurosci ... -chlorians

Had to bring this thread back....

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:02 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
1. What is the Goldilocks Temperature for Humans on Earth?
2. What is the 120 year Temperature trend in the longest running rural weather station nearest your home?
3. What is the climate sensitivity to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
4. What does it mean when scientists say the adsorption of infrared from increased CO2 is logarithmic?
5. At what level of CO2 do staple food crops and trees do best?
6. Did the Little Ice Age happen?
7. For how long have sea levels been rising?
8. Why did Admiral Peary start his trip to the North Pole in February?
9. How does the current sunspot cycle compare to the historical record?
10. What was the nickname for 1816?
11. What do engineers mean when the talk about significant digits
12. What are the temperature trends for the Central England Temperature record.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:18 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/15/ ... l-warming/

But, there’s an interesting twist thanks to new and surprising data; Steig and Mann may have captured surface air temperature trends in the exact same areas that have been identified as geothermal hot spots.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 5:07 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit
So how before the Harvey List thread is longer than this one?

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:25 am
by silverscreenselect
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:So how before the Harvey List thread is longer than this one?
Not too long.

Sexual assault and harassment are ongoing and reporting them has become much more frequent.

Credible citations that cast doubt on climate change become fewer and fewer as time goes by.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 6:40 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 6:45 pm
by Bob Juch
“You’re asking for billions of dollars for something that hasn’t happened yet,” said Alsup during a back-and-forth with plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Berman. “We’re trying to predict how bad global warming will be in 75 years.”
But it is happening.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:36 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:27 am
by tlynn78
It occurs to me there are certain similarities between the current political climate and the global warming debate. "Well, that <insert hysteria-inducing claims> didn't take, let's think of some other <hysteria-inducing claims>.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:16 pm
by elwoodblues
I have a question. Whether climate change is real or not, is there anything wrong with wanting to protect the environment?

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:30 pm
by BackInTex
elwoodblues wrote:I have a question. Whether climate change is real or not, is there anything wrong with wanting to protect the environment?
Not at all. It's a good thing.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:33 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:39 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... tic-straws

Rich and his editors seem to be completely unaware that today an internet exists out there where people can check assertions to see if they stand up. As you will see, this gets rather ridiculous. Credit goes to Tony Heller of the Deplorable Climate Science Blog for dredging up screenshots of New York Times articles from the 1970s and 80s.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:03 pm
by Ritterskoop
We are allowed to try to cut down on waste without being labeled hysterical, right?

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:55 pm
by tlynn78
Ritterskoop wrote:We are allowed to try to cut down on waste without being labeled hysterical, right?
There's a bit of a gap there, imo.

Re: An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:57 am
by themanintheseersuckersuit
Ritterskoop wrote:We are allowed to try to cut down on waste without being labeled hysterical, right?
If you correctly identified waste