John F.C. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:00:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

31 August 2007

RECORD EVENT REPORTS FROM NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA

NEW PREVIOUS YEAR OF
LOCATION RECORD RECORD PREVIOUS

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATU

ALTA, UT 78 76 1995
BURBANK, CA 106 TIE 106 1967
CASPER, WY 94 TIE 94 1954
ELSINORE, CA 111 110 1995
FRESNO-YOSEMITE AP, CA 107 106 1988
INDIO FS, CA 116 113 1998
MODESTO, CA 104 103 1958
================================================== =============
You keep posting these numbers as though they're meaningful.\

What exactly do you think they don't mean? They're temperatures on a
certain date for a certain location. There is lots of meaning there.

In other words, I personally feel that you're wasting your time.

It's his time to waste, asshole. Why are you wasting your time reading
numbers that have no meaning to you?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:11:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...
In other words, I personally feel that you're wasting your time.

I suppose you are correct, science is a waste of time these days.

Posting temperature values for a particular day of year for
a given location without posting the temperature value of the day
before and the day after is not science.

What he was saying is that there are days of the year which
haven't recorded very high temperature values in the short data set
that exists, and that makes it not only easy, but also, _expected_,
that a record will be set for that day of year.

There
are so many idiots like you posting that there's no point in attempting
ANY serious discussion.

I thought he presented a reasonable explanation of why
a day of the year record is not always big news.

For example, there were quite a few records
set that day, yet, you pick just one and ignore the fact that the date
was the last day of the month, which is at the end of the summer and the
beginning of Fall and cooler weather.

There is still more than two weeks of astronomical summer,
but the temperatures can lag by quite a bit.

Why you would think it relevant
to compare all of August with the last day is beyond me.

Your response might be persuasive if you showed that
the mentioned observation location site has few or no days in
September that equal or exceed the record you posted.

I suspect at least 5 days in September have record
days warmer than that last day of August.

Prove me wrong.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:11:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:00:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:


In other words, I personally feel that you're wasting your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you are correct, science is a waste of time these days. There
are so many idiots like you posting that there's no point in attempting
ANY serious discussion.
================================================== ========
I'm a little surprised that you're so quick to belittle my response
but, I'm getting use to that rather childish attitude from some of you
in this group.
I've contributed to a few groups before but, never, have I experienced
this constant attack of the messenger syndrome that is so rampant
here. Get a life you guys, everything's going to be okay.

For example, there were quite a few records
set that day, yet, you pick just one
===============================================
I just picked the last one on your list. I would be very surprised if
any of the others on the list would have resulted in much different
results.
But, okay, let's move one up on your list - Indio Ca.
It went up to 116 on the 31st. after a previous high of 113. That
sounds impressive but, is it?
Of the 31 days in August there was only one day where the record high
was lower than 113 and that occurred on the 15th at 112.
The record for the 30th and 29th were both 116 set in 1967 and 1998.
The 28th say 119 in 1981 and 121 for the 11th.


.and ignore the fact that the date
was the last day of the month,
================================================
You're the one that gave us the data regarding the last day of the
month. I just took it from there.

which is at the end of the summer and the
beginning of Fall and cooler weather. Why you would think it relevant
to compare all of August with the last day is beyond me.
===============================================
I think that if you read my response you'll see that I recognized what
you're saying and went into the first few days of September. But, if
you did your home work, you'd find that some cities in California
experience their warmest weather in September. San Jose comes to
mind.

In article , says...

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:11:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...
In other words, I personally feel that you're wasting your time.

I suppose you are correct, science is a waste of time these days.

Posting temperature values for a particular day of year for
a given location without posting the temperature value of the day
before and the day after is not science.

I post data, but I'm not trying to analyze that data. The analysis
can't be done until months or years later.

What he was saying is that there are days of the year which
haven't recorded very high temperature values in the short data set
that exists, and that makes it not only easy, but also, _expected_,
that a record will be set for that day of year.

There
are so many idiots like you posting that there's no point in attempting
ANY serious discussion.

I thought he presented a reasonable explanation of why
a day of the year record is not always big news.

One day's records are not significant. Many days of data over a large
area become interesting.

For example, there were quite a few records
set that day, yet, you pick just one and ignore the fact that the date
was the last day of the month, which is at the end of the summer and the
beginning of Fall and cooler weather.

There is still more than two weeks of astronomical summer,
but the temperatures can lag by quite a bit.

Climatological summer ended 31 August.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article , says...

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:11:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:00:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:


In other words, I personally feel that you're wasting your time.
----------------------------------------------------
I suppose you are correct, science is a waste of time these days. There
are so many idiots like you posting that there's no point in attempting
ANY serious discussion.
================================================= =========
I'm a little surprised that you're so quick to belittle my response
but, I'm getting use to that rather childish attitude from some of you
in this group.
I've contributed to a few groups before but, never, have I experienced
this constant attack of the messenger syndrome that is so rampant
here. Get a life you guys, everything's going to be okay.

Welcome to 21st century politicized science.
That's because most of the posters of late are anti-science idiots that
have nothing to offer but regurgitated propaganda and disinformation.
When backed into a corner, all they have left is ad hominem.

For example, there were quite a few records
set that day, yet, you pick just one
===============================================
I just picked the last one on your list. I would be very surprised if
any of the others on the list would have resulted in much different
results.
But, okay, let's move one up on your list - Indio Ca.
It went up to 116 on the 31st. after a previous high of 113. That
sounds impressive but, is it?
Of the 31 days in August there was only one day where the record high
was lower than 113 and that occurred on the 15th at 112.
The record for the 30th and 29th were both 116 set in 1967 and 1998.
The 28th say 119 in 1981 and 121 for the 11th.


.and ignore the fact that the date
was the last day of the month,
=============================================== =
You're the one that gave us the data regarding the last day of the
month. I just took it from there.

The weather data and records form a continuum. Calendar months do
not represent a realistic division of the time series as the weather
knows nothing about our human division of years into months. Looking
at monthly data by plot the records gives a false impression of the
continuous curves. Indeed, the comparison should continue past 31
August.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:57:08 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article ,
says...
I just picked the last one on your list. I would be very surprised if
any of the others on the list would have resulted in much different
results.
But, okay, let's move one up on your list - Indio Ca.
It went up to 116 on the 31st. after a previous high of 113. That
sounds impressive but, is it?
Of the 31 days in August there was only one day where the record high
was lower than 113 and that occurred on the 15th at 112.
The record for the 30th and 29th were both 116 set in 1967 and 1998.
The 28th say 119 in 1981 and 121 for the 11th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weather data and records form a continuum. Calendar months do
not represent a realistic division of the time series as the weather
knows nothing about our human division of years into months. Looking
at monthly data by plot the records gives a false impression of the
continuous curves. Indeed, the comparison should continue past 31
August.
================================================== ====
Young fella, you should learn that if you're going to provide evidence
to support your case, then you should make certain that that evidence
actually supports your position. Otherwise, you look, well, you can
answer that yourself.

Below are the record high temperatures in Indio CA for the first 10
days of September and the year that record was set.
118 1950
122 1950
118 1952
118 1947
115 1945
114 1952
114 1957
116 1977
117 1993
116 1937

Now, you explain to us your rationale for attempting to convince us
that because the temperature in Indio reached 116 on August 31st of
this year it's evidence of global warming.
Quite frankly, I think it's meaningless unless you're attempting to
prove that the opposite is true.

John F.C. wrote:

Young fella

Ding! We have another winner, er ... folks.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:46:19 -0400, Whata Fool wrote:
Your response might be persuasive if you showed that
the mentioned observation location site has few or no days in
September that equal or exceed the record you posted.

I suspect at least 5 days in September have record
days warmer than that last day of August.

===============================================
For Indio CA, the number of days in September that have record highs
of 116 or higher number 14.
12 of which occurred in the first 15 days. The record being 120
degrees set on the 13th in 1971. (they new real heat in the old days)

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:51:07 GMT, John F.C. wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:46:19 -0400, Whata Fool wrote:
Your response might be persuasive if you showed that
the mentioned observation location site has few or no days in
September that equal or exceed the record you posted.

I suspect at least 5 days in September have record
days warmer than that last day of August.

===============================================
For Indio CA, the number of days in September that have record highs
of 116 or higher number 14.
12 of which occurred in the first 15 days. The record being 120
degrees set on the 13th in 1971. (they new real heat in the old days)

1971 wasn't "the old days". :-)

I appreciate Eric posting the temperatures, I watch for
all time records, but even all time records for individual observation
locations don't mean much either, all time highs for states tells a
much bigger story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tures_by_state

Note that all 50 states have an all time record high of 100
or higher, most of the day of year records are way below the all time
record for the state that city is in.

Where I live was the hottest recorded month of August though,
but only one or two local high temperatures for any day of year were
set, and the all time record high for the location was 7 degrees F
higher. When/if I start to see all time records being broken
very often, I will start to worry.

In article , says...

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:57:08 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article ,
says...

Young fella, you should learn that if you're going to provide evidence
to support your case, then you should make certain that that evidence
actually supports your position. Otherwise, you look, well, you can
answer that yourself.

Since I have offered no "position" regarding the implications of the
data, you might as well grow up.

Below are the record high temperatures in Indio CA for the first 10
days of September and the year that record was set.
118 1950
122 1950
118 1952
118 1947
115 1945
114 1952
114 1957
116 1977
117 1993
116 1937

Now, you explain to us your rationale for attempting to convince us
that because the temperature in Indio reached 116 on August 31st of
this year it's evidence of global warming.

Where did I try and convince anybody that one data point proved anything?

Quite frankly, I think it's meaningless unless you're attempting to
prove that the opposite is true.

Quite frankly, I think you are missing the pattern here. There are
several locations that have set records for monthly average high
temperatures as well as those which set daily highs. I just don't
report those.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------