19 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

BLACKSBURG, VA 93 TIE 93 1988
BLUEFIELD, WV 91 90 1988
CLAYTON, NM 99 TIE 99 1911
EUREKA, CA 74 70 1923
JACKSON, KY 95 93 1988
LONDON, KY 96 95 1983
NAPLES, FL 97 TIE 97 2001 - TIE AUGUST
RECORD
SARASOTA, FL 96 TIE 96 1973
TAMPA, FL 96 94 2005
TRI-CITIES AP, TN 96 95 1999

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD LOW TEMPERATU

SALISBURY, MD 49 50 1915

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH MINIMUM TEMPERATU

BLUEFIELD, WV 71 70 1983
BRIAN HEAD, UT 52 49 2005
EUREKA, CA 61 60 1891
HOOPA, CA 61 60 1985
LAS VEGAS, NV 86 85 2001
MUSCLE SHOALS, AL 76 75 1968
ORICK, CA 58 TIE 58 1942
TRINITY RIVER HATCH, CA 58 55 2003
UTAH TEST RANGE, UT 64 62 1992

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATU

BISMARCK, ND 62 TIE 62 1884
BOUNDARY DAM, WA 61 62 1978
DAVENPORT, WA 56 61 1968
DETROIT, MI 63 66 1892
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 65 66 1927
LANSING, MI 61 66 1967
PITTSBURGH, PA 64 69 1977
POMEROY, WA 61 63 1959
RITZVILLE, WA 62 64 1990
SOUTH BEND, IN 66 TIE 66 1991

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily high and low records from the U.S. HCN may be found he
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ords/index.php

Number of Record Highs = 57
Number of Record Lows = 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

In alt.global-warming on Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Eric Swanson
wrote :

19 August 2007

RECORD EVENT REPORTS FROM NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATU

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD LOW TEMPERATU

In a country as large as the US, there's likely to be records set
*somewhere* every day - especially where the station has a short record.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Aug 22, 10:46 am, Paul Hyett wrote:
[ . . . ]
In a country as large as the US, there's likely to be records set
*somewhere* every day - especially where the station has a short record.

It's not how large the US is, but how many weather
stations it has producing data records. Otherwise,
you have a very good point Paul, a very good point.

On Aug 22, 10:46 am, Paul Hyett wrote:
In alt.global-warming on Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Eric Swanson
wrote :

19 August 2007

RECORD EVENT REPORTS FROM NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATU

STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD LOW TEMPERATU

In a country as large as the US, there's likely to be records set
*somewhere* every day - especially where the station has a short record.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

The number of records broken should be roughly inversely
proportional to the logarithm of the number years involved. I became
aware of that when I started attending a new high school, many years
ago. The first year there was naturally a new school record
established in every event. Assuming a random distribution of
student abilities, the second year, there would be a roughly 50%
chance of any prior record being broken, the third year there would
be a roughly 1 in 3 chance of a prior record being broken, and now
that my former high school is about 40 years old, there'd be a
roughly 1 in 40 chance of a record being broken- probably somewhat
higher since the
area has grown in population and there are more students attending the
school now.
In a similar vein, with temperatures rising on the average, record
highs should be somewhat more common than the logarithmic rule, record
lows should be somewhat less common. Likewise, with average
temeratures falling, the converse should be true- A. McIntire

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:32:33 -0700, "
wrote:

In a similar vein, with temperatures rising on the average, record
highs should be somewhat more common than the logarithmic rule, record
lows should be somewhat less common. Likewise, with average
temeratures falling, the converse should be true- A. McIntire

Weather and local temperature is not statistics, physical
processes are responsible for all that happens.

The large changes in climate in Greenland are the result of
ocean currents, which also have affected the climate in western Europe.

The number of years during which the US has been populated
west of Indiana is not enough to result in a stabilized mature data set.
The records being broken are for individual observation
sites, while sites only a few miles away may have very different
temperatures.
An all time state record is more remarkable.

The significance of a record temperature can be studied by
checking the records of several days earlier and several days later,
and at nearby observation sites.

In alt.global-warming on Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Roger Coppock
wrote :
On Aug 22, 10:46 am, Paul Hyett wrote:
[ . . . ]
In a country as large as the US, there's likely to be records set
*somewhere* every day - especially where the station has a short record.

It's not how large the US is, but how many weather
stations it has producing data records. Otherwise,
you have a very good point Paul, a very good point.

Even in a single location with a 25 year record (like my own), I get a
new record daily high/low max/min about once a week - this year 21
highs/13 lows.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In alt.global-warming on Wed, 22 Aug 2007, "
wrote :

In a country as large as the US, there's likely to be records set
*somewhere* every day - especially where the station has a short record.

The number of records broken should be roughly inversely
proportional to the logarithm of the number years involved.

That's what I expected, although I didn't know the nature of the
function involved.

I became
aware of that when I started attending a new high school, many years
ago. The first year there was naturally a new school record
established in every event. Assuming a random distribution of
student abilities, the second year, there would be a roughly 50%
chance of any prior record being broken, the third year there would
be a roughly 1 in 3 chance of a prior record being broken, and now
that my former high school is about 40 years old, there'd be a
roughly 1 in 40 chance of a record being broken

Or would be, if all conditions remained equal - but IRL training,
equipment & facilities improve, thus throwing a spanner in the works.

In a similar vein, with temperatures rising on the average, record
highs should be somewhat more common than the logarithmic rule, record
lows should be somewhat less common.

That does seem to be the trend.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:51:17 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:

In alt.global-warming on Wed, 22 Aug 2007, "
wrote :
In a similar vein, with temperatures rising on the average, record
highs should be somewhat more common than the logarithmic rule, record
lows should be somewhat less common.

That does seem to be the trend.

Things are not always what they seem, there may be a good
reason why record day of year lows are not as common as day of
year record highs.

And there is an _excellent_ reason, does anybody know
any physics? This AGW thing must be some kind of disease,
even the people who know better seem to be persuaded there
is a warming trend based on temperature records.

Oh, everybody thinks temperature records should show
whether or not there is a warming trend, huh? Guess again,
where is a physicist when you need him?


This is so simple it should make fools out of climatologist
who has ever argued that less record lows means there is a
warming trend.

But this is no way to make statements in science, there
should be at least an editor involved, if not peer review.
But surely there must be peer reviewed papers that
tell why there are less record lows than record highs.


Please search google for keywords, latent heat of fusion
in regions that transition above and below freezing.