About Us

Eric Swanson · **U.S. Record Temperatures, 9 October 2007**

In article , says...

Swanson wrote:

says...

You ahve been trying to convince us that you know what you are talking
about, but we can planly see that yu have no clue.

And you are using that as a diversion from the issue I raised,
that of the physics that prevent the same frequency of day of year
record lows as highs.
All of the methods of thermal transfer, conduction, convection,
and radiation, proceed at a faster rate when there is greater differences
in temperatures.

So, what's your point? Didn't these processes operate back at the
beginning of the temperature record? In other words, wouldn't the
record events have been just as likely at the start? Why NOW would we
see more warm events than cold ones?
Answer for the clueless: THE EARTH'S WARMING UP!!

People are claiming that "everything" has been considered and
included in the calculations, but they don't know how that is possible.

And you make claims without data or calculations and expect to be
believed!

There cannot be as many low anomalies as high anomalies
where there is a heat source that increases transfer rates at a
certain low temperature, and where there has to be a lot of
energy added or subtracted to cause a phase change to or
from solid.
And not only is there the heat source of the ocean and
surface mass below a certain temperature, there is also a geothermal
source of energy below a certain temperature that causes a greater
rate of energy transfer when differences in temperature increase
in the right direction.

Geothermal heat has been measured and is much less than that from the
Sun. If you think otherwise, where's your data?

That isn't relevant, regardless of the quantity, when the
temperature of the air tries to move down past the temperature
of the soil, the rate of energy and possibly the direction of
transfer changes.
And it is even a greater factor when heat of fusion
is involved.

But we know that "geothermal" is very small because we can measure the
heat transfer thru the crust. Science ultimately is about measurements,
not bull****! Consider this fact. The temperature at the bottom of
the oceans, even near the equator, is almost at freezing. If there
were any significant quantity of geothermal, that would not be true,
would it?

At least in the interest of showing some honesty in science,
let me know if you understand that the high records outnumbering
the low record anomalies by a greater amount when there _IS_
PERFECT energy balance. And perfect energy balance means
no warming at all.

Since I have no idea what you mean by "perfect energy balance",

Do you mean you lack the ability to think in terms of hypothetical?

If you want a hypothetical discussion, present a hypothesis that's
backed by data. No bull****!

I can
only point out that the entire message of AGW is that we are changing
the average temperature because we are changing the way energy flows
thru the atmosphere.

AGW is a "message"? WOW! And who is the Messiah?

Nobody. The message is being delivered by Mother Nature.

As for honesty in science, what science degree do you hold?

Does an eighth grade diploma count?

Obviously not. I didn't learn about heat transfer until well into
my undergraduate engineering education. I learned some more as a grad
student. I didn't really get a feel for things until I worked on a
heat transfer problem.

While you
are at it, honesty requires that you reveal your true name, Fool.

You haven't been paying attention, ask Nudds.

I wasn't addressing Nudds. He's been a pain like you for years.

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

Whata Fool · **U.S. Record Temperatures, 9 October 2007**

Swanson wrote:

says...
And you are using that as a diversion from the issue I raised,
that of the physics that prevent the same frequency of day of year
record lows as highs.
All of the methods of thermal transfer, conduction, convection,
and radiation, proceed at a faster rate when there is greater differences
in temperatures.

So, what's your point? Didn't these processes operate back at the
beginning of the temperature record?

Yes, but the data set has ups and downs, there has not been
a big up for every date in the data set, you look at these things all
the time and now you are playing dumb?
A record high for a day of year for an entire state is far more
rare than a record high for a day of year for a single observation site.
Most of the record highs for a day of year (you post many)
are at least several degrees lower than record high for that day of
year for the state, maybe even an observation site a short distance
away has a higher temperature for that day of year and it is not
a record for that day of year for it.
So another random situation, depending on many factors
besides a straight up or down temperature.

In other words, wouldn't the
record events have been just as likely at the start? Why NOW would we
see more warm events than cold ones?
Answer for the clueless: THE EARTH'S WARMING UP!!

Sorry, you are resisting having an open mind to the fact
that it is more difficult to have a record low than a record high.

Actually, just looking a daily graph for a single observation
location should show that the down peaks are farther apart
on average than the up peaks.
It is physics at work, it can even be seen when the temperature
tries to drop below freezing, the mass of the ground resists.

People are claiming that "everything" has been considered and
included in the calculations, but they don't know how that is possible.

And you make claims without data or calculations and expect to be
believed!

The data is patently obvious, it takes almost 80 BTU per
pound heat transfer to freeze water or melt ice.
That is the same amount of energy that it takes to raise or
lower the temperature of a pound of water __80__ degrees F!!!!
That condition does not exist at all times or at all locations,
and when it does, it prevents a big drop in temperature, and also
possibly preventing a record low for that day of year, or possibly
even preventing the temperature from dropping below normal
for that date.

There cannot be as many low anomalies as high anomalies
where there is a heat source that increases transfer rates at a
certain low temperature, and where there has to be a lot of
energy added or subtracted to cause a phase change to or
from solid.
And not only is there the heat source of the ocean and
surface mass below a certain temperature, there is also a geothermal
source of energy below a certain temperature that causes a greater
rate of energy transfer when differences in temperature increase
in the right direction.

Geothermal heat has been measured and is much less than that from the
Sun. If you think otherwise, where's your data?

That isn't relevant, regardless of the quantity, when the
temperature of the air tries to move down past the temperature
of the soil, the rate of energy and possibly the direction of
transfer changes.
And it is even a greater factor when heat of fusion
is involved.

But we know that "geothermal" is very small because we can measure the
heat transfer thru the crust. Science ultimately is about measurements,

Science is about measurements of energy, and I am certain
you know that thermal transfer is different for different materials
and different masses, and with varying temperature differentials.

Adding temperatures or adding temperature anomalies does
not result in a physical quantity, the masses and specific heats are
just as important as the temperature, and there is still the latent
heats to consider, and those vary a lot for different locations and
different climates.

not bull****! Consider this fact. The temperature at the bottom of
the oceans, even near the equator, is almost at freezing. If there
were any significant quantity of geothermal, that would not be true,
would it?

There are places where there is significant geothermal, and
the water there can be above the boiling temperature and the
water still does not boil, surprise?
It is the air temperature a meter or so above the ground that
makes up most of the data set, and the surface materials and the
existing moisture of the surface can change drastically in a few days.

At least in the interest of showing some honesty in science,
let me know if you understand that the high records outnumbering
the low record anomalies by a greater amount when there _IS_
PERFECT energy balance. And perfect energy balance means
no warming at all.

Since I have no idea what you mean by "perfect energy balance",

Do you mean you lack the ability to think in terms of hypothetical?

If you want a hypothetical discussion, present a hypothesis that's
backed by data. No bull****!

Count the number of record lows you post compared to the
number of record highs you post, and if there is a big difference,
doesn't it make you curious? Or does it make you jump with glee?

I can
only point out that the entire message of AGW is that we are changing
the average temperature because we are changing the way energy flows
thru the atmosphere.

AGW is a "message"? WOW! And who is the Messiah?

Nobody. The message is being delivered by Mother Nature.

I and a lot of other people are not convinced. It was 93
a few days ago, and if the cold weather clouds move out, there
is a remote possibility I could see some frost tonight, and will
for sure within 10 days. And that kind of variability is supposed
to be averaged into a meaningful number?

As for honesty in science, what science degree do you hold?

Does an eighth grade diploma count?

Obviously not. I didn't learn about heat transfer until well into
my undergraduate engineering education.

I learned when I was in the 3rd grade by getting the pot
belly stove red hot and touching it.

I learned some more as a grad
student. I didn't really get a feel for things until I worked on a
heat transfer problem.

I am still asking, do you _want_ there to be warming, and why?

While you
are at it, honesty requires that you reveal your true name, Fool.

You haven't been paying attention, ask Nudds.

I wasn't addressing Nudds. He's been a pain like you for years.

So somebody that doesn't agree with you is just a pain,
on the same level as a fruitcake that sometimes posts 200 or
more messages in one day?

Keep on posting records, I am hoping there won't be many
lows, in fact I would prefer record low maximums for every night
in december, january and february.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
U.S. Record Temperatures, 5 October 2007	Eric Swanson	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	October 9th 07 01:32 PM
U.S. Record Temperatures, 4 October 2007	Eric Swanson	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	October 6th 07 05:17 PM
U.S. Record Temperatures, 3 October 2007	Eric Swanson	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	1	October 5th 07 10:32 PM
U.S. Record Temperatures, 2 October 2007	Eric Swanson	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	October 5th 07 06:33 PM
U.S. Record Temperatures, 1 October 2007	Eric Swanson	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	October 5th 07 06:32 PM

Menu

About Us