“And tonight, the weather gone wild. Winds that come out of nowhere. Floods swelling streets. Heat breaking records in all 50 states. Snow where it hasn’t fallen in decades.”
Suppose you have 100 weather stations in a state, and a 100 year long temperature database. You would expect to have on average one high temperature record set somewhere in that state every day, or about 30 high temperature records per state per month. The odds of the state going through a month without any station setting a high temperature record are very low.
This is where superstition comes from. People mistakenly believe that something unusual is happening, and then blame it on the witch next door (who has not had as much plastic surgery.)
h/t to Marc Morano
and since the beginning of time we’ve had people that could fix it for you….
….for a price
Gavin Atkins is spot on. Thanks for this.
If the wind blows and there is no scaffolding for it to knock down was it caused by AGW?
I just knew I should have not released all those butterflies on the same day!
A promo for the Documentary Channel’s show Blue Planet…..”NASA astronauts film the Earth from outer space and offer a glimpse of it’s FRAGILITY.”
When the first picture of the earth was taken from space, that’s when a lot of people went NUTS. They seemed shocked it looked so tiny and fragile. I still don’t understand what would make it fragile. Life came back to the areas of ocean when atom bombs were exploded….can’t get much worse than that. Man can only temporarily pollute or destroy an area, but it bounces back….the Gulf oil spill, Exxon Valdez, life coming back to Mt. St Helens. Humans are fragile, not the earth. However, you can’t kill crabgrass or cockroaches, they are immortal.
In the documentary, they talk about “what we are doing to the earth.”….ha…..It would seem the earth is doing it to us, I mean Tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, all the stuff the AGW’ers moan about…..the same “FRAGILE” earth that will kick your arse if you aren’t on your toes. Of course, we cause all those things
Quote from the show…..”……our earth’s temperature MAY be rising and we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment which the outcome CANNOT be predicted.” (CO2 of course) The lady announcer talks in a tone that you would normally hear at a funeral.
How about a show that covers what will happen when insane dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons? Apparently environmentalists don’t have any worries about the destruction of the environment by such means.
“The radar is picking up a line of thundershowers, ssw of Fon du Lac. Also a dust storm is approaching from the east. Expect mostly cloudy with a chance of MUDSHOWERS. The radar is also picking up a line of ICBM missles, so I wouldn’t sweat the thundershowers.” ( George Carlin as the Hippy Dippy Weatherman.)
Wait a minute – did Man cause the eruption of St Helens? Wow. We bad. /sarc
Alarmists are constantly harping on the fact that weather is not climate. Except when it suits their agenda.
It just stands to reason that weather can not be climate because climate is weather. The effect can not be the cause unless you are a climatologist!
Climate is the average of an insufficient number of badly processed, arbitrarily taken samples of weather.
No frogs raining today? No locusts? Yawn…
Hmmm… wonder if any scientist ever scratched their head and though, hey, let’s examine whether there’s a connection between climate change and locusts…
Global warming is Old Testament. Just think…several million first-born sons died today…(granted, there are hundreds of millions of first-born humans on the planet, but) these recent deaths prove science is settled and we should all freak out immediately.
This link is better.
“The researchers also found correlations between locust outbreaks and changes in temperatures and precipitation.”
Well, just what anyone would expect given the way science is done these days.
I did not read the article but that bit of information about a link between locusts and weather patterns has been known for many years. Probably since humans started practicing agriculture. It is one of those obvious things seen in nature. It is like butterflies and flowers are also related to weather patterns.
It’s a big world out there. The weather is normally doing something somewhere. Just because there are 24/7 cable networks hungry for news everyday doesn’t mean there are more weather events.
My oh my.
How did O’Reilly and Fox News let this blonde get away?
“Suppose you have 100 weather stations in a state, and a 100 year long temperature database. You would expect to have on average one high temperature record set somewhere in that state every day, or about 30 high temperature records per state per month. The odds of the state going through a month without any station setting a high temperature record are very low.”
Can anyone explain that statement? Or are we supposed to remain baffled?
“Math class is tough!”
–Teen Talk Barbie
Well, I take it that there is no answer here, so forgive me for being a little bit provocative. Do you not think that is strange that on these sceptic sites that no one can explain this? Do you all just accept this without question? Stark seems to think it might be to do with Barbie dolls, but that is the best answer yet.
Let me give you a clue. The chance of one weather station (which has a record going back 100 years) of recording a high temperature record on any particular day in the future is about 36,028 to 1.
What do think Barbie? Was maths class that tough?
This is a painfully stupid assertion, so let me help you here:
Does that answer your innumerate idiocy?
No, tha tis a cut and paste of the point in question. Would you like to explain it step by step for me, Barbie?
if the temperature record is 100 years long, then any given year at any station has a 1 out of 100 chance of being the highest. Multiply that by 100 stations in the state, you expect on average to have one high temperature record set in that state every day during the year.
Suppose it was the first year of the temperature record. You would be guaranteed to set 100 temperature records every day. During the second year you would expect 50 per day. During the third year you would expect 33 per day. During the 100th year you would expect one per day.
Please try to stay on the subject.
Dear Miss Teen Barbie:
You seem to have missed something in your lack of maths, so let me help you:
100 is a number that occurs between 99 and 101. Do you need anything else explained?
This is not really a difficult statistical problem. So let’s dispense with Barbie.who thinks that in some way he may be seen as an asset to the sceptic cause, rather that liability.?
“if the temperature record is 100 years long, then in any given YEAR … any station has a 1 out of 100 chance of being the highest. Multiply that by 100 stations in the state, you expect on average to have one high temperature record set in that state every day during the year”
True, if the ‘climate has not changed (and, to be pedantic, the stations were not correlated, i.e if it is warm in the state than all the weather stations would read high, if it is cold they all read cold together)
“Suppose it was the first year of the temperature record [OK}. You would be guaranteed to set 100 temperature records every day.”
No, this is not right. You ARE guaranteed to set 100 temperature records (and remember, we are talking about HIGH temperature records) within the first YEAR (one for each station) because there is no previous record to beat. But not every DAY!!! That would require every day during that year to be hotter than that the previous one. So, in the first year , each station would establish one temperature record for that year – NOT every day!!
OK so far, Steve.? See where you went wrong?
Keep going you are on a roll.
Mike, it may be that you guys are talking about 2 different “records”.
Yes, you are correct about the “record” high…… but, I often hear about “record” highs specific for the day of the year. So, during the first year, you would set a record high for each day of the year specific for that day of the year….. all time high for Jan 1….. all time high for August 1….. etc…
Maybe that’ll help you guys chill for a sec.
Mike deliberately reworded the comment to make it something it was not. Strawman! This one is for you Mike:
Well, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. When people speak of “records”, there is often confusion as to what the “record” represents. I would have thought it obvious, but some people get so fixated on what they believe they read or heard, they don’t bother to look for another explanation other than the person making the statement was wrong. We all do it to an extent, but jeez…….
You are an idiot Daily temperature records get recorded for every day of the year.
I’m bummed. I wanted him to keep going. Another Chrisd (whatever happened to him), tonyd, IWB, drewski, etc. The hits just keep coming.