Decrease in Hot Days in the U.S.

Buzz said:

WOW... this is just delusional!

All right Lord... its time for you to put up or shut up and chase Jack off. Or are you going to continue to pretend Jack is not in denial?

Click to expand...

Your lack of understanding what he says does not make him a denier.

Deuce said:

They attacked a statement about "most land areas" and used data from a small fraction of land areas to do it. If you can't admit that this is unwarranted, then there's nothing else to talk about.

Click to expand...

The key word is "may" but I think you overlooked that.

Jack Hays said:

The key word is "may" but I think you overlooked that.

Click to expand...

Global warming "may" cause the entire planet to become lifeless.

But unless I present, you know, evidence to support this idea, you'll dismiss it.

Deuce said:

Global warming "may" cause the entire planet to become lifeless.

But unless I present, you know, evidence to support this idea, you'll dismiss it.

Click to expand...

That's a deflection. The paper did not make claims beyond its evidence and included a good faith effort to address global data. Your criticism seems churlish.

Jack Hays said:

The key word is "may" but I think you overlooked that.

Click to expand...

He, like other warmers, have a very incomplete understanding of qualifier words.

Words have meaning, but they fail to understand that simple concept.

Lord of Planar said:

Your lack of understanding what he says does not make him a denier.

Click to expand...

And your assertion that I don't understand Jack doesn't prove anything either. Are you really going to provide further evidence that your also a denialist by backing what he says up? I guess so.....

Buzz said:

And your assertion that I don't understand Jack doesn't prove anything either. Are you really going to provide further evidence that your also a denialist by backing what he says up? I guess so.....

Click to expand...

I don't need to back it up. Other people see and understand what he's saying. There are only three or four of you who are so full of indoctrination, that you deny the scientific truth.

I don't give a rip if you understand or not. I see you as a lost cause.

I simply wish you would provide intelligent debate instead of all the BS you spout.

Deuce said:

Data does not support the conclusion in the final paragraph.

Click to expand...

Where TMAX ( maximum daily temperature ) has been measured consistently for more than a century,
there have been fewer hot days.

To be sure, the area containing such measurements is not global.

But the sparseness of observations and the contradictory results from where such observations do exist
are certainly not supportive of the IPCC statement.

Further, perhaps the greater point of the post is that hot days in the US are strongly correlated
with summer precipitation. The scaling of latent heat indicates why this is so and why
the natural variability of precipitation, which is not predictable, can easily obscure the forcing from CO2.
( the potential, though not completely realized, for latent heat variation is some 125 W/m^2,
while a doubling of CO2 is some 3.7W/m^2 ).

Confidence is an emotion and a subjective term, so arguing about whether confidence is warranted or not
may not be that enlightening.

But the existing long term observations do not support the IPCC statement.

Deuce said:

1) Why aren't all the UHSCN stations included?

Click to expand...

Many stations are transient or fragmentary which can introduce errors of changing station representation.
You can see that in this graphic of USHCN station availability ( green represents available data ):

The stations are selected for completeness and consistency as described in the post.

Deuce said:

2) Why are we limiting this dataset to ~2% of the earth's surface?

Click to expand...

The analysis didn't limit surface data, the limited surface data limits the conclusion.
The conclusion that hot days have decreased in the US is limited by the fact that
consistently measured TMAX data of a century duration is available only for CONUS ( plus Southern Canada, parts of Europe, and Australia ).

In the GHCN and USHCN, hot days have decreased in the US as well as the few areas outside the US that were
consistently measured since 1905, but these observations are global in extent, so the statement is for the US.

But it remains significant that the US stations exhibit a decrease - certainly contrary to popular assumption.

Deuce said:

3) Why are we making these two statements?

Click to expand...

The variability of the data are contrary to trends but that's to the point: hot days are more a function of 'weather'
than they are of global warming. That doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist, but
the significance of what global warming means is exaggerated even with respect to hot days.

Our ancestors experienced more hot days than we have is a correction of the erroneous popular assumption.

Now, that's for CONUS stations. There is some skew of more stations east of the Rockies,
and there is an increase in hot days in the West region, but decreases in the Central, Southern, and Eastern regions,
so it does appear that the majority of the stations as well as the majority of the area of CONUS exhibit this change.

"The USA is only about 2% of the earth's surface. Ooops!"

Click to expand...

Q: What percentage of earth's surface has consistent long term TMAX records?
A: about that same 2%

Of course, the oceans, while certainly part of earth and global warming considerations,
are not particularly relevant to hot day consideration because, as described in the post,
latent heat modulates surface temperature. All things are possible, but if any ocean temperature
has reached 100F, it would be extremely rare. So a more relevant comparison of the
significance of US records is as a percentage of global land area, not of global land/ocean.

But I did, in the post, examine the GHCN data, and as I detailed, NON-US data is limited
for the century scale, and only roughly half of land area for 50 years.

That doesn't make a case for global decrease in hot days ( which I didn't make ).

But that also fails to support the IPCC contention that hot days will increase.

Turbulent Eddie said:

Q: What percentage of earth's surface has consistent long term TMAX records?
A: about that same 2%
Of course, the oceans, while certainly part of earth and global warming considerations,
are not particularly relevant to hot day consideration because, as described in the post,
latent heat modulates surface temperature. All things are possible, but if any ocean temperature
has reached 100F, it would be extremely rare. So a more relevant comparison of the
significance of US records is as a percentage of global land area, not of global land/ocean.
But I did, in the post, examine the GHCN data, and as I detailed, NON-US data is limited
for the century scale, and only roughly half of land area for 50 years.
That doesn't make a case for global decrease in hot days ( which I didn't make ).
But that also fails to support the IPCC contention that hot days will increase.

Click to expand...

But you made the post as an ostensible Piece of evidence that there wasn't Global Warming.
That's the whole point. But there is, and continues TO BE.
BOTH on Land and Sea.
ie


Doesn't look to me like land temperatures are cooling: in fact they're warming is accelerating.
Your anecdotal "Hot Days" and Only/admittedly in the "USA", is just desperately scraping to find something that contradicts GW.
But you not only didn't try, you Failed.
But you did fool the OP who will post anything on these goofy denier blogs.
`

Turbulent Eddie said:

Q: What percentage of earth's surface has consistent long term TMAX records?
A: about that same 2%
Of course, the oceans, while certainly part of earth and global warming considerations,
are not particularly relevant to hot day consideration because, as described in the post,
latent heat modulates surface temperature. All things are possible, but if any ocean temperature
has reached 100F, it would be extremely rare. So a more relevant comparison of the
significance of US records is as a percentage of global land area, not of global land/ocean.
But I did, in the post, examine the GHCN data, and as I detailed, NON-US data is limited
for the century scale, and only roughly half of land area for 50 years.
That Doesn't make a case for global decrease in hot days ( which I didn't make ).
But that also fails to support the IPCC contention that hot days will increase.

Click to expand...

But you made the post as an ostensible Piece of evidence that there wasn't Global Warming.
That's the whole point. But there is, and continues TO BE.
BOTH on Land and Sea.
ie


or


Doesn't look to me like Global land temperatures are cooling: in fact Warming appears to be accelerating.
Your anecdotal "Hot Days" (whatever that means), and Only/admittedly in the "USA", is just desperately scraping to find something that contradicts GW.
But you not only didn't try, you Failed.
But you did fool the OP who will post anything on these goofy denier blogs. Undoubtedly others (obtuse partsian deniers) fell for your cherry-picked anecdote. Your article was Like implying alcoholism isn't a problem because Only Marguerita consumption is going down... and Only in Russia.

You're obviously a climate buff: I'm not.
But it just takes a little more gray matter than most to see through Sleazy chicanery.

Lord of Planar said:

He, like other warmers, have a very incomplete understanding of qualifier words.

Words have meaning, but they fail to understand that simple concept.

Click to expand...

It's a weasel word. Used so they aren't technically wrong, because they aren't technically declaring anything.

Lord of Planar may be the Zodiac Killer. I have no evidence to support this, and I can make the implication because I use the word "may." But why would I bring it up?

But you made the post as an ostensible Piece of evidence that there wasn't Global Warming.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you read the piece thoroughly wherein I wrote:
"This does not mean that global warming is not occurring."

The data indicate that hot days in the US stations have not been determined by global warming.
Hot days are determined by the frequency of dry summers which have become fewer.
This is part of natural variability which occurs regardless of CO2.

This does not ( as I wrote ) mean global warming is not occurring, but it does mean that
the IPCC statement claiming that hotter days and/or more frequent hot days are "virtually certain" is quite suspect,
because the precipitation ( over years/decades/centuries ) which determines hot days is not predictable.

This does raise questions about the significance of global warming.

Here again is the temperature frequency of all consistently reporting stations in the US since 1905:


There is warming in the TMAX data, but what that's mostly meant is more days with high temperatures in the 70s and 80s.
Those days have outnumbered the decrease in days with high temperatures above 90F over the 110 year period.
Even if those distribution of days were reversed, it's just not that significant,
particularly when most Americans imagine they've experienced more hot days, but in reality have experienced fewer.

Turbulent Eddie said:

I don't believe you read the piece thoroughly wherein I wrote:
"This does not mean that global warming is not occurring." The data indicate that hot days in the US stations have not been determined by global warming. Hot days are determined by the frequency of dry summers which have become fewer.
This is part of natural variability which occurs regardless of CO2. This does not ( as I wrote ) mean global warming is not occurring, but it does mean that the IPCC statement claiming that hotter days and/or more frequent hot days are "virtually certain" is quite suspect,
because the precipitation ( over years/decades/centuries ) which determines hot days is not predictable.
This does raise questions about the significance of global warming.
Here again is the temperature frequency of all consistently reporting stations in the US since 1905:
[IMG ]https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/figure8.png[/IMG]
There is warming in the TMAX data, but what that's mostly meant is more days with high temperatures in the 70s and 80s.
Those days have outnumbered the decrease in days with high temperatures above 90F over the 110 year period. Even if those distribution of days were reversed, it's just not that significant, particularly when most Americans imagine they've experienced more hot days, but in reality have experienced fewer.

Click to expand...

So you found an Anomaly (2% of Global land Mass) and only "Hot Days" as defined by "100F! - call them 1%.
So you seek to mislead using .02% of the land-days.
Wait, and only in summer, cut it more: 25% of of .02%. = .005% of land-days.

Of course, if ie, Alaska is in the numbers, the Largest USA state, and it gets to 80F, that IS a "Hot Day", even if not 100F. (ie, in Phoenix). Or if NYC hits 73F, as it did last Christmas eve, that's also NOT covered, as Winter is not in the stats.

So that would now put your anomaly well under .005%

A Broader view: the whole Northern Hemisphere 'Hot Days' which are Increasing steadily and significantly.

The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy — August 2012
NASA GISS: Science Brief: The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change



And that ladies and gentleman, is what these Disingenuous skeptics do for a living. Find misleading BS.
Here is someone who is a Climate guy, perhaps professional, but he still can't pull the wool over just one plain smart general poster.

mbig said:

So you found an Anomaly (2% of Global land Mass) and only "Hot Days" as defined by "100F! - call them 1%.
So you seek to mislead using .02% of the land-days.
Wait, and only in summer, cut it more: 25% of of .02%. = .005% of land-days.

Of course, if ie, Alaska is in the numbers, the Largest USA state, and it gets to 80F, that IS a "Hot Day", even if not 100F. (ie, in Phoenix). Or if NYC hits 73F, as it did last Christmas eve, that's also NOT covered, as Winter is not in the stats.

So that would now put your anomaly well under .005%

A Broader view: the whole Northern Hemisphere 'Hot Days' which are Increasing steadily and significantly.

The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy — August 2012
NASA GISS: Science Brief: The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change

"...Temperatures simulated in a global climate model (Hansen et al., 1988) reached a level such that four of the six sides of the climate dice were red in the first decade of the 21st century for greenhouse gas scenario B, which is an accurate approximation of actual greenhouse gas growth (Hansen and Sato 2004; updates are provided by a Columbia Univ. webpage). Observed summer temperature anomalies over global land during the past decade averaged about 75% in the "Hot category", thus midway between four and five sides of the die were red, which is reasonably consistent with expectations.

Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution ("bell curve", shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side. Image credit: NASA/GISS.

The relation between the bell curve and climate dice is illustrated in Fig. 3. Extremely hot outliers already occur more frequently than unusually cold seasons. If the march of the bell curve to the Right continues unabated, within a few decades even the seasons that were once considered average will cease to occur.

We have shown that the increased frequency of "hot" seasons is a result of global warming. The cause of global warming is a separate matter, but observed global warming is now attributed with high confidence to increasing greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007a).

Both attributions are important. Together they allow us to infer that the area covered by extreme hot anomalies will continue to increase in coming decades and that even more extreme outliers will occur. Indeed, we conclude that the decade-by-decade shift to the right of the temperature anomaly distribution (Fig. 2) will continue...
[......]​

And that ladies and gentleman, is what these Disingenuous skeptics do for a living. Find misleading BS.
Here is someone who is a Climate guy, perhaps professional, but he still can't pull the wool over just one plain smart general poster.

Click to expand...

A paper more than four years old to contest the data? Unimpressive.

Jack Hays said:

A paper more than four years old to contest the data? Unimpressive.

Click to expand...

Trolling again?
The response I put up to 'Turbulent eddie' surpasses ANY post you have ever made in this section or any other.

I resent your Goofy and Obtuse objection of "4 years old."
His article is talking about a Trend of FORTY years, in a context of more than a Century.
See your own OP, with a graph back to 1895. Try reading or LOL, understanding one.
Though, unlike Eddie, you quoted it all. He won't, because it's devastating.

How/what else you do today?
One Cut-Paste string start? 5 Cut-paste re-quotes of your other OPs (in lieu of debate)? and 32 one liners? (in Lieu of debate)
Your posts are all NONCONVERSANT Spamming and Trolling. Board Blight.
I await a real reply in the AM from T-E.

mbig said:

So you found an Anomaly (2% of Global land Mass) and only "Hot Days" as defined by "100F! - call them 1%. So you seek to mislead using .02% of the land-days.
Wait, and only in summer, cut it more: 25% of of .02%. = .005% of land-days.

Click to expand...

CONUS area represents around 6% of global land area.
CONUS measured area represents closer to 100% of global land area with century long TMAX records.
But none of this is to the point that the IPCC makes a suspect prediction which is worthy of consideration.



Yes, as I depicted in my original post, there is an increase
in CONUS hot days from a similar period that was part of an even larger long term decrease.



One must guard against assuming things that have not been measured.
But here, ignoring things which have been measured
( the decrease in CONUS hot days over the longer term than Hansen depicts ),
is also a flag of Confirmation Bias.

It's understandable that the public would have such perceptions, given the publications.
But the publications and IPCC are composed of humans, just as predisposed to bias.

mbig said:

Trolling again?
The response I put up to 'Turbulent eddie' surpasses ANY post you have ever made in this section or any other.

I resent your Goofy and Obtuse objection of "4 years old."
His article is talking about a Trend of FORTY years, in a context of more than a Century.
See your own OP, with a graph back to 1895. Try reading or LOL, understanding one.
Though, unlike Eddie, you quoted it all. He won't, because it's devastating.

How/what else you do today?
One Cut-Paste string start? 5 Cut-paste re-quotes of your other OPs (in lieu of debate)? and 32 one liners? (in Lieu of debate)
Your posts are all NONCONVERSANT Spamming and Trolling. Board Blight.
I await a real reply in the AM from T-E.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You object to a graph going back to 1895? Why is that? Much of the best research reaches much farther back than that. Anyway, I see that T-E slam dunked you in #42.

mbig said:

Trolling again?
The response I put up to 'Turbulent eddie' surpasses ANY post you have ever made in this section or any other.

I resent your Goofy and Obtuse objection of "4 years old."
His article is talking about a Trend of FORTY years, in a context of more than a Century.
See your own OP, with a graph back to 1895. Try reading or LOL, understanding one.
Though, unlike Eddie, you quoted it all. He won't, because it's devastating.

How/what else you do today?
One Cut-Paste string start? 5 Cut-paste re-quotes of your other OPs (in lieu of debate)? and 32 one liners? (in Lieu of debate)
Your posts are all NONCONVERSANT Spamming and Trolling. Board Blight.
I await a real reply in the AM from T-E.

Click to expand...

Correction to my #44: T-E slam dunked you in #43.

Turbulent Eddie said:

CONUS area represents around 6% of global land area.
CONUS measured area represents closer to 100% of global land area with century long TMAX records.
But none of this is to the point that the IPCC makes a suspect prediction which is worthy of consideration.

Yes, as I depicted in my original post, there is an increase
in CONUS hot days from a similar period that was part of an even larger long term decrease.
[IMG ]htt ps://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/figure7a.png[/IMG]
One must guard against assuming things that have not been measured.
But here, ignoring things which have been measured
( the decrease in CONUS hot days over the longer term than Hansen depicts ),
is also a flag of Confirmation Bias. It's understandable that the public would have such perceptions, given the publications.
But the publications and IPCC are composed of humans, just as predisposed to bias.

Click to expand...

Yes 6% of Global Land area..
but still 2% of Global area.
Ooops.

...
So NOW you have also Cherry Picked periods. It Doesn't work in shorter ones like 60 Years I posted as Warming has accelerated...
as well as previously Cherry Picking ONLY 2% of Global surface (USA only)...
and Cherry Picking "Hot Days"/only days of 100F or more, so that, ie, colder latitudes are not even covered.
So what you've got/Disingenuously Foisted, is a just a goofy Misleading ANOMALY in an ADMITTED warming trend.
It might even be that due TO warming, that more water vapor/clouds/haze in the air is modulating Summer Sun intensity in temperate zones.


And your period of a "Century+" makes Jack Hays Obtuse objection to my "4 year old article" even more Obtuse/irrelevant.
One is not even allowed to use words to elaborate how Obtuse Jack's objection was.
He didn't even know what was Covered/claimed despite posting your 120 Year Graph in HIS OP.
DOH!

Like all his Cut-Past OPs, he doesn't even know what they say.
He is/remains NONCONVERSANT on this topic and all others.
Just OP-Cut-Pastes, and one-liners. Spamming/Trolling.

mbig said:

And your period of a "Century+" makes Jack Hays Obtuse objection to my "4 year old article" even more Obtuse/irrelevant.
One is not even allowed to use words to elaborate how Obtuse Jack's objection was.
He didn't even know what was Covered/claimed despite posting your 120 Year Graph in HIS OP.
DOH!

Like all his Cut-Past OPs, he doesn't even know what they say.
He is/remains NONCONVERSANT on this topic and all others.
Just OP-Cut-Pastes, and one-liners. Spamming/Trolling.

Click to expand...

You have embarrassed yourself if you are capable of embarrassment.

Data (as T-E used) is timeless. Research (as you used) goes stale quickly. You should learn the difference. Get back to me when you can handle the material.

Jack Hays said:

You have embarrassed yourself if you are capable of embarrassment.
Data (as T-E used) is timeless. Research (as you used) goes stale quickly. You should learn the difference. Get back to me when you can handle the material.

Click to expand...

Hurt Bad huh?
Posting before 4PM, and then off until that time.
So your initial objection was my article was "4 years old, Unimpressive". DOH.
But Data is "timeless" so what's the problem.
DOH!
And "data" can be of ANY Age.
DOH!

My Data was 60 years, his a Century. Is that huge difference?
DOH!
What he Didn't do was put up 200 Years, or 1000 Years.
Why?
He Cherry-Picked 100 Years.
He Cherry Picked a period ONLY long enough to see a Warm Spell in app the 30's to make it look cooler now.
He Cherry Picked the USA ONLY: 2% of the Globe.
He Cherry Picked only 100F days, not more 8OF days.
He didn't post Average temperature ANYWHERE.
He wrote and you SPAMMED up PROPAGANDA.

T-E, Deuce, and I, actually had some debate in the string, you ONLY TROLL.
ALL YOUR POSTS ARE CONTENTLESS TROLLS.
see
cont'd

After the OP.
Jack Hay's TYPICAL "Contributions"/TROLLS to the/his own string.

Jack Hays said:

Would you care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

I see no weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Those points are taken up in the text. Read then post.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

That would be your view.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

This is dealt with at some length in the OP. Read first, then post.

More OP-LINK

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Conversant enough to send you running on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Their problem is that they're shocked to encounter contrary evidence, and they are incapacitated. There's a lot of arm-waving and spurious claims of cherry-picking, but disappointingly few attempts to actually discuss the topic.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

We do what we can with what we have.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Since the presentation is explicitly focused on the US I think you are criticizing it for not being another presentation.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The paper is only what it says it is. They acknowledge the question of global data. I don't think that qualifies as a straw man in any sense.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The key word is "may" but I think you overlooked that.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

That's a deflection. The paper did not make claims beyond its evidence and included a good faith effort to address global data. Your criticism seems churlish.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

A paper more than four years old to contest the data? Unimpressive.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Hmmm. You object to a graph going back to 1895? Why is that? Much of the best research reaches much farther back than that. Anyway, I see that T-E slam dunked you in #42.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Correction to my #44: T-E slam dunked you in #43.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

You have embarrassed yourself if you are capable of embarrassment.
Data (as T-E used) is timeless. Research (as you used) goes stale quickly. You should learn the difference. Get back to me when you can handle the material.

Click to expand...

mbig said:

Hurt Bad huh?
Posting before 4PM, and then off until that time.
So your initial objection was my article was "4 years old, Unimpressive". DOH.
But Data is "timeless" so what's the problem.
DOH!
And "data" can be of ANY Age.
DOH!

My Data was 60 years, his a Century. Is that huge difference?
DOH!
What he Didn't do was put up 200 Years, or 1000 Years.
Why?
He Cherry-Picked 100 Years.
He Cherry Picked a period ONLY long enough to see a Warm Spell in app the 30's to make it look cooler now.
He Cherry Picked the USA ONLY: 2% of the Globe.
He Cherry Picked only 100F days, not more 8OF days.
He didn't post Average temperature ANYWHERE.
He wrote and you SPAMMED up PROPAGANDA.

T-E, Deuce, and I, actually had some debate in the string, you ONLY TROLL.
ALL YOUR POSTS ARE CONTENTLESS TROLLS.
see
cont'd

Click to expand...

All data appears to be "cherry-picked" when the trend fails to support your contention.