• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Decrease in Hot Days in the U.S.

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
File this under "propaganda claim meets data." Hint: data wins. It's always fun when "common knowledge" turns out to be merely widespread error.

On the Decrease of Hot Days in the US

Posted on December 16, 2016 | 66 comments
by Turbulent Eddie
Adjusted USHCN data indicate a decrease in CONUS hot days TMAX >= 100°F

Continue reading →

Adjusted USHCN data indicate a decrease in CONUS hot days TMAX >= 100°F

As part of his 2016 testimony to Congress, Dr. John Christy presented this chart:

Figure 1. The average number of 100°F days in the USHCN data set from Christy.
This result evoked some amount of discussion on climate related blogs. After initially reproducing a similar result, I considered some of the blog comments which questioned raw versus adjusted data, station moves and how global records might compare. I examined these issues and the results follow. . . .


What doesn’t this analysis mean?
This does not mean that global warming is not occurring. The trend for spatially weighted CONUS annual TMAX data (not just hot days) indicates a positive trend which is roughly consistent with other assessments of the global warming trend of the last century.
This also does not indicate a trend of decreasing hot days. The past variance (standard deviation 70% of the mean occurrence of hot days) is high and could impose a variety of trends.
What does this analysis mean?
What this means is that the assumption that global warming has led to more frequent hot days in the US is incorrect. Before examining the data, I would have agreed with probably most Americans in assuming that we have experienced more hot days than our ancestors did. Observations indicate just the opposite: our ancestors experienced more hot days the we have.
Also what this means is that the confidence expressed by the IPCC may be unwarranted when they write that for the next century “Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain”.
 
Data does not support the conclusion in the final paragraph.
 
Jack Hays said:
Would you care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

I'd rather have you attempt to critically assess it first. You do refer to yourself as a skeptic, after all. Be skeptical.

Also what this means is that the confidence expressed by the IPCC may be unwarranted when they write that for the next century “Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain”.
Click to expand...

Attack this statement. What weaknesses can you see in it, based on the information given?
 
Deuce said:
I'd rather have you attempt to critically assess it first. You do refer to yourself as a skeptic, after all. Be skeptical.



Attack this statement. What weaknesses can you see in it, based on the information given?
Click to expand...

I see no weaknesses.
 
Jack Hays said:
I see no weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. That proves my point quite nicely.

1) Why aren't all the UHSCN stations included?
2) Why are we limiting this dataset to ~2% of the earth's surface?
3) Why are we making these two statements?
This also does not indicate a trend of decreasing hot days. The past variance (standard deviation 70% of the mean occurrence of hot days) is high and could impose a variety of trends.
Click to expand...
. Observations indicate just the opposite: our ancestors experienced more hot days the we have.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Of course you don't. That proves my point quite nicely.

1) Why aren't all the UHSCN stations included?
2) Why are we limiting this dataset to ~2% of the earth's surface?
3) Why are we making these two statements?
Click to expand...

Those points are taken up in the text. Read then post.
 
(enhanced copy coding busted in quote)
Jack Hays said:
File this under "Propaganda claim meets data." Hint: data wins. It's always Fun when "Common knowledge" turns out to be merely widespread error.

On the Decrease of Hot Days in the US

[COLOR =#888888][ FONT=inherit]Posted on December 16, 2016 | 66 comments[/URL ][/FONT][/COLOR]
[F ONT=inherit]by Turbulent Eddie
Adjusted USHCN data indicate a decrease in CONUS hot days TMAX >= 100°F
[/FO NT][/ COLOR]
[URL="https://judithcurry.com/2 016/12/16/[b]on-the-decrease-of-hot-days-in-the-us[/b] /#more-22605" Continue reading [FONT=inherit]→[/FONT][/URL]
[COLO R=#333333][FON T=Georgia]Adjusted USHCN data indicate a decrease in CONUS hot days TMAX >= 100°F[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLO R=#333333][FON T=Georgia][FON T=inherit][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLO R=#333333][FON T=Georgia]As part of his[URL="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf"] 2016 t estimony to Congress, Dr. John Christy presented this chart:[/FON T]
[COLO R=#333333][IM G]https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/figure1.png?w=500 &h=255[/IMG]Figure 1. The average number of 100°F days in the USHCN data set from Christy.[/COLOR]
[COLO R=#333333][FON T=Georgia]This result evoked some amount of discussion on climate related blogs. After initially reproducing a similar result, I considered some of the blog comments which questioned raw versus adjusted data, station moves and how global records might compare. I examined these issues and the results follow. . . . [/FONT ][/COLOR][COLOR=# 333333]What doesn’t this analysis mean?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=# 333333]This does not mean that global warming is not occurring. The trend for spatially weighted [U RL="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/nclimdiv-tmax-tmin"]CONUS annual TMAX data[/URL] (not just hot days) indicates a positive trend which is roughly consistent with other assessments of the global warming trend of the last century.[/COLOR]
[COL OR=#333333][FO NT=Georgia]This also does not indicate a trend of decreasing hot days. The past variance (standard deviation 70% of the mean occur rence of hot days) is high and could impose a variety of trends.[/FONT][/COLOR][COL OR=#333333][F ONT =Georgia]What does this analysis mean?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COL OR=#333333][FO NT=Georgia]What this means is that the assumption that global warming has led to more frequent hot days in the US is incorrect. Before examining the data, I would have agreed with probably most Americans in assuming that we have experienced more hot days than our ancestors did. Observations indicate just the opposite: our ancestors experienced more hot days the we have.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[F ONT=Georgia]Also what this means is that the confidence expressed by the IPCC may be unwarranted when they write that for the next century “Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain”.[/ URL][/FO NT][/C OLOR]
Click to expand...

The USA is only about 2% of the earth's surface. Ooops!
Always "fun" when another Jack Hays OP/Blog-Link-Dump meets Simple knowledge/context.
/another Unwittingly fallacious 'WEATHER' string.
Jack wrote only 24 words in his subsequent 4 posts: the usual wash out.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
(enhanced copy coding busted in quote)
The USA is app 2% of the earth's surface. Ooops!
Always "fun" when another Jack Hays OP/Blog-Link-Dump meets Simple knowledge/context.
/another Unwittingly fallacious 'WEATHER' string
Jack wrote only 24 words in his subsequent 4 posts: the usual total wash out.
Click to expand...

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

What about the global record of hot days?
Of course, it is of interest as to how hot days varied, not just in the US, but around the globe. Unfortunately, there are many issues with constructing a global record from the GHCN TMAX data. Lack of stations in the early twentieth century, transient stations which reported for only for a few decades, missing data through out, lack of adjustment analysis for many stations, and other issues limit available consistent data. In spite of these factors, a similar analysis of the raw Non-US ( GHCN stations outside the US ) TMAX data appears as Figure 5(a) and 5(b) below. . . .
 
(enhanced website coding busted again)
Jack Hays said:
This is dealt with at some length in the OP. Read first, then post.

[COLOR=# 333333][ B]What about the global record of hot days?[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR=# 333333][FO NT=Georgia]Of course, it is of interest as to how hot days varied, not just in the US, but around the globe. Unfortunately, there are many issues with constructing a global record from the GHCN TMAX data. Lack of stations in the early twentieth century, transient stations which reported for only for a few decades, missing data through out, lack of adjustment analysis for many stations, and other issues limit available consistent data. In spite of these factors, a similar analysis of the raw Non-US ( GHCN stations outside the US ) TMAX data appears as Figure 5(a) and 5(b) below. . . . [/FO NT][/COLO R]
Click to expand...
You don't "deal" with anything. You just say "see the Op" or post more of it.
You are/remain NONCONVERSANT in a section you've made 10,000 posts in.
bye

EDIT
another (coincidentally) 10 word reply follows.
Jack cannot post more than 10 words on the/any topic.
It's a Blog Link Dump, or reference to it: "see the Op"
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
You don't "deal" with anything. You just say "see the Op" or post more of it.
You are/remain NONCONVERSANT in a section you've made 10,000 posts in.
bye
Click to expand...

Conversant enough to send you running on a regular basis.
 
Jack Hays said:
Conversant enough to send you running on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

I think its more than people prove you wrong, you never accept that, so they say to hell with it and move on. ;)
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think its more than people prove you wrong, you never accept that, so they say to hell with it and move on. ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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?
 
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...

Thank you for illustrating my point.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is dealt with at some length in the OP. Read first, then post.

What about the global record of hot days?
Of course, it is of interest as to how hot days varied, not just in the US, but around the globe. Unfortunately, there are many issues with constructing a global record from the GHCN TMAX data. Lack of stations in the early twentieth century, transient stations which reported for only for a few decades, missing data through out, lack of adjustment analysis for many stations, and other issues limit available consistent data. In spite of these factors, a similar analysis of the raw Non-US ( GHCN stations outside the US ) TMAX data appears as Figure 5(a) and 5(b) below. . . .
Click to expand...

If TMAX is unable to provide a proper global temperature trend due to lack of proper data, why exactly do we care about it in the first place?
 
Deuce said:
Yes, and we have a much better dataset with the instrumental temperature record.
Click to expand...

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

Thank you for admitting that the presentation is a straw man attack, then.

They attacked IPCC statements that are global in nature. Don't get mad at me for pointing out they aren't using global data.
 
Deuce said:
Thank you for admitting that the presentation is a straw man attack, then.

They attacked IPCC statements that are global in nature. Don't get mad at me for pointing out they aren't using global data.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Also what this means is that the confidence expressed by the IPCC may be unwarranted when they write that for the next century “Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain”.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack Hays said:
...On the Decrease of Hot Days in the US...the assumption that global warming has
led to more frequent hot days in the US is incorrect. Before examining the data,
I would have agreed with probably most Americans in assuming that we have experienced
more hot days than our ancestors did. Observations indicate just the opposite:
our ancestors experienced more hot days the we have. Also what this means is that the
confidence expressed by the IPCC may be unwarranted when they write that for the next
century “Warmer and/or more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are
virtually certain”.
Click to expand...

Here's what you get if you go to NOAA's Climate at a Glance and specify Max Temp
June - September and the trend since 1930 for the Contiguous United States:

156fl8y.jpg


There are 20 states where the cooling trend for summer afternoons extends all the
way back to the 19th century here's a map showing where the cool down has occurred:

15qulvb.jpg


What this means is that because the average temperature has indeed increased, it's
the Minimum Temperatures that have gone up. Indeed that's what the IPCC reports
tell us. The warming will be at night in the winter and in the higher latitudes.
In other words the climate has become milder. When our media talking heads
tell us about extreme weather becoming the new normal they will have to begin
telling us about extreme mildness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom