• 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!

Los Angeles keeps setting record summer temperatures... but no global warming!

If you're going to analyze NOAA data, I suggest a broader approach. Nobody knows what references you are using to create your interactive graph. The annual report pretty much says it all. This is the 2016 Annual Report. 2017 will be released soon.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201613
In 2016, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.9°F, 2.9°F above the 20th century average. This was the second warmest year for the CONUS, behind 2012 when the annual average temperature was 55.3°F. This marks the 20th consecutive year that the annual average temperature for the CONUS was above the 20th century average. The last year with a below-average temperature was 1996. Since 1895, the CONUS has observed an average temperature increase of 0.15°F per decade.

Since the thread title is about recording setting temperatures in Los Angeles, NOAA has a record for maximum temperatures for Los Angeles,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
 
The graph says nothing about average highs. It says it records maximum temperatures.

So you really do believe that the highest max temp L.A. has ever recorded was about 80 degrees?

:lamo

If you go look at Steve's original link you will see some more links up on the right side of the page. One of them is Data Information. There you will find several more links about all the data on the site. And if you find the one that covers L.A.'s data it links to a pdf that says this:

TMAX – Monthly/Annual Maximum Temperature. Average of daily maximum temperature given in Celsius or Fahrenheit depending on user specification.

Congratulations Jack, you set out to prove me wrong and instead are just making a fool of yourself!
 
You're right, what I can glean from NOAA's Climate at a Glance isn't an exact match to record high
summer temperatures.

I'm glad you agree with me. But now you want to change the subject to the growing season and average max temps over the continental U.S.

Sorry Steve, but I'm not going to go on another wild goose chase with you again.
 
If you're going to analyze NOAA data, I suggest a broader approach.
You can suggest all you want. What that map represents is the trend in Max temps state by state for the warm part of the year (May - Oct)

Nobody knows what references you are using to create your interactive graph.
It's a simple matter of determining how far back a negative trend for Max temps could be found state by state for the six month period May through October.

The annual report pretty much says it all. This is the 2016 Annual Report. 2017 will be released soon.
And our wonderful obedient media won't question a thing it says.

In 2016, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.9°F, 2.9°F above the 20th century average.
Averages lose important aspects of the data. An illustration of that is the fact that the average of 51 and 49 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. Two very different data sets, identical averages

This was the second warmest year for the CONUS, behind 2012 when the annual average temperature was 55.3°F. This marks the 20th consecutive year that the annual average temperature for the CONUS was above the 20th century average.
That's right AVERAGE temperature has increased. What the report will say somewhere in the fine print is that the warming is at night, in winter and in the Arctic. Well OK the Arctic warming will be reported, but instead of also telling us that we are enjoying warmer nights and winters, we will be treated to images of sun baked dry river beds and dead polar bears.

The last year with a below-average temperature was 1996. Since 1895, the CONUS has observed an average temperature increase of 0.15°F per decade.
Yes there's been a warm-up regarding average temperatures. It should come as no surprise that each year during a warm-up will be warmest ever in the series. Sort of like climbing a mountain, each step along the way is the highest you've been on the journey.

In the mean time, I know from personal experience that we are enjoying warmer winters. Here in Wisconsin I haven't seen a ten below zero cold snap in decades. When I was a kid you could look forward to some 20 below zero unhappyness most winters. And summers aren't as hot as they used to be. Those 90 degree dog days are much less frequent. There have been at least two summers since 2000 where we didn't even get to 90. But our local media rag - now owned by USA Today won't report that.
 
So you really do believe that the highest max temp L.A. has ever recorded was about 80 degrees?

:lamo

If you go look at Steve's original link you will see some more links up on the right side of the page. One of them is Data Information. There you will find several more links about all the data on the site. And if you find the one that covers L.A.'s data it links to a pdf that says this:



Congratulations Jack, you set out to prove me wrong and instead are just making a fool of yourself!

Actually since the NOAA Climate at a glance data is monthly averages of the daily highs,
it does show that recent years, are not anything exceptional.
If as the tread suggest Los Angeles had an unusual number of records in any given month,
recent average months, would reflect this and be higher than months in the past.
 
And our wonderful obedient media won't question a thing it says.

I normally don't shorten a person's post, but I must to point this out. You have used the NOAA website to make your case. And then in the same argument, you call out the NOAA, as a bunch of liars.
 
Since the thread title is about recording setting temperatures in Los Angeles, NOAA has a record for maximum temperatures for Los Angeles,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Nothing like a little cherry-picked data. I searched month after month, with your time-base, and all show the extreme heat that LA has endured for the last several years. Case in point.

Southern California heat wave: Decades-old records broken as October temperatures soar | abc7.com

Tuesday, October 24, 2017
A late-October heat wave broke record temperatures in several locations across Southern California Monday.
...
The mercury soared to 102 in downtown Los Angeles, breaking a record temperature of 98 degrees set in 1965, according to the National Weather Service.
 
Nothing like a little cherry-picked data. I searched month after month, with your time-base, and all show the extreme heat that LA has endured for the last several years. Case in point.

Southern California heat wave: Decades-old records broken as October temperatures soar | abc7.com

Tuesday, October 24, 2017
A late-October heat wave broke record temperatures in several locations across Southern California Monday.
...
The mercury soared to 102 in downtown Los Angeles, breaking a record temperature of 98 degrees set in 1965, according to the National Weather Service.

I know you enjoy picking cherries, but if the average number of records were up, it would be reflected in the NOAA monthly maximum records.
 
I normally don't shorten a person's post, but I must to point this out. You have used the NOAA website to make your case. And then in the same argument, you call out the NOAA, as a bunch of liars.

I have to get my data from somewhere. I know that NOAA's Climate at a Glance consists of homogenized data, but I just don't have easy access to the raw data from all 1200 U.S. weather stations. I called NOAA liars? What I said was our obedient media won't question anything in their report.
 
1, Hottest for 130 years. What happened 130 years ago?

2, If you build lots of concrete buildings and remove the trees and stuff it will get hotter. No surprise there.

3, Who says that the climate does not change? Obviously the climate changes. So?

It was the hottest it had been for 130 years.
 
So you really do believe that the highest max temp L.A. has ever recorded was about 80 degrees?

:lamo

If you go look at Steve's original link you will see some more links up on the right side of the page. One of them is Data Information. There you will find several more links about all the data on the site. And if you find the one that covers L.A.'s data it links to a pdf that says this:



Congratulations Jack, you set out to prove me wrong and instead are just making a fool of yourself!

I'm merely pointing out what the graph says. I haven't said anything about what I "believe" because that's irrelevant. Your inability to make a coherent point is, I suppose, why you become so petulant. It's childlike.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
1, Hottest for 130 years. What happened 130 years ago?

2, If you build lots of concrete buildings and remove the trees and stuff it will get hotter. No surprise there.

3, Who says that the climate does not change? Obviously the climate changes. So?

It was the hottest it had been for 130 years.

So, presumably it was hotter 130 years ago or was that the start of the record? If so it is a very short record.
 
Really Lord? So... you still think that the heating from the loss of evapotranspiration from rain going down the drain isn't going to be overcome by all the cooling from added evapotranspiration due to irrigation. To put it another way... less that 130 million gallons of lost water is going to warm L.A. more that 70 billion gallons is going to cool it. Is this really what you're going to stick with?

:lamo

I never said my past example applied to all places. The only example with numbers I gave was where I live. Portland, OR. I even agreed Los Angeles may have cooling due to irrigation.

WTF is wrong with you, accusing me of stances I have never taken?

Are you really that ignorant?

Is you bigotry against people like me really so strong, that you can do nothing but express lies and hate about what we say and do?
 
I didn't jump into this thread to debate record temps. I got into it to refute Lord's ridiculous assertion that new record highs and the loss of evapotranspiration from rain going down storm sewers is evidence that "greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected".

Are you admitting to a lack of ethics?
 
I know you enjoy picking cherries, but if the average number of records were up, it would be reflected in the NOAA monthly maximum records.
And it is up, just as I said. Use your link. Use Case's link. You'll see that for every month, the last 4-5 years show extreme heat for Los Angeles. But you wouldn't draw that conclusion, because you wouldn't get paid.
 
I'm merely pointing out what the graph says. I haven't said anything about what I "believe" because that's irrelevant.

Except that you believed that the graph wasn't an average. Repeatedly. Even after I pointed out obvious clues that it was averaged. And you were wrong. The reason it doesn't say it is an average of daily high temps is because it is assumed that anyone using a graph of this kind that covers a time period like this should know it is an average. But you don't really understand graphs like this. Just like you don't really understand much of what you attempt to debate in this forum.

Your inability to make a coherent point is, I suppose, why you become so petulant. It's childlike.

Now that is just screwed up Jack. You jumped into this thread hoping to prove me wrong and have totally failed to prove anything. You are, in fact, the one who has been proven wrong. So for you to call me petulant and childish is assinine! It is no wonder many around here don't take anything you say seriously.
 
I never said my past example applied to all places.

No, but you suggested it applied to L.A. when you said these record temps are evidence that greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected. And then provided nothing but your loss of evaporation cooling fallacy to back it up.

The only example with numbers I gave was where I live. Portland, OR.

So what? Just because you didn't put any numbers to this one, much less even look at any numbers when they were provided to you is no excuse for your misinformation. And I have looked for relevant numbers concerning Portland. Luckily for you, I couldn't find anything definitive. But I later did find the kind of data needed in an actual peer-reviewed and published paper about L.A. Thankfully for us Jack decided to post some more denialist spam in this thread and bring it back to life so I could call you on your BS.

Oh... and while I can't prove Portland is like L.A., I do think there is enough evidence to say it probably is.

WTF is wrong with you, accusing me of stances I have never taken?

You have taken this stance plenty of times in numerous threads. Don't lie.

Are you admitting to a lack of ethics?

Since when is going off topic unethical? Especially when it is in response to someone else's misleading or false statements.
 
Wow.

Just wow...

I have no diplomatic words to say, so I will remain silent of your unethical methodology.
 
And it is up, just as I said. Use your link. Use Case's link. You'll see that for every month, the last 4-5 years show extreme heat for Los Angeles. But you wouldn't draw that conclusion, because you wouldn't get paid.

Here's my post with the link:

Here's a link to NOAA's Climate at a Glance:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1958&lasttrendyear=2017
the selections are:

Parameter: Maximum Temperature
Time Scale: 6- Month
Month: October
Start Year: 1895
End Year 2017
State.../ California
...City: Los Angeles

You don't need a trend line to see that summer time temperatures in the past have been warmer.

If you follow that link you will find this chart:

LosAngelesMayOctMaxTemps.jpg

You guys can duke it out as to which dots for "the last 4-5 years show extreme heat".
 
And it is up, just as I said. Use your link. Use Case's link. You'll see that for every month, the last 4-5 years show extreme heat for Los Angeles. But you wouldn't draw that conclusion, because you wouldn't get paid.
You are free to deny the data, but if the number of T-max records were greater than any before,
then the monthly T-Max averages would be greater than any before, and they are not.
 
You are free to deny the data, but if the number of T-max records were greater than any before,
then the monthly T-Max averages would be greater than any before, and they are not.

Just remember, that averages lose some of the information. After all, as I'm sure I've posted before:
The average of 49 and 51 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. Two very different data sets
but identical averages. So there could be some spike off-set by some lows. And if that's the case
then if someone wants to claim the spikes are due to "Climate Change" they will also have to deal
with the lows.

Besides all that, we all know, or at least we should know that the weather records for all the stations
are homogenized to the point that where the truth lies is in question. This data:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
is changed every month. Here's a graph of what those changes look like:

wck4lc.jpg


You can of course claim that the reason for all those changes are good and valid and they just happen
to form a pattern. But you can't deny that the pattern exists.

Here's a link to Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit:
Rewriting History, Time and Time Again

McIntyre tells us why all these changes occur. He says:

One could reasonably expect that the record is static. After all,
once an estimate for a given year is calculated there is no reason
to change it, correct? That would be true if your estimate did not
rely on new data added to the record, in particular temperatures
collected at a future date. But in the case of GISStemp, this is
exactly what is done.

For example, my files contain over 80 monthly releases of GISSTEMP global
data and just the entry for January 1880 was changed 27 times.

To quote an old TV show:

"Will the real temperature for Los Angeles please stand up."
 
Silly me, I forgot to post this gem from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

high-low-temps-figure1-2016.png


I should make sure the WayBack Machine has that archived, it's the sort of thing that gets disappeared.
 
Just remember, that averages lose some of the information. After all, as I'm sure I've posted before:
The average of 49 and 51 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. Two very different data sets
but identical averages.

So true.

And the average person has one testicle and one breast.

Averages do harm to the pertinent facts at times.
 
Back
Top Bottom