• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Stories of Heat waves and the contribution of global warming

Buzz said:
Yeah, I am... and it is you and your constant misinformation and lies!



So what? It doesn't say anything about a 3 times ratio. It shows a max diurnal asymmetry of something like 50% if I remember correctly.



Yes... the study I pointed out to you a year and a half ago and how it wasn't the best to base all your arguments on.



And Arrhenius, 1896... The study that quotes Tyndall but then says, as far as I know, nothing else about diurnal asymmetry. At least I can't find anything and you can't cite anything.



So... you were still wrong about it being a 3:1 ratio for the whole century.

You have been shown to be wrong about so many of the things you are saying here so many times that I... literally don't know what to think anymore. Take for instance your 3 times ratio for diurnal asymmetry. It has been shown to you NUMEROUS TIMES that this number is from just one very old and out-dated study. All the other studies that are newer, more complete and based on better data say that it isn't that extreme. But you refuse to use the preponderance of evidence and insist on cherry-picking your data!

It is dishonest and you need to quit doing it!!

But screw all this! What really drives me nuts is what you said in the beginning of this thread:



This is just totally screwed up and completely misleading and not based on any kind scientific method.

Or maybe you can provide some peer-reviewed studies to back up such a significant conclusion.
Click to expand...
Considering that Karl, 1993 stated quite clearly,
Monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures for over 50% (10%) of the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere landmass, accounting for 37% of the global landmass, indicate that the rise of the minimum temperature has occurred at a rate three times that of the maximum temperature during the period 1951–90 (0.84°C versus 0.28°C).
Click to expand...
This was further cited and mentioned in Hansen, 1995.
The observation by Tyndall, in the nineteenth century, followed by the empirical evidence of Karl.
Do you really think a century plus trend suddenly turned around?
 
longview said:
Likely nothing to do with climate change, simply a persistent high, combined with long cloud free summer days.
Keep in mind, that the highs from climate change would only be like .3 C above the background!
Click to expand...

And where did this magic number of 0.3 C come from? The worldwide average is currently about 0.8 C, and Asia is one of the hardest hit areas.
 
Media_Truth said:
And where did this magic number of 0.3 C come from? The worldwide average is currently about 0.8 C, and Asia is one of the hardest hit areas.
Click to expand...

A century long trend show the asymmetry between the increase in minimum temperatures to maximum temperatures,
was 3:1, from Karl, 1993,
M
onthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures for over 50% (10%) of the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere landmass, accounting for 37% of the global landmass, indicate that the rise of the minimum temperature has occurred at a rate three times that of the maximum temperature during the period 1951–90 (0.84°C versus 0.28°C).
Click to expand...
If we have an average warming was the Harcrut4, 0.9 C, then the amount that would be from the maximum temperature increase
would be 0.3 C!
If you want to say that AGW caused some daily temperature to spike higher than usual, the AGW contribution
to the maximum temperature would be ~0.3 C.
 
Media_Truth said:
And where did this magic number of 0.3 C come from? The worldwide average is currently about 0.8 C, and Asia is one of the hardest hit areas.
Click to expand...

He said "highs." Not "average."
 
longview said:
A century long trend show the asymmetry between the increase in minimum temperatures to maximum temperatures,
was 3:1, from Karl, 1993,
M
If we have an average warming was the Harcrut4, 0.9 C, then the amount that would be from the maximum temperature increase
would be 0.3 C!
If you want to say that AGW caused some daily temperature to spike higher than usual, the AGW contribution
to the maximum temperature would be ~0.3 C.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking. I'll go with the NOAA averages.
 
longview said:
It seems that not a week goes by that someone does not post a story about this or that high temperature record.
"Northern India heat wave tops 50 degrees centigrate (122 degrees f)" ect.
But if we actually consider what the possible contribution of the global recorded temperature increase to those
records, we would see that it does not even show up.
Globally the average temperatures (Hadcrut4) have increased by .9 C since the pre 1900 average.
But that is not the entire story!
The observed warming was in average temperatures, and the majority of the increase was in the minimum temperatures.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

The minimum temperatures increased at a rate 3 times faster than the maximum temperatures.

If the ratio is the same, as the 1950 to 2000 average, then of the .9 C of observed warming,
then only .225 C of the warming would be applied to the maximum temperatures.
So if we say that some region has a heat wave that has highs 8 C above the average for that period,
then 7.775 C of that heat wave is natural, and only .225C would be from recorded increases in the global record.
Wow almost 3%!
Click to expand...

Trump will solve global warming. He is supposed to have blown up the world already. Plus the sky is falling because Trump won the election.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Trump will solve global warming. He is supposed to have blown up the world already. Plus the sky is falling because Trump won the election.
Click to expand...
I would not hold my breath on that one, but global warming will solve itself, because naturally occurring
hydrocarbon fuel will price itself out of the market.
 
longview said:
Cherry picking from the most cited peer reviewed paper on the topic of diurnal asymmetry... right!
Click to expand...

I don't argue with the data. I argue with your constant cherry-picking of maximum temperatures and minimum temperatures. Higher minimum temperatures are equally important, and therefore averages should be used.
 
longview said:
It seems that not a week goes by that someone does not post a story about this or that high temperature record.
"Northern India heat wave tops 50 degrees centigrate (122 degrees f)" ect.
But if we actually consider what the possible contribution of the global recorded temperature increase to those
records, we would see that it does not even show up.
Globally the average temperatures (Hadcrut4) have increased by .9 C since the pre 1900 average.
But that is not the entire story!
The observed warming was in average temperatures, and the majority of the increase was in the minimum temperatures.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

The minimum temperatures increased at a rate 3 times faster than the maximum temperatures.

If the ratio is the same, as the 1950 to 2000 average, then of the .9 C of observed warming,
then only .225 C of the warming would be applied to the maximum temperatures.
So if we say that some region has a heat wave that has highs 8 C above the average for that period,
then 7.775 C of that heat wave is natural, and only .225C would be from recorded increases in the global record.
Wow almost 3%!
Click to expand...

In our area, it’s more like global raining. The temperatures have been colder than normal.
 
Outlook said:
In our area, it’s more like global raining. The temperatures have been colder than normal.
Click to expand...

We have had an unusual June so far. Two days in the 90's. From the 9th to the 12th, we had highs of 81, 84, 96, 96, 84. The rest of the month, highs in the 60's and 70. Cloud cover is the cause.

Yes, clouds hold energy in, but they inhibit the solar energy that heats the surface from heating it to begin with.
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't argue with the data. I argue with your constant cherry-picking of maximum temperatures and minimum temperatures. Higher minimum temperatures are equally important, and therefore averages should be used.
Click to expand...
And yet the alarmist stories, are not about the average temperature, but the maximum temperature.
 
Outlook said:
In our area, it’s more like global raining. The temperatures have been colder than normal.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have a cool spring, but summer is here now! from my own viewpoint summer nights are much warmer than in my youth
of a half century ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom