Chance of Heat Wave being random, 1 in 16 million

[Thompson]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

[MannyIsGod]

There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.

So how can you use the dataset of a warming climate and then judge by a distribution on what the odds would be for a situation that isn't represented by the dataset? Its like me saying that days with lows below freezing are common in the winter therefor re not rare in the summer.

But, lets assume that's not an issue. Then there's the issue of whether or not the distribution is valid. Poisson processes require event independence. In other words, a month being in the upper third of its distribution cannot affect the next month. The blog you linked yesterday used the very fact that there is an correlation between each month's temp to show why the initial calculation (simply 1/3 raised to the 13th power) was wrong because there WAS a correlation between the events. That immediately disqualifies this type of distribution.

Furthermore, if we disregard THAT error, then there's the issue of his lambda value. In the equation, lambda represents the mean of the function. The mean of the number of events in a group of 13 being in their top third is 4.33 (simply 13/3) so why is his lambda value 5.xx ( can't remember the exact amount).

I also have issues with the way he came up with everything, but by this point I'm just being redundant. Its pretty ty statistical analysis.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

That article is 5 years old. Now google "BEST Decadal Variations" or "Royal Society Solar Climate" and get back to us.

[Kidd K]

The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing. (by climate change I mean the new name for "global warming").

I'm just 27, but having lived in the same general area my whole life (within about 30 miles), I can say with certainty that the seasons are changing, and are getting hotter.

It used to actually be cold in October here (I live in northeastern Illinois, near Chicago). Now it almost never is.

It used to ALWAYS snow before the end of the year. The latest I remember it snowing was Christmas Eve. Last year, it didn't even snow until February. And it only snowed enough to where I had to shovel, just 3 times, the fewest I can recall.

It in RAINED in March. . .I've never seen it rain in March before.

It was over 70 degrees for a whole week in March, the month where usually there's snow on the ground for all 31 days of the month.

It got so hot this summer with my thermometer maxed out at 120 for days back to back to back to back, my house's AC barely seems adequate anymore. I'm going to buy an additional air conditioner for next summer, because it's probably going to be even worse.


Yeah, I'm just remembering about 23 years of weather, but it's sure as changed a LOT. Science is also, you know, your friend. It tells you stuff, when they're not funded by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome being that there is no global warming (i.e. the ones mainly causing it, and wanting more deregulations from the government so they can retain or increase their gigantic profit margin).

chance of dumb rednecks giving a , zero

Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.

[MannyIsGod]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

The solar output is measured from satellites and has been dropping relative to previous solar cycles. I have yet to see evidence that Mars is actually warming but even if it was that doesn't mean there's an increase in solar output. Orbital variation can change the amount of insolation on any planet independent of any actual change in solar output.

But yeah, thanks for posting a 2007 article 5 years later because this hasn't been debunked quite a bit in that time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rming-too.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...limatic_change

Despite the absence of a time series for Martian global temperatures, K. I. Abdusamatov has proposed that "parallel global warmings" observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth can only be a consequence of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[73] While some climate change skeptics take this as proof that humans are not causing climate change, Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by the scientific community. His assertions have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and have been dismissed by other scientists, who have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[74] Other scientists have proposed that the observed variations are caused by irregularities in the orbit of Mars or a possible combination of solar and orbital effects.[75]

[DarrinS]

The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing

Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.

[Wild Cobra]

There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.

But almost every one agrees the climate has been warming over our recorded history, so why even do such an analysis?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.

Dude you have been arguing that there has been no warming in the pst 15 years. Your sophistry is deplorable.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Good link, Darrin. Those are some valid points about how the unlikelyhood is overestimated through those methods.

That being said, the new numbers still show how incredibly unlikely the situation is so when taken in the proper context I think every point that was made about how anomalous the recent string of hot months is will stand.

So yeah, while less than 1 in 100,000 isn't exactly 1 in 16 million, it still is a very very very rare event and really still makes every point that was being made based on the previous number. The chances of Darrin pointing that out? Probably lower than both of those figures.

This is the truth. It's finally getting blatantly obvious.

Should never have reached this point. Greenhouse gas = hotter, period. Venus is a load hotter than it should be because of greenhouse gasses.

We knew about this already. Stupid people like WC are dumbing down society.

The noble thing for any person conflicted would be to say, well we're addicted to oil and we need to figure that out first.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.

Not likely

What it comes down to is that they are just vile beasts that should be kept in cages. All the know are guns and looting resources in the name of white pigmented Jesus.

You can't fix stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

Should never have reached this point. Greenhouse gas = hotter, period. Venus is a load hotter than it should be because of greenhouse gasses.

We knew about this already. Stupid people like WC are dumbing down society.

Me? Dumbing down society, yet you make such a dumb statement about Venus...

Those of us who disagree with the extent of CO2 warming are not saying CO2 does not warm. We are only saying it doesn't warm as much as stated by the alarmists.

Do you even have a clue why your statement of Venus is wrong, in trying to imply CO2 on earth is the same?

Three huge reasons.

Care to examine them?

[MannyIsGod]

He's right bout Venus. The greenhouse affect is what keeps it so hot. Its closer to the sun , but it also has a much higher albedo. The temp can't be explained (much like on earth) without the greenhouse contributions.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and he never implied CO2 on the earth was the same. He merely pointed out that Venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse effect. It is.

[Wild Cobra]

You forgot a two very critical differences of it Manny, that separate examples from earth.

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing you bring up is going to change that Venus is a runaway greenhouse effect which is the point made. Nothing.

[DarrinS]

Manny,

What do you think about this guy's take?


http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/...edented-event/

[MannyIsGod]

I agree, there have been heat waves before. Which one is worse really depends on the metric you use, but in reality there have been many severe heat waves on par with the most recent one so saying that it was unprecedented is always going to stir up controversy.

The problem is that people keep talking quotes and statistics out of context. Look at the thread le. Aside from being an incorrect quote (Masters or the NCDC - whom ever came up with that stat - said 1 in 1.6 million) it also attributes the statistic to the heat wave and not the most recent consecutive month period. That period was unprecedented even if the individual heat wave was not.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing you bring up is going to change that Venus is a runaway greenhouse effect which is the point made. Nothing.

No Sherlock. I'm saying there are two other key reasons, and these added reason do not apply to earth.

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't matter. You missed his point because you're a moron. He didn't say Earth was going to turn into Venus, genius.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter. You missed his point because you're a moron. He didn't say Earth was going to turn into Venus, genius.

I didn't miss anything. I just want to make sure people know there are key differences.

Please stop assuming.

These key two differences:

1) Venus' atmosphere over 100 times more massive than Earth's.

2) Venus' atmosphere is about 96.5% CO2 vs. the Earth's 0.04%.

3) Venus receives about 91% more watts/sq meter of solar irradiation than the Earth.

The first two factors make dramatic differences, more than the distance differences from the sun. It not only means that Venus has much more than 20,000 times more CO2 than earth. With CO2 the primary gas, for a lack of better terminology, the spectra absorbed by CO2 resonates in the atmosphere.

Yes, it's a true runaway effect.

Every time someone brings up Venus, I wonder how many people don't understand the key difference, and am afraid they will think the earth can become like Venus.

Comparing greenhouse gas differences from between a fraction of a percent, to more than 90% is simply asinine.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Yes, it's a true runaway effect.
...
Comparing greenhouse gas differences from between a fraction of a percent, to more than 90% is simply asinine.

No it's not. I'll explain it in a dumb hick dialect so you understand.

If I'm trying to run across a field, it's a lot harder if there are corn stalks (co2) growing than if there was nothing. The more corn stalks (co2) the more I get held up, until it's impossible to get through without resting. Additional Corn stalks (co2) past that point don't add more effectiveness to stopping me in the same instance.

Extra cornstalks (co2) do not create a runaway effect, they do nothing if marginally anything.

Infrared light (IR), a primary component of the greenhouse effect is heavily absorbed by Co2. The more light directly incident on Co2, the more it catches. As infrared light is absorbed, subsequent co2 molecules do not get a chance to absorb it.

If all the Co2 on venus had direct sunlight incidence, it would be MUCH MUCH hotter. Much of the atmosphere on Venus simply doesn't get as much sunlight since it is blocked out at upper layers. Earths Co2 is used far more efficiently at catching IR.

Since I'm sure you don't care and this is just a waste of time, I think a hands on experiment would be better. To try it yourself, first find a cornfield and run backwards, ass leading as "far" as you can go. You'll get some enlightenment.

[MannyIsGod]

[Obstructed_View]

I'm just 27, but having lived in the same general area my whole life (within about 30 miles), I can say with certainty that the seasons are changing, and are getting hotter.

There's your scientific proof, folks. It just feels hotter these last few years.

[DarrinS]

There's your scientific proof, folks. It just feels hotter these last few years.

I'm actually hoping it warms up this weekend. I'm going to camping on the Frio river and that water is damn cold when it's only 88-90 degrees out. It's a little below normal for this time of year. This doesn't mean a damn thing about climate change, just thought I'd share.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish I was going to the Frio