Author Topic: Time to gripe again.  (Read 1250 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3649
Time to gripe again.
« on: January 05, 2024, 07:59:12 PM »
NWS says we had our second warmest year on record.  They also say "Cooler than normal temperatures were largely absent in 2023. "


I may be off a day or two, but by my count using their records we had 142 days below normal and 224 days at or above normal.  That's roughly 40% of the days below normal.  I don't see that as 'largely absent'.





Online 92merc

  • BismarckWeather.net
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • BismarckWeather.net
    • BismarckWeather.net
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2024, 10:48:01 AM »
I'm sure if you considered plus or minus 4 degrees from normal, actually "normal", and drop those, it would be 40/20/40.

But we can't say those things out loud...
https://www.BismarckWeather.net
Davis VP2, Cumulus, WeatherDisplay, Blitzortung, Saratoga Scripts, NOAA Stream via PI

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3649
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2024, 12:06:29 PM »
Doing that might put it closer to 33/33/33.  This is March 23 for example:



 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]


Several days are within that 4 degree range. 

I count 17 days at or above normal and 14 below. 


Most months were similar with some being 15/15.  Outliers were Jan 27/4, Feb 20/8 and Dec 24/7.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2024, 12:13:05 PM by WeatherHost »

Offline ValentineWeather

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6379
    • Valentine Nebraska's Real-Time Weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2024, 12:11:52 PM »
Wasn't even close here. (-.6) f below normal. Had not been for the warm +5.5 December 2023 would have been several below normal.  :lol: Normal is using the departure period NCDC 1991-2020

Randy

Offline N0NB

  • Amateur weather observer
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • N0NB.us
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2024, 11:46:59 AM »
Always remember that there are lies, danged lies, and statistics!

Or, figures don't lie but liars figure.

The second saying is probably a bit extreme in this context but there is an agenda that must be adhered to so that causes me to cast doubt on such pronouncements.  Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

Offline TrugWX

  • Senior Meteorologist (ret), Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Truganina Weather
    • Truganina Weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2024, 02:26:34 AM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.

Offline gwwilk

  • Southeast Lincoln Weather
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
    • SouthEast Lincoln, NE Weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2024, 10:50:03 AM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.
Regards, Jerry Wilkins
gwwilk@gmail.com

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3649
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2024, 01:02:20 PM »
I've long had a problem with their 'rolling normals'.

They should be using far longer time periods ...  basically as far back as records go for a given station.


But that doesn't really address the issue of fluffing over the numbers as shown above.


Online 92merc

  • BismarckWeather.net
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • BismarckWeather.net
    • BismarckWeather.net
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2024, 02:40:24 PM »
Reminds me of a YT video I saw awhile back.  It was a European weather clip.

Recent clip shows temps across Europe.  Temps were in the 20's C.  But the whole map was being shown in yellow and reds.

Then the video clip showed the same station, same map software, but from 10-ish years ago.  Same 20's C.  But the map was all shades of green.

Yeah, it's just a color.  But it left the impression that current temps were "hot", even though they were the same as years past.
https://www.BismarckWeather.net
Davis VP2, Cumulus, WeatherDisplay, Blitzortung, Saratoga Scripts, NOAA Stream via PI

Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
    • Conditions @ CW2274 West Tucson-Painted Hills Ranch
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2024, 05:03:34 PM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.
Doesn't fit their agenda, which is nothing more than to pad their wallets. Period. They'll sucker in as many as will gobble the Kool-Aid. Needless to say.. there's a lot.

BTW...any climate activist reading this want to block traffic, after 10-15 of you been righteously run over, it'll stop. Just a matter of time. Patience of the sane is razor thin. 

Offline ValentineWeather

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6379
    • Valentine Nebraska's Real-Time Weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2024, 05:17:39 PM »
Be careful, don't want to get the Germans riled up again.  :roll:
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Randy

Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
    • Conditions @ CW2274 West Tucson-Painted Hills Ranch
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2024, 05:24:18 PM »
Naaaa, these people are completely void of mental illness.

Offline N0NB

  • Amateur weather observer
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • N0NB.us
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2024, 08:36:59 AM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.

That is quite a jump.  One could a image a sliding window that would move in five year increments that would slowly adjust the definition of "normal".  For this locale, removing the data from the '60s through the early '80s so abruptly will definitely give the appearance of rapidly increasing "normal" temperatures as we had some famously cold winters in the '70s and early '80s and conversely some very warm winters since.  But then the lack of common sense of people in large groups has been previously well noted.

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2024, 10:21:43 PM »
The problem with NOAA moving the 30-year normal period every 10 years is that the changes from decade to decade get lost. They are not insignificant.


The last 30-year period with relatively stable temperature was 1951-1980. The anthropogenic warming signal has been pronounced since.


Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3649
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2024, 10:35:49 PM »
Look at 1938 -1954 and then 1966,


But those aren't part of 'normal' any more.


 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

And of course nobody had AC back then.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2024, 10:44:33 PM by WeatherHost »

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2024, 12:25:17 PM »
Do you have a link to the data table? Thanks!


I analyzed the record high temperature table from Paducah and counted how many there were per decade. Interesting.

decade      total
1937-1939   28
1940-1949   47
1950-1959   47
1960-1969   22
1970-1979   18
1980-1989   53
1990-1999   29
2000-2009   31
2010-2019   69
2020-2023   22
« Last Edit: January 11, 2024, 12:29:34 PM by hofpwx »

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2024, 02:49:25 PM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.


Do you mean that we can't undo what we've done so far?


Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
    • Conditions @ CW2274 West Tucson-Painted Hills Ranch
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2024, 03:31:47 PM »
The anthropogenic warming signal has been pronounced since.
Proof? Don't bother, you have none other than the trash that you've been fed and foolishly believe.

Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
    • Conditions @ CW2274 West Tucson-Painted Hills Ranch
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2024, 03:32:11 PM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.


Do you mean that we can't undo what we've done so far?
Undo what?

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2024, 03:39:27 PM »
The anthropogenic warming signal has been pronounced since.
Proof? Don't bother, you have none other than the trash that you've been fed and foolishly believe.


Ocean heat content, for one measure. The increase in CO2 over the last 200 or so years, from our burning of hydrocarbons. The known radiative properties of CO2. Put them all together and we're changing the energy balance of the atmosphere, which is a big part of what determines the climate system.


You can call the science "trash" if you like but that's not an informed opinion.

Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
    • Conditions @ CW2274 West Tucson-Painted Hills Ranch
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2024, 03:42:20 PM »
I'm not calling LEGITIMATE science trash. I'm calling YOUR science trash.

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2024, 03:47:58 PM »
I'm not calling LEGITIMATE science trash. I'm calling YOUR science trash.


Please explain. What did I write that was "trash"?

Offline gwwilk

  • Southeast Lincoln Weather
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
    • SouthEast Lincoln, NE Weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2024, 05:43:42 PM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.


Do you mean that we can't undo what we've done so far?
I mean that your premises are flawed, sir, as is your so-called science. Greenhouse gases are actually good for the flora if you stop and think about it. You have no rock solid scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, i.e. experimental evidence in a controlled environment, nor can you ever hope to control the variables involved. Your 'science' is based on biased premises and therefore reaches biased conclusions. I don't have the answers to the questions about our climate's history and future, and neither do you. Please stop pretending that you know more about it than anyone else because you're an 'expert' who has drunk the Kool Aid.
Here's an example from medicine of how science actually works. For millenia peptic ulcer disease in man was thought to be due to overt or covert psychological issues and so were treated, ineffectively I might add, with antacids and antianxiety medications. Then some enterprising investigators found a hitherto unknown bacterium they called helicobacter pylori in these ulcerations. They wondered, could it be??? So they undertook a clinical investigation where under double-blind controlled conditions (neither the investigator nor the subject knew who got what) they treated these ulcers with an antibiotic regimen designed to eliminate the bacterium.  Those who received the antibiotics were almost uniformly relieved of their ulcers, but being scientists they recognized that this could be merely odds-long coincidence, so they needed proof that their regimen actually cured peptic ulcer disease. It was only after following those patients who no longer had the bacterium, helicobacter pylori, and demonstrating that their ulcers did indeed not recur was the evidence garnered that demonstrated scientifically that this bacterium was indeed the culprit behind peptic ulcer disease. That's how science works. Anything less than that isn't science but guesswork backed by groupthink, e.g. PUD (peptic ulcer disease) is caused by stress. E.G putative global warming is anthropogenic and can therefore be stopped by stopping whatever we think man is doing to cause it. That is a premise and a conclusion all neatly wrapped up without any definitive proof.
Regards, Jerry Wilkins
gwwilk@gmail.com

Offline hofpwx

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • HyView Boulder weather
Re: Time to gripe again.
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2024, 10:56:28 PM »
Then there is the issue of what "normal" is.  An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.

In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.
Do you mean that we can't undo what we've done so far?
I mean that your premises are flawed, sir, as is your so-called science. Greenhouse gases are actually good for the flora if you stop and think about it. You have no rock solid scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, i.e. experimental evidence in a controlled environment, nor can you ever hope to control the variables involved. Your 'science' is based on biased premises and therefore reaches biased conclusions. I don't have the answers to the questions about our climate's history and future, and neither do you. Please stop pretending that you know more about it than anyone else because you're an 'expert' who has drunk the Kool Aid.

I believe you'll need to do better than indignant harrumphing.

Certainly CO2 is good - to a point. Analogously with water. There is such a thing as too much water - it's called drowning.

Also analogously with CO2 - drinking two gallons over the course of a few days is no problem. Drink that amount over a couple hours, and death is quite possible. Increasing CO2 by ~50% over many millennia isn't a problem. In under 200 years? Makes adaptation by the flora (and fauna) quite difficult. We as a species have never experienced the current level of CO2 in our 300,000 year existence. The atmosphere hasn't in many millions of years. That's not insignificant.

Quote
Here's an example from medicine of how science actually works. [...] E.G putative global warming is anthropogenic and can therefore be stopped by stopping whatever we think man is doing to cause it. That is a premise and a conclusion all neatly wrapped up without any definitive proof.
I know the ulcer story. I'm waiting for contrarians to find the bacteria that's actually causing the climate to change. They spend a lot of time indignantly harrumphing, but that's about it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2024, 11:06:16 PM by hofpwx »

 

anything