It's HOT! It's COLD! It's WINDY! It's DRY! It's WET! It's OUR Weather! (Dallas: stations, maps)

[Made_it_To_the_Metroplex]

Originally Posted by synchronicity

Can we PLEASE leave the politics out of it? What I AM saying is that (as appears to be the case) Northern Texas has been generally trending warmer (which could be from any of a zillion reasons, be they from human activity or "natural" fluctuations, or sun gnomes turning the "heat" knob in the middle of the sun up to 11), then any fluctuations above/below the "normal" line will also drift higher as well.

I agree here - there have been climatic oscillations time & again over the millennia, most of which involved very little input by a fledgling human race in the past. No reason to think that will ever change.

[kenshi]

Adding to what synchronicity said, it's quite possible that this heat wave could last more than a year. We're already well into winter and it hasn't ended yet. In the 1930s, there was a drought that lasted several years and resulted in the Dust Bowl. It's not that each year just happened to be unusually dry as if you'd rolled a die and it landed on six every time. Conditions simply stayed that way for that long. That may happen here whether it's permanent or just something that lasts some number of years like the 1930s drought.

To explain the math, if you randomly pick two days out of the year, what are the chances of both of those days being in February? About 0.6%. What if you pick one day randomly and also take the day just after it? It would be closer to 8%. Big difference.

[highcotton]

Originally Posted by kenshi

Adding to what synchronicity said, it's quite possible that this heat wave could last more than a year. We're already well into winter and it hasn't ended yet. In the 1930s, there was a drought that lasted several years and resulted in the Dust Bowl. It's not that each year just happened to be unusually dry as if you'd rolled a die and it landed on six every time. Conditions simply stayed that way for that long. That may happen here whether it's permanent or just something that lasts some number of years like the 1930s drought.

To explain the math, if you randomly pick two days out of the year, what are the chances of both of those days being in February? About 0.6%. What if you pick one day randomly and also take the day just after it? It would be closer to 8%. Big difference.

The math is:

February is one of the 12 months.
The probability of one random month being the month of February is 1/12.
The probability of the second random month [also] being the month of February [again] is 1/12 x 1/12.
Thus: (1/12) x (1/12) = 0.0833 x 0.0833 = 0.00694444 = ~7/10ths of 1% or Odds of 1:144 Therefore, since the 'event' happens only once every year, then the 1:144 odds of this particular event taking place 'successfully' (or beating the odds against it happening) would likely happen only once every 144 years.

The probablility of picking [any] day (out of the entire year) as a randon pick is 365/365 or 1 or 100%.
The probability of picking one specific day (the day after) is 1/365.
Thus: (365/365) x (1/365) = 1 x 0.0027397 = 0.0027397 = ~ 3/10ths of 1% or Odds of 1:365 Therefore, since the 'event' happens only once every year, then the 1:365 odds of this particular event taking place 'successfully' (or beating the odds against it happening) would likely happen only once every 365 years.
Note: If you chose one randon day from only one or single month, or from say one of three specific months, (instead of just picking one day randomly from the entire year)...and attempting to pick specifically the 'day after' your first pick, then the probablility of it happening goes down drastically, or in other words the odds against it happening increase drastically.


But I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you're even talking about it. It's meaningless randon mush...

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by highcotton

The math is:

February is one of the 12 months.
The probability of one random month being the month of February is 1/12.
The probability of the second random month [also] being the month of February [again] is 1/12 x 1/12.
Thus: (1/12) x (1/12) = 0.0833 x 0.0833 = 0.00694444 = ~7/10ths of 1% or Odds of 1:144 Therefore, since the 'event' happens only once every year, then the 1:144 odds of this particular event taking place 'successfully' (or beating the odds against it happening) would likely happen only once every 144 years.

The probablility of picking [any] day (out of the entire year) as a randon pick is 365/365 or 1 or 100%.
The probability of picking one specific day (the day after) is 1/365.
Thus: (365/365) x (1/365) = 1 x 0.0027397 = 0.0027397 = ~ 3/10ths of 1% or Odds of 1:365 Therefore, since the 'event' happens only once every year, then the 1:365 odds of this particular event taking place 'successfully' (or beating the odds against it happening) would likely happen only once every 365 years.
Note: If you chose one randon day from only one or single month, or from say one of three specific months, (instead of just picking one day randomly from the entire year)...and attempting to pick specifically the 'day after' your first pick, then the probablility of it happening goes down drastically, or in other words the odds against it happening increase drastically.


But I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you're even talking about it. It's meaningless randon mush...

You're confused about what I meant by the second part. If you pick a random day out of the year, what are the odds that it and the next day are both in February? It's much better than if you just picked two random days out of the year. That's what we're getting at. The odds of next summer being unusually hot are more likely than usual since last summer was hot and it's quite possible we're experiencing a heat wave that'll last more than a year.

And by the way, on the first part you assume all months are equal. There are on average 28.24 days in February and 365.24 days in the year. You divide that and square it and you get roughly 0.598% like I initially said.

[TX75007]

The 1950s were far worse in TX than any other time. 1917 was pretty bad, too. The 1930s were dry, but it was worse N of Texas. 1998 and 2006 were very bad years.

Before that, there was a time in the 1700s that completely depopulated the state and much of OK and AR - that was so bad the Indians still talked about it up until the late 1800s. And the Spaniards reported that much of S Texas had no one.

There are plants in North Texas that can get by on ten inches of rain or less. They would not be here or in parts of East Texas if there had not been far drier times where they could successfully become established.

Tree ring records from the Southwest show the 1100s-1200s as being far drier and hotter than now. Worldwide it was far warmer, ie many winters in the UK when they had little or no frost. And the Sandhills of Neb were sand dunes and not grass.

And before that was the Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and then the Holocene Climate Optimum were far warmer than now.

File:Greenland Gisp2 Temperature.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[synchronicity]

Originally Posted by TX75007

The 1950s were far worse in TX than any other time. 1917 was pretty bad, too. The 1930s were dry, but it was worse N of Texas. 1998 and 2006 were very bad years.

Before that, there was a time in the 1700s that completely depopulated the state and much of OK and AR - that was so bad the Indians still talked about it up until the late 1800s. And the Spaniards reported that much of S Texas had no one.

There are plants in North Texas that can get by on ten inches of rain or less. They would not be here or in parts of East Texas if there had not been far drier times where they could successfully become established.

Tree ring records from the Southwest show the 1100s-1200s as being far drier and hotter than now. Worldwide it was far warmer, ie many winters in the UK when they had little or no frost. And the Sandhills of Neb were sand dunes and not grass.

And before that was the Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and then the Holocene Climate Optimum were far warmer than now.

File:Greenland Gisp2 Temperature.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which agrees with my assertion that saying that "the chances of repeating last year are incredibly minimal" (or words to that effect) overlooks the fact that there are periods of time where "normal" can change and that the "weather" from one year may, in fact, bear a relation to the "weather" of the following year (again, regardless of the reason. I am well aware that any discussion of changes in average climate conditions is a big political issue these days).

IOW, if you roll a six on a one die, it may be because you just happened to roll a six...or it may be because you're now using a die that has two 6's on it and no 1's.

(And again, repeating, the possible REASONS for that are NOT what I'm discussing here. I get enough political commentary on umpteen billion other places on the internet. If you press me on it, I'm sticking with "Sun Gnomes" who are saying "this goes up to Eleven!")

[highcotton]

Illogical, irrational, unreasonable and fallacious...

[highcotton]

Love these days with the highs in the 60s and 70s right in the middle of winter!

[highcotton]

Dallas Area 1st In Texas To Emerge From Drought

Dallas-Fort Worth region and a swath of North Texas stretching to the state's border with Oklahoma and Arkansas are officially out of drought for the first time since July. As a result, about 6.4 million people in the nation's fourth most-populous urban area will enjoy fuller lakes and greener trees.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Good. I can finally get around to taking that shower.