Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until then, trying to build a case past "it has been warm and some records have been broken in some regions", is simply trying to promote an agenda.
Dishonest, nomander. The agenda would be on the part of those who have publicly maintained that there aren't any records being broken. Rush Limbaugh and company, to wit, are the ones with an agenda, and their lies are the proof of that agenda.
Actually, it seems to me the OP was attempting to "prove" that this heat wave isn't really a heat wave, which any sane person with access to a regular TV with over-the-air service knows is untrue. Whether this is a record-breaking heat wave or not, it's a heat wave nonetheless.
Read it again, that is not what the OP was saying.
The OP was saying that the heat wave was being sensationalized to be a major event of significance, to which it is not when historical records are evaluated. That was the point in the original post starter of this thread.
Read it again, that is not what the OP was saying.
The OP was saying that the heat wave was being sensationalized to be a major event of significance, to which it is not when historical records are evaluated. That was the point in the original post starter of this thread.
The title of the thread: the record-breaking heat wave that wasn't.
The intention of the poster was to reiterate what Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have been asserting, that there aren't any records being set by the current heat wave.
You can try to ride in on your white horse and spin the OP's intention, but the title says it all. And it's false.
Read it again, that is not what the OP was saying.
The OP was saying that the heat wave was being sensationalized to be a major event of significance, to which it is not when historical records are evaluated. That was the point in the original post starter of this thread.
From the OP:
Quote:
Ahh, yes. They are at it again. The media hyperventilating about a heat wave that really wasn't.
I read the links, and I don't think the writers of the articles quite understand statistics. The links I posted from weather websites do support a heat wave.
the 1930's---since some people have insisted they are significant
1930: 4 records broken, 11 records met
1931: 6 records broken, 3 records met
1932: 0 records broken
1933: 69 records broken, 19 records met
1934: 146 records broken, 53 records met
1935: 10 records broken, 9 records met
1936: 174 records broken, 49 records met
1937: 9 records broken, 20 records met
1938: 1 record broken, 3 records met
1939: 56 records broken, 28 records met
the 1940's
1940: 8 records broken, 4 records met
1941: 0 records broken, 1 record met
1942: 0 records broken
1943: 57 records broken, 20 records met
1944: 5 records broken, 4 records met
1945: 1 record broken, 1 record met
1946: 20 records broken, 20 records met
1947: 23 records broken, 16 records met
1948: 0 records broken, 1 record met
1949: 4 records broken, 0 records met
the 1950's
1950: 0 records broken
1951: 11 records broken, 3 records met
1952: 15 records broken, 11 records met
1953: 50 records broken, 17 records met
1954--this is a huge one: 356 records broken, 127 records met
1955: 1 record broken, 5 records met
1956: 29 records broken, 24 records met
1957: 25 records broken, 25 records met
1958: 1 record broken, 1 record met
1959: 0 records broken
the 1960's
1960: 8 records broken, 1 record met
1961: 1 record broken, 0 records met
1962: 4 records broken, 2 records met
1963: 26 records broken, 35 records met
1964: 87 records broken, 68 records met
1965: 0 records broken, 5 records met
1966: 10 records broken, 7 records met
1967: 1 record broken, 3 records met
1968: 1 record broken, 1 record met
1969: 16 records broken, 22 records met
the 1970's
1970: 71 records broken, 37 records met
1971: 33 records broken, 29 records met
1972: 2 records broken, 1 record met
1973: 2 records broken, 1 record met
1974: 76 records broken, 51 records met
1975: 1 record broken, 0 records met
1976: 0 records broken, 1 record met
1977: 27 records broken, 17 records met
1978: 81 records broken, 61 records met
1979: 1 record broken, 142 records met
the 1980's
1980: another big one---252 records broken, 129 records met
1981: 59 records broken, 33 records met
1982: 0 records broken, 1 record met
1983: 6 records broken, 19 records met
1984: 12 records broken, 8 records met
1985: 1 record broken, 1 record met
1986: 166 records broken, 64 records met
1987: 0 records broken, 1 record met
1988: 2 records broken, 1 record met
1989: 5 records broken, 0 records met
the 1990's
1990: 12 records broken, 20 records met
1991: 1 record broken, 3 records met
1992: 3 records broken, 3 records met
1993: 1 record broken, 5 records met
1994: 3 records broken, 7 records met
1995: 8 records broken, 15 records met
1996: 154 records broken, 39 records met
1997: 5 records broken, 8 records met
1998: 110 records broken, 52 records met
1999: 3 records broken, 3 records met
With roughly a week to go, July 2011 ranks 8th in terms of breaking records. It should also be pointed out, these are RECORDS. So everytime a records is set, it gets harder and hotter to break it.
Now you are being even more misleading.
First off, you aren't comparing exact record to record. You are comparing records in numbers. You argue that these records get harder to break, but since you do not show exactly what record is being broken and where, we do not know if the record is a linear trend of specific record, or another records from a different location being counted. So your position of:
"So everytime a records is set, it gets harder and hotter to break it."
Has no validated merit to its claim as it is an improperly applied statistical measurement.
What you have shown for us here is exactly the point I have been making. You show July as the 8th warmest and 8th is not abnormal, nor unprecedented, nor significant. Sorry, but that is the fact of the issue.
Dishonest, nomander. The agenda would be on the part of those who have publicly maintained that there aren't any records being broken. Rush Limbaugh and company, to wit, are the ones with an agenda, and their lies are the proof of that agenda.
Look at your numbers, it is a rank of 8th and if you are going to claim that means anything, then you are pushing a political agenda, not reason, not science, but self interest. It is as simple as that. I could care less about Rush or any other boob political commenter. I care about the facts, about the numbers, not your idealistic political goals.
The title of the thread: the record-breaking heat wave that wasn't.
The intention of the poster was to reiterate what Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have been asserting, that there aren't any records being set by the current heat wave.
You can try to ride in on your white horse and spin the OP's intention, but the title says it all. And it's false.
That is not the way it reads.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
.4% of temperature stations saw a record between the 17th and the 23rd.
This is a comment about the overall heat wave, which is pertinent to the issue I was discussing. It does not object that there were records broken, only that those records were insignificant to the over all station data and issue.
Quote:
Of course, when they add in the stupid "heat index", the hyperventilating gets even worse. This is just another example of the ridiculous sensationalism of the media, with the underlying meme of "global warming" of course.
This is a comment about the "heat index" being used as a means to sensationalize the issue, to which I have personally seen when references to the actual temps concerning the records are confused with the addition of heat index. It is a devious way of implying that it is "hotter" in relation to temperature records than it actually is.
Ahh, yes. They are at it again. The media hyperventilating about a heat wave that really wasn't.
It's summer people. Summer in the Northeast can be brutal....have we forgotten that?
And again, the issue of claims of a "record heat wave" as if to suggest that it is significant historically being promoted by the media when in fact our "heat wave" is not the occurence being claimed.
Through the power of literacy it has been determined you are incorrect and you are applying subjective influence to your reading in order to suggest a meaning that was not apparent.
You call me dishonest? I say your position is down right devious and I showed it to be exactly that.
I read the links, and I don't think the writers of the articles quite understand statistics. The links I posted from weather websites do support a heat wave.
You are quoting a set of words and then inferring your own meaning. Read the entire sentence, it alone is enough to show the fallacy in your claim.
Quote:
Ahh, yes. They are at it again. The media hyperventilating about a heat wave that really wasn't.
The "media" is "hyperventilating about something... what is it they are going on about? Oh... it is the "MASSIVE HEAT WAVE" to which they have been improperly sensationalizing in a manner to which is misleading...
Yet because they sensationalize the occurrence, this "heat wave" isn't what they claimed it was. That is, it a heat wave that really wasn't because they weren't reporting what the situation really was.
And if that wasn't enough, the OP even gives you the context in the following sentence:
Quote:
It's summer people. Summer in the Northeast can be brutal....have we forgotten that?
That means, the OP is saying, YES, its HOT. YES, records have been broken, but it isn't abnormal as we can have some hot summers.
Seriously, I am getting a bit tired here having to teach you people how to read. It is ridiculous and absurd!
First off, you aren't comparing exact record to record. You are comparing records in numbers. You argue that these records get harder to break, but since you do not show exactly what record is being broken and where, we do not know if the record is a linear trend of specific record, or another records from a different location being counted. So your position of:
"So everytime a records is set, it gets harder and hotter to break it."
Has no validated merit to its claim as it is an improperly applied statistical measurement.
What you have shown for us here is exactly the point I have been making. You show July as the 8th warmest and 8th is not abnormal, nor unprecedented, nor significant. Sorry, but that is the fact of the issue.
I find it fascinating that yesterday you objected to my narrow scope, and when I've expanded that scope, you object. You might want to do some self-examination here to determine just how biased you are. You objected to my confining my discussion of the 2011 heatwave to where that 2011 heatwave was located. Then you objected to my only using the 2000's as data, and insisted that the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, and even 80's had to be included to give a broader picture. I've tried to accommodate you, but you just keep raising the bar, don't you?
Record-breaking is not that common an occurrence, because it's a RECORD. Everytime a record is broken, the new record is higher, hotter, more difficult to attain. That is the nature of records.
July isn't over yet. And since when did I say that the weather was unprecedented (the use of the word "unprecedented" in this thread is an attempt to change the goal posts, by the way. The goal posts were set by the OP, in the title, and were that no records, or relatively few records, were being broken). 8th out of 81 (and that will probably change, as there are six more days to be figured in to these totals, and the heat shows no signs of abating) puts this year into the top tenth percentile or---exceptional. And the duration of this heat wave may place it much higher than 8th. Exceptional!
You are quoting a set of words and then inferring your own meaning. Read the entire sentence, it alone is enough to show the fallacy in your claim.
The "media" is "hyperventilating about something... what is it they are going on about? Oh... it is the "MASSIVE HEAT WAVE" to which they have been improperly sensationalizing in a manner to which is misleading...
Yet because they sensationalize the occurrence, this "heat wave" isn't what they claimed it was. That is, it a heat wave that really wasn't because they weren't reporting what the situation really was.
And if that wasn't enough, the OP even gives you the context in the following sentence:
That means, the OP is saying, YES, its HOT. YES, records have been broken, but it isn't abnormal as we can have some hot summers.
Seriously, I am getting a bit tired here having to teach you people how to read. It is ridiculous and absurd!
Read, or interpret??? Because you, my friend, are trying to spin the OP's words. And we can all read. We read the OP's posts. And we are reading yours. In which you are insisting on reading INTO the OP's bald statements in such a way as to SPIN it more positively.
What I don't understand, is why the effort? Why not just be honest? It's a record-breaking heatwave. It may very well be historic in terms of the records it sets. The people affected by the heatwave deserve that the heatwave be described honestly. Limbaugh and the OP, in asserting that this was just normal summertime heat, hardly any records being set, were dishonest and disrespectful of the people affected. It doesn't have to be an endorsement of global warming to accede that this is a record-breaking heat event. It doesn't have to have anything at all to do with global warming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
