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.
May not be normal, but the real question is if it is unprecedented.
This is the real question to ask.
Another interesting note is that the station I looked at which is right in the middle of the city, appears to be on top of a building which is a big "no no" as it will show an obvious warming bias which could be 5 degrees or higher than if it were properly sited.
Certainly not saying it hasn't been abnormal there (from at least back 3 years, the temps are roughly 20-40 degrees higher), but you really have to go looking in detail to see what the cause is and if it is unprecedented. What would be really nice is to have the station records going back to the early 1900's. That would give you an idea of record highs and lows and you could even look to see if there has been an increased warming bias due to Urban influence.
May not be normal, but the real question is if it is unprecedented.
This is the real question to ask.
Another interesting note is that the station I looked at which is right in the middle of the city, appears to be on top of a building which is a big "no no" as it will show an obvious warming bias which could be 5 degrees or higher than if it were properly sited.
Certainly not saying it hasn't been abnormal there (from at least back 3 years, the temps are roughly 20-40 degrees higher), but you really have to go looking in detail to see what the cause is and if it is unprecedented. What would be really nice is to have the station records going back to the early 1900's. That would give you an idea of record highs and lows and you could even look to see if there has been an increased warming bias due to Urban influence.
Well as you know the weather vary's greatley in and around the Metropolitan area.
Weather Stations in Chicago
are
Ohare
Midway
Lakefront
Romeoville
March 21st Chicago-O’Hare
· This was the 8th consecutive day the record high for the date was at least tied.
· It was the 7th 80 degree day this March, extending the record for number of 80 degree days in March.
· The 87 degrees observed was tied for the second warmest March temperature on record in Chicago, tied 87 degrees on March 31, 1981 and surpassed by 88 degrees on March 29, 1986.
note ;this was taken directly from the link NOAA.
Believe me it was not 80 records were tied and broken all week.
March 21st Chicago-O’Hare
· This was the 8th consecutive day the record high for the date was at least tied.
· It was the 7th 80 degree day this March, extending the record for number of 80 degree days in March.
· The 87 degrees observed was tied for the second warmest March temperature on record in Chicago, tied 87 degrees on March 31, 1981 and surpassed by 88 degrees on March 29, 1986.
note ;this was taken directly from the link NOAA.
Believe me it was not 80 records were tied and broken all week.
The Kord station is right at the airport and Mat224 which is east of the airport seems to be in a somewhat acceptable location, but you would really have to evaluate it to be sure (something btw that the NOAA does not do, that is, they do not do onsite inspections of the stations).
Though looking at the 21st between both, they do tend to follow a similar pattern, but there is some interesting fluctuation and turns between them. Not saying it is anything, but sites are an issue of contention in the debate.
Regardless, the real point I got at when I responded to you was if it was unprecedented. You answered that question with:
Quote:
· The 87 degrees observed was tied for the second warmest March temperature on record in Chicago, tied 87 degrees on March 31, 1981 and surpassed by 88 degrees on March 29, 1986.
So no, not unprecedented. Abnormal sure... but it isn't like this hasn't happened before in the past and as you can tell it didn't surpass the record.
So really, not much of a support for any conclusion, especially the one to which you appeared to be implying.
This brings up a lot of questions though concerning temps and locale. Because stations appear to be very wide in their records (as we saw with the downtown one versus the one you listed), one would need to be very careful in their selection and use of the stations. I mean, you could "accidentally" end up selecting station locations that are showing warmer... it would be... unfortunate to do such, don't you think?
So says right wing radio and a few paid "scientists" who are shills for the fossil fuel industry,
Peer-reviewed studies by real climate scientists disagree with you.
It's pure intellectual dishonesty on your part, politicalizing science like this. Why don't we listen to the experts who publish peer-reviewed studies?
and the global warming scientists? who are they being paid by?
wanna bet it is taxpayer money?
yeah right, scientists being paid by the goverment who thinks that taxing the people more to keep its own bereaucracy in power instead of the people being in charge.
give the taxpayers a break, because without them, there wont ever be any scientists getting any federal grants.
and the global warming scientists? who are they being paid by?
wanna bet it is taxpayer money?
yeah right, scientists being paid by the goverment who thinks that taxing the people more to keep its own bereaucracy in power instead of the people being in charge.
give the taxpayers a break, because without them, there wont ever be any scientists getting any federal grants.
You are right NASA, National Geographic and the millions of people with first hand observations have a lot to gain by promoting global warming.
You are right NASA, National Geographic and the millions of people with first hand observations have a lot to gain by promoting global warming.
nasa, paid for by taxpayer money, without taxpayers, nasa would not even exist. millions of people? care to name the 1st million?
would you like to bet that same million that if an ice age happens instead of global warming, you will have billions of people screaming for more global warming.
nasa, paid for by taxpayer money, without taxpayers, nasa would not even exist. millions of people? care to name the 1st million?
would you like to bet that same million that if an ice age happens instead of global warming, you will have billions of people screaming for more global warming.
NASA does a few more things than just global warming, never heard anyone complain before, would you rather independent companies do the research.You have not answered the question, what does NASA have to gain and where would you go for information, the internet? What does an organization like National Geographic that has been documenting the environment for a hundred years have to gain?
Yes a majority of scientists agree 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.
