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.
Read the thread, they're using stats (although manipulating might be a fairer term).
You know, it's like when there is a 1 in 1,000 year storm in some US city....it's not like we have 10,000 years of storm data but the stat models say that.
Does all this flooding info still come out of the Corps of Engineers? Time was, the graduating civil engineers who could not get a job anywhere went to work for the Corp.
Harris County has been waiting for the data years past the due date. It's not like the can't just look at the water shed perimeter to determine what floods. The developers just keep pouring more concrete so they can't keep up with the ever changing flood plain.
People think the 100 year, 500 year is frequency. It means chance. The 100 year flood means 1 chance in a 100 you will be flooded annually.
Read the thread, they're using stats (although manipulating might be a fairer term).
You know, it's like when there is a 1 in 1,000 year storm in some US city....it's not like we have 10,000 years of storm data but the stat models say that.
I read the thread but disagree with the points/conclusion.
I know they are manipulating the stats but it is not like they can make it an even rarer condition by simple multiplication or guessing at the SD to get to the data point is not based on the actual data. The history shows that it was not close to a 1 in 400 Billion chance since it did occur (the occurrence that is being used is also debatable). Basically a misuse of the statistics.
If two data points have a 1 in 100 chance every year but have some commonality, having them both happen in one year is not a 1 in 10,000 (100 x 100) chance. If using just a few years to determine the SD, it can be made to say anything because it is at best a SWAG and ignores other contributions. Using 100+ years to guess at a billions of years of data normalization is just silly.
So was it proof of global warming, just "one of those things", or something else?
(I will say that although September where I live was pretty much average overall for the entire month, the first three days of October had high's in the low 80's!!!)
There was nothing unusual where I live, either, nor in the SF Bay Area, where it's normal to have a heat wave in Sept. Even so, San Francisco stayed cool most of the time. Northern New Mexico was cooler than usual most of the month. No heat wave. I guess we were lucky. I'm certainly grateful it stayed cool.
...and what's the strongest....most powerful greenhouse gas of all.....by far?
water vapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22
”The eruption began in December 2021 but peaked in January 2022 when the volcano dumped thousands of tons of material into the surrounding air. The volcano is located about 65 miles north of Tongatapu, Tonga’s main island, submerged about 150 meters beneath the ocean surface. When it erupted, it released the normal volcanic mix, but it also carried an incredible amount of water (in the form of vapor) with it. The resulting cloud produced the most impressive lightning storm in recorded history.....
and it raised the probability of global surface temperature rise over the next decade.”
I read the thread but disagree with the points/conclusion.
I know they are manipulating the stats but it is not like they can make it an even rarer condition by simple multiplication or guessing at the SD to get to the data point is not based on the actual data. The history shows that it was not close to a 1 in 400 Billion chance since it did occur (the occurrence that is being used is also debatable). Basically a misuse of the statistics.
If two data points have a 1 in 100 chance every year but have some commonality, having them both happen in one year is not a 1 in 10,000 (100 x 100) chance. If using just a few years to determine the SD, it can be made to say anything because it is at best a SWAG and ignores other contributions. Using 100+ years to guess at a billions of years of data normalization is just silly.
Yes, I've made some similar points in my previous posts to this thread.
Frankly they mislabeled it and it shouldn't even have been labeled as it was but there is so much wrong, I wasn't going to invest too much.
I’ll follow the science on this topic and accept that Mother Earth is on a slow and inevitable path to much warmer temperatures. There’s so much alternative media on this topic that a lot of people just brush it off as fake news. We may well be on a path according to some climate scientists where no further action of any sort can halt the progression. The actual impact on our little blue dot in the cosmos is speculative and hotly debated.
Even if true, its quite possible global warming is an entirely natural phenomena. Scientists are arrogant enough to think they have a great understanding of the Sun and climate cycles that extend millions of years, long beyond human's existence on this planet.
Even if true, its quite possible global warming is an entirely natural phenomena. Scientists are arrogant enough to think they have a great understanding of the Sun and climate cycles that extend millions of years, long beyond human's existence on this planet.
The planet has warmed and cooled many times bra over many millions of years. Never stays the same.
It's starting to get cooler in Florida. I was looking at temperatures on the East Coast as I'm thinking about driving to New Jersey and it looks like it's getting cold. I don't see any global warming . Florida is always hot. Summer baby.
Same funding over the last century, the government, but suddenly their research is tainted because you don't want to believe the increased warming. Plenty of great research universities and others throughout the world.
Did you have an issue when the fossil fuel industry came up with their own science to their benefit.
Sorry Charley, if September 2023 was the hottest on record, we should see some records broken here and there around the country (consistency and all), but that isn't the case.
Highest temperatures for various locations should show years 20xx overrepresented with new record highs becoming more and more prevalent as time progresses, but that isn't the case.
Record temperatures from the 1930s still dominate an otherwise random collection of all-time highs.
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.
