Remember me
▼ Content

New Temperature High Recorded in Death Valley


New Temperature High Recorded in Death Valley17-08-2020 23:48
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
The highest air temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth - 130F (54.4C) - may have been reached in Death Valley National Park, California, yesterday (BBC report)

The previous record (129.4F) was also recorded in Death Valley. Earlier claims of higher temperatures there and in Tunisia are considered dubious.

Where is this ice age that we were promised 10 years ago? It seems the anti AGW crowd have a much worse prediction track record than the climate models. Since those chilling predictions were made we have had the 8 hottest years on record.

You know the chance against that happening randomly over a 170-year stretch? About 1 in 20 trillion.
18-08-2020 01:31
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
DRKTS wrote:
Where is this ice age that we were promised 10 years ago? It seems the anti AGW crowd have a much worse prediction track record than the climate models.


The same bunch of clowns that were predicting the ice age are now predicting global warming. It's very difficult to control the populace without a good crisis. Manufacture one if needed, ie covid.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 18-08-2020 01:33
18-08-2020 03:30
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
Last ice age hype I remember, was the ozone hole thing back in the mid 1970s. Oddly, there is still an ozone hole, roughly the same size, but now it's a scorched earth apocalypse scare. Before that, it was cold war nuclear winter.

Haven't heard much warming hype, since covid, and the rioting and looting. Are Climate activists scared, hiding in their basements? Is climate crap, less scary, than a pandemic, or race war?
18-08-2020 13:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
WEATHER
Ice storm slated to hit Southwestern Ontario this weekend

By Kevin Nielsen Global News
Posted January 8, 2020 5:15 pm
Potentially heavy rains on Saturday could turn icy.
Potentially heavy rains on Saturday could turn icy. Global News
Leave A Comment
Share This Item On Facebook
Share This Item On Twitter
Send This Page To Someone Via Email
Share This Item
Descrease article font size
-
A
Increase article font size
A
+
Planning a road trip around southern Ontario this weekend? Beware of potentially nasty weather across the region.


"A complicated weather setup is unfolding for the weekend," Global News chief meteorologist Anthony Farnell said. "Very mild air will stream north from the southern United States on Friday and Saturday but this will also come with lots of moisture."

He says the rainfall is expected to get heavier on Saturday, which is when things could turn nasty.

READ MORE: 'Take care of your vehicle': CAA gives tips for driving in cold weather

"Cold air will begin seeping in from a large area of high pressure to the north," Farnell explained. "This will set the stage for a potential ice storm and power outages."

He said that there is also the potential for flooding in some areas where heavy rainfall is unable to seep into frozen ground.


duncan61
18-08-2020 13:48
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Tell These people its getting warmer
18-08-2020 14:06
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
GasGuzzler wrote:

The same bunch of clowns that were predicting the ice age are now predicting global warming. It's very difficult to control the populace without a good crisis. Manufacture one if needed, ie covid.


What bunch of clowns is that?

If you are referring to the 1970's then two things:

One: The words "ice age" appeared in none of the 9 scientific papers that talked of global cooling. They were talking about the effects of increasing aerosols in the atmosphere - supporting the clean air acts that were being passed. Several of them went on to say that the increasing in GHGs may eventually overwhelm this cooling trend (which it did). For everyone of those there were 7 papers talking about global warming. The clowns back then were sensation seeking journalists who put silly articles in Time and Newsweek.

Two: that was 50 years ago - anyone involved in that is now likely pushing up daisies. So cant be the same clowns.

We now have a new bunch of clowns - who are claiming that the ice age would start in 2010, no scratch that 2012, no I did not say that I really meant to say 2014, oops we mean 2020, or perhaps 2030. Clowns like Heller, Zharkova, Davidson, Corbyn, Coleman (RIP), Easterbrook, Soon, Inhofe, Ball, Monckton, and Limbaugh, who between them don't have a single qualification in meteorology or climatology.
18-08-2020 17:53
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
DRKTS wrote:
The highest air temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth - 130F (54.4C) - may have been reached in Death Valley National Park, California, yesterday (BBC report)

The previous record (129.4F) was also recorded in Death Valley. Earlier claims of higher temperatures there and in Tunisia are considered dubious.

Where is this ice age that we were promised 10 years ago? It seems the anti AGW crowd have a much worse prediction track record than the climate models. Since those chilling predictions were made we have had the 8 hottest years on record.

You know the chance against that happening randomly over a 170-year stretch? About 1 in 20 trillion.

A record high temperature at one specific location at one specific time does not mean that the Earth as a whole is warming.

It is still not possible to measure global temperature within any usable margin of error... we still don't have enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis...
18-08-2020 18:59
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)

A record high temperature at one specific location at one specific time does not mean that the Earth as a whole is warming.


True but when many more high-temp records are being set than low, what else an you conclude?

It is still not possible to measure global temperature within any usable margin of error... we still don't have enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis...


This old chestnut!

How many thermometers do we need to measure a global average temperature?

A few years ago the WMO removed a lot of monitoring sites from its global analysis because it said there were too many and they were just adding to the noise of data. There was no discontinuity in the resulting time series so it seemed to have worked. Seems at odds with what your are saying.

The analyses in the scientific literature give the margin of error and it is quite small.
18-08-2020 19:06
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
176 record breaking highs, out of how many locations being monitored and recorded? 10,000, 20,000 maybe?
18-08-2020 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:

The same bunch of clowns that were predicting the ice age are now predicting global warming. It's very difficult to control the populace without a good crisis. Manufacture one if needed, ie covid.


What bunch of clowns is that?

If you are referring to the 1970's then two things:

One: The words "ice age" appeared in none of the 9 scientific papers that talked of global cooling.

Science isn't a paper. There were a lot more than 9 papers written on 'global cooling' and the 'coming ice age'. Define 'global cooling'.
DRKTS wrote:
They were talking about the effects of increasing aerosols in the atmosphere - supporting the clean air acts that were being passed.

Particulates, actually. Yes, these papers were politically motivated to pass clean air laws, none of which actually cleaned the air.
DRKTS wrote:
Several of them went on to say that the increasing in GHGs may eventually overwhelm this cooling trend (which it did).

Define 'global warming'. Not gas or vapor can warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
DRKTS wrote:
For everyone of those there were 7 papers talking about global warming.

Define 'global warming'.
DRKTS wrote:
The clowns back then were sensation seeking journalists who put silly articles in Time and Newsweek.

How about the silly articles in Time and Newsweek now?
DRKTS wrote:
Two: that was 50 years ago - anyone involved in that is now likely pushing up daisies. So cant be the same clowns.

The clowns change, but the idiocy remains the same.
DRKTS wrote:
We now have a new bunch of clowns - who are claiming that the ice age would start in 2010, no scratch that 2012, no I did not say that I really meant to say 2014, oops we mean 2020, or perhaps 2030. Clowns like Heller, Zharkova, Davidson, Corbyn, Coleman (RIP), Easterbrook, Soon, Inhofe, Ball, Monckton, and Limbaugh, who between them don't have a single qualification in meteorology or climatology.

There is no such thing in science as 'climatology'. You do not need qualifications in science. Science is not a degree, credential, license, or any other government 'blessing'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Weather is not climate.

Farmers understand meteorology. So do pilots and captains, weather forecasters, and physicists.

No argument presented. Use of science as Holy. Denial of science. Use of credentials as science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2020 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
The highest air temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth - 130F (54.4C) - may have been reached in Death Valley National Park, California, yesterday (BBC report)

Yup. It was a hot one in Death Valley yesterday.
DRKTS wrote:
The previous record (129.4F) was also recorded in Death Valley. Earlier claims of higher temperatures there and in Tunisia are considered dubious.

Death valley holds the record.
DRKTS wrote:
Where is this ice age that we were promised 10 years ago?

Obviously not.
DRKTS wrote:
It seems the anti AGW crowd have a much worse prediction track record than the climate models.

False dichotomy. Random numbers generated by computers don't predict anything.
DRKTS wrote:
Since those chilling predictions were made we have had the 8 hottest years on record.

There is no global temperature data. It is not possible measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
You know the chance against that happening randomly over a 170-year stretch? About 1 in 20 trillion.

Random numbers. I suggest you stay away from probability math too. You don't understand either probability math, statistical math, or random number math.


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Compositional error fallacy. Pivoting. False dichotomy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Last ice age hype I remember, was the ozone hole thing back in the mid 1970s. Oddly, there is still an ozone hole, roughly the same size, but now it's a scorched earth apocalypse scare. Before that, it was cold war nuclear winter.

Haven't heard much warming hype, since covid, and the rioting and looting. Are Climate activists scared, hiding in their basements? Is climate crap, less scary, than a pandemic, or race war?


The Ozone Hole scare was created by the DuPont corporation, in an effort to maintain their monopoly on refrigerants. As soon as laws were passed outlawing the use of R12 (which DuPont was losing the patents on, since they were expiring) in favor of R134a (which IS under patent), the 'ozone hole' crisis faded away.

The ozone holes are still there. There appear at each pole during that pole's winter. It is caused by lack of sunlight.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2020 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:

A record high temperature at one specific location at one specific time does not mean that the Earth as a whole is warming.


True but when many more high-temp records are being set than low, what else an you conclude?

Making up numbers. Argument from randU fallacy again. Math error. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to publish data. Failure to select data by randN. Failure to collect data without biasing influence. Invalid statistical summary. Attempted use of summary as prediction.
DRKTS wrote:
It is still not possible to measure global temperature within any usable margin of error... we still don't have enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis...


This old chestnut!

One you can't crack. You deny statistical mathematics, as well as probability mathematics and random number mathematics.
DRKTS wrote:
How many thermometers do we need to measure a global average temperature?

What margin of error do you desire? Use the variance of 20 deg F per mile. I have already justified this variance for you.
DRKTS wrote:
A few years ago the WMO removed a lot of monitoring sites from its global analysis because it said there were too many and they were just adding to the noise of data.

Data isn't noise. The WMO can't measure the temperature of the Earth either.
DRKTS wrote:
There was no discontinuity in the resulting time series so it seemed to have worked. Seems at odds with what your are saying.

Math error. Buzzword fallacy. Use of matrix as scalar. Attempted justification of the use of random numbers as data.
DRKTS wrote:
The analyses in the scientific literature

Math is not science. Science is not math. There is no such thing as 'scientific literature'. Science isn't a magazine, book, or paper.
DRKTS wrote:
give the margin of error

Science isn't math. Math isn't science. Making up a margin of error out of nothing is in and of itself a random number.
DRKTS wrote:
and it is quite small.

Irrelevant. The size of random numbers is irrelevant.

No argument presented. Denial of math. Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2020 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
HarveyH55 wrote:
176 record breaking highs, out of how many locations being monitored and recorded? 10,000, 20,000 maybe?


He's making shit up out of thick air.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-08-2020 00:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
DRKTS wrote:

A record high temperature at one specific location at one specific time does not mean that the Earth as a whole is warming.


True but when many more high-temp records are being set than low, what else an you conclude?

That record high-temps have occurred in but a very few of MANY specific locations on Earth, all at different times... Location matters; time matters; number of thermometers matters;

DRKTS wrote:
It is still not possible to measure global temperature within any usable margin of error... we still don't have enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis...


This old chestnut!

How many thermometers do we need to measure a global average temperature?

Have you determined a target margin of error?

DRKTS wrote:
A few years ago the WMO removed a lot of monitoring sites from its global analysis because it said there were too many

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DRKTS wrote:
and they were just adding to the noise of data.

Data doesn't make any noise.

DRKTS wrote:
There was no discontinuity in the resulting time series so it seemed to have worked. Seems at odds with what your are saying.

What are you even trying to say?

DRKTS wrote:
The analyses in the scientific literature give the margin of error and it is quite small.

Did they first determine a target margin of error?
Did they remove biasing factors before collecting data?
Is raw data available?
Was data selected by randN?
Was data normalized by paired randR?
Was a variance declared and justified?
Was a margin of error calculated from said variance?
Edited on 19-08-2020 00:15
19-08-2020 00:05
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
HarveyH55 wrote:
176 record breaking highs, out of how many locations being monitored and recorded? 10,000, 20,000 maybe?

Then there's also the fact that there are many other locations that are NOT being monitored nor recorded...
19-08-2020 00:37
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
gfm7175 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
176 record breaking highs, out of how many locations being monitored and recorded? 10,000, 20,000 maybe?

Then there's also the fact that there are many other locations that are NOT being monitored nor recorded...


Figured even 20,000 was low, just for this country. There is likely a recorded temperature in every city on earth.

Just throwing out 176 record highs, doesn't really mean a whole lot, considering there are a lot of records. Doesn't really mean much if that's pretty much the normal number of records broken, on any given day, since official records were kept. Record started 1898, so there are only 122 years of daily records to break, most haven't been around even half of that. Quirt likely, a lot of locations add, when Al Gore declared that the 'science, was settled'...
19-08-2020 01:02
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
You have posted the names of 11 scientists who do not agree to the small amount of the trace gas CO2 causing the problems predicted and alledged.Can you post the names of the 97% that have faith in the theory.I love Willie Soon.He delivers in such a unique way.Its a bit loke I told my Christian friends when I was studying theology.If I have to go with you boring farts to heaven I think I prefer the roasting down here.Don Easterbrook not so amusing but he delivers factually and to the point.Totaly burns the pro panel in his 2013 report.I am just the local plumber and can only go of my real world observations and my big baby has always been the sea levels and sea ice as that is real.I have no evidence of sea level rise and according to the Canadian coast guard there is no reduction in sea ice.Do I believe the modelling or the truth??
19-08-2020 01:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
HarveyH55 wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
176 record breaking highs, out of how many locations being monitored and recorded? 10,000, 20,000 maybe?

Then there's also the fact that there are many other locations that are NOT being monitored nor recorded...


Figured even 20,000 was low, just for this country. There is likely a recorded temperature in every city on earth.

Just throwing out 176 record highs, doesn't really mean a whole lot, considering there are a lot of records. Doesn't really mean much if that's pretty much the normal number of records broken, on any given day, since official records were kept. Record started 1898, so there are only 122 years of daily records to break, most haven't been around even half of that. Quirt likely, a lot of locations add, when Al Gore declared that the 'science, was settled'...

Of course 1000 thermometers in a city such as Seattle tell you nothing about Issaquah, Everett, Tacoma, North Bend, or Yakima.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-08-2020 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Into the Night wrote:Of course 1000 thermometers in a city such as Seattle tell you nothing about Issaquah, Everett, Tacoma, North Bend, or Yakima.




This is DRATS way of determining that we had the "HOTTEST JULY EV-AH!" Instead of "estimating" ... he "regrids" and "corrects for known errors."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate New Temperature High Recorded in Death Valley:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New High Temperature Records Again Outpace Lows3102-09-2020 23:24
Another week, more new high temperature records1117-08-2020 01:52
Like Death and Taxes, Something Else We Can Rely On1215-08-2020 23:42
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth13205-07-2020 00:00
Measuring the Earth's Surface Temperature501-07-2020 21:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact