Jun

6

August is the hottest month in my home state of Montana so I went to Intellicast to see how the temperature has risen since Global Warming began.

The hottest August temp recorded was in 1934 at a smoking 107.

Looking at each day of the month none of the hottest days ever recorded were in this century. One has to go back to 1988 to get a record setting day.

So I thought maybe GW is not heating up the summer months but at least the cold months should be showing a warming effect so I looked at January. What I found was the coldest January was 1930 with -39 below.

Highest temp ever seen in a January was 1897. The average hi has been 37, average low 13.

Again I looked at each day of the month to see when the coldest and warmest ones were to be found expecting to see warming in this century. There it was! 2 days out of the 31 were record setters, 1/24 and 25 with 64 and 59. I had to go back to 1992 to find the next record setting days.

From this limited data it I hard pressed to see any warming trend. Suggest other try it on their home towns etc. We did the same thing for US Virgin Islands and again you have to go way back to get the hottest days.

David Lillienfeld writes:

The discussions on this site about global warming remind me of the discussions about cigarette smoking and lung cancer. One of the early arguments from the Tobacco Institute, that domicile of wise, impartial men, was that cigarette smokers didn't die only of lung cancer—there were other diseases that they died from, and at higher rates. All true, but not particularly relevant.

Then there was the TI's argument that most cigarette smokers didn't even die of cancer. Also true. Also irrelevant.

Then there was the argument that there were other reasons, like psychological factors, that led those with a predilection to lung cancer to smoke. Well, there actually is, but it's too small to explain the relationship.

Then there was the argument the TI made that lung cancer among cigarette smokers was the result of occupational exposures to carcinogens. Also true. But cigarette smoking has a stronger, some might opine much stronger, relationship to lung cancer than the occupationally-related cases. And in some cases, like asbestos, there is an interaction between smoking and occupational carcinogens.

The TI was successful, to a point, in constantly changing the focus of the discussion.

I could go on.

While any scientific hypothesis should account for observed phenomena, one must be careful in how one phrases the hypothesis. Let's be clear about what we are talking about, since I sense in these discussions (and I think this is round ninety-one or so) are often about more than one hypothesis.

Just an observation.

anonymous writes:

Increased CO2 is measurable, and more a function of our numbers than our behavior.

What is enigmatic is the expected temperature increase is not manifest in recent decades.

Why? Not an ideological answer to "Why?" But actual, scientific (repeatable by experiment) why. If the stakes really ARE so high then why be ignorant about this? The answer may buttress the AGW debate (in which case, we must periodically cull our numbers so that aggregate CO2 output is sustainable, for those who have he stomach for such) or it may not.

But blindly arguing either side from a standpoint of ignorance is only done to support one's interest.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

4 Comments so far

  1. Bill Rafter on June 7, 2017 6:21 pm

    In classical physics, all “work” creates heat. Given that there are more humans on the planet each month or year, it follows that more humans equal warming. However the question is if it is significant, let alone harmful. Specifically, does it alter the effect of the Milankovitch cycles? A different problem has been the faking of data by the East Anglia academics, which taints all arguments on that side of the line.

  2. nelson riddle on June 8, 2017 9:12 pm

    I understand that on the shores of Flathead Lake the cherry picking is very profitable.
    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

  3. nelson riddle on June 10, 2017 1:24 pm

    I lived in NW pa during the 80’s, 90’s,0’s. Record lows as I personally recorded them where I lived: 80’s…-27f, 90’s…..-19f, 0’s…. -3.

  4. Anonymous on June 12, 2017 4:28 pm

    “What is enigmatic is the expected temperature increase is not manifest in recent decades.”
    Defining an “expected” temperature increase has major uncertainty in itself; therefore the anonymous writer is judging against a criteria that already has uncertainty built in.

    To add to that, recent IPCC revisions of these estimates now factor in previously underestimated impact of aerosols, which have been estimated to contribute major net cooling with an upper range of -1 degree centigrade or greater. As we discover more and more factors that affect climate in tandem, it is impossible to describe “expected” temperature increases in the context of a single factor like Carbon. Furthermore, different geographical regions are affected differently by each of the climate-affecting factors.

    Thus in aggregate we ought to understand the uncertainty surrounding these findings, but still recognize that certain factors, like man-made CO2 emissions, have more effects on climate than others by by orders of magnitude.

Archives

Resources & Links

Search