Jump to content

LibertyBell

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    39,430

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by LibertyBell

  1. LibertyBell
    Now if we use NYC data, it's probably less likely because the climate on the east coast is becoming more humid as well as warmer. So warmer mins, but the maxes are leveling off. You see how long it's been since NYC, LGA or JFK has had an all-time max. 1936 for the former, 1966 for the latter two. I've been complaining about the lack of 100 degree heat here. Last really big summer heat period was the 2010-2013 series when we had 4 summers hit 100. Never did I think that Seattle could have an all-time high in excess of NYC's. That's like Seattle having an all-time record snow season in excess of NYC's record from 1995-96! We also have to consider the cycle of 11 years- the CONUS seems to get excessively hot summers (even for the current climate) in 11 year intervals. Do you think that could be at play here too? Looking at 1933,44,55,66,77,88,99,2010 and now 2021 they seem to be hot all across the country. 2010 was our summer of record heat. These 11 year cyclic summers seem to be getting hotter too as time goes on.
  2. LibertyBell
    Making a separate post regarding your edit. Right, because we want to find the likelihood of an all-time record high temperature. So the variance should be much less than it would be for a daily high.
  3. LibertyBell
    Yeah I remember doing this kind of work with bell curves lol. You just need to know what the value of 1 SD is and calculate the rest accordingly. I always thought that normals should be calculated this way- anything outside +/- 1 SD should be deemed above or below normal, not the strictly linear method we use now.
  4. LibertyBell
    I remember those 2014-18 years, Alaska was setting heat longevity records in those years, especially the last couple in that dataset. Was it Anchorage that had a record streak of 80+ days? 5 I think.
  5. LibertyBell
    Yes exactly- I think thats what the NWS was talking about in the excerpt posted by Don. Not for any specific location but globally it'll be a one in 10 year event soon. But I also saw you say that by the end of your life (let's just use 2100), you think this could be a 1 in 10 year event even specifically for the PNW?
  6. LibertyBell
    That makes sense (the new equilibrium) because new ice (first year ice) is the one which is most variable. Did the historic heat in Siberia last year have any influence on that, Will? There was a six month period in Siberia where the temps were +20 F above average and wildfires were happening there (and 100 degrees was recorded.)
  7. LibertyBell
    I just gave an example of data from the past we shouldn't be using lmao. I only included the 50s because I was going by thirty year periods, which is what the NWS uses to calculate averages of temperatures. So let's just say nothing before 1990 should be used and not because of satellite data, but because we live in a different climate. Being from Texas i expect you to be a brainwashed flatlander, and expect nothing more of you except denialism.
  8. LibertyBell
    So Mann may be right in what he said today. And the chances of this occurring by the end of the century are more than 50% per year? But it's already 50% twice in 30 years? Hmmm, so my estimate of 50/50 once in a decade isn't far off....
  9. LibertyBell
    I'd question that, Mann was on today and he said it was a once in a millenium event, that may now be a once in 10 year event due to climate change. He also said using the "new normal" phrase wasn't accurate, because this is a moving target and still changing (that is, accelerated climate change is occurring.)
  10. LibertyBell
    What that lobbyist said makes me think even more strongly that this country's political and economical structure needs a complete overhaul Don, what would it take to entirely ban corporate lobbying in this country? And secondly, what would it take to entirely ban corporations from being allowed to give donations to politicians? There needs to be much higher conflict of interest standards applied. Same goes for our regulatory agencies.
  11. LibertyBell
    Sounds like 2050 is a good estimate. An ice-free future? When will the Arctic be ice-free – or equivalently, when will the ball reach the bottom of the hill? The IPCC concluded it was likely that the Arctic would be reliably ice-free in September by 2050, assuming high future greenhouse gas emissions (where “reliably ice-free” means five consecutive years with less than 1 million km2 of sea ice).
  12. LibertyBell
    Actually using any data prior to 1990 is a bad idea, so use the past 30 years, with twice the weighed average applied to the last 10 years for a fuller picture.
  13. LibertyBell
    You're being a hypocrite and putting words in my mouth, friend. When did I or anyone else ever say that the event in the PNW was a catalyst for anything? We just said that going back far in history is a bad idea because the climate is different. The NWS recognizes this and has altered their methods for calculating averages, to weigh the past ten years more than previous periods in history. So, if you want to use the past 10 years for historic trends, then fine. But using the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc., makes no sense, this was basically a different planet back then. Yes, recent history, as in the past 10 years.....but not going much father back in history, because again, that was a different climate. So I take it you agree, then.
  14. LibertyBell
    You still don't understand! He didn't say there is a connection between one and the other! He just said that past history isn't the best predictor of outcome! To no avail? And yet we have a general trend towards a sea-less arctic regardless of these intermediate and short-term "gains" It won't be in the next few years, but you can bet that it will be the case by 2050. To deny that would be going against the vast body of scientific evidence. Do you deny that there has been a general decrease in coverage on the scale of a few decades? You seem to be a climate denialist, and in the year 2021, that's pretty damn embarrassing.
  15. LibertyBell
    See this post here...hes just talking about being wary of applying historic trends to predict outcomes. Nothing about a cause and effect between anomalous heatwaves and arctic sea ice.
  16. LibertyBell
    In the other thread (which I suggest you read) we were talking about both heat and drought and the parts of the world we were talking about have nothing to do with urban heat island (Siberia, Australia- where urban areas are confined to the immediate coast, etc.) And I dont believe he implied that a weather event at lower latitudes would cause record sea ice melt. His argument was that we're in a new era now and past history is not a good way to predict future outcomes. Something that most generally agree with. Sure, extreme weather occurs every year, but it's the magnitude of the extremes which is changing (also refer to the other thread where we discuss this.)
  17. LibertyBell
    I know all about the metric system and I do the conversion in my head, so that doesn't really matter. Anyone with a basic education should be able to do it in their heads, it's not a big concern. In computer systems we use hexadecimal, so it's pretty easy to talk back and forth between binary, decimal and hexadecimal. None is better than any other as they are all like different languages. More concerning is that you thought the heat in the western part of the continent was in "isolation". If you know anything about how the planet works you should know that absolutely NOTHING occurs in isolation- that it's all part of one larger feedback mechanism. And it isn't the only historic such outbreak that's occurred in recent years either. It's part of a global trend. And Etudiant's point about not using prior history to predict the future because we're in an entirely uncharted territory now is a very good and salient one.
  18. LibertyBell
    He was the one who was insulting someone else who made a very good point about old standards not applying and then he responded with talking about an "isolated" event which it very clearly is not (and which we've extensively talked about in another thread.) "These" guys is just one person who poked his little head in where it didn't belong. I fully understand the conversion, I do it in my head (5/8 or 0625 miles in one km). I'm not sure how much one understands about climate if one actually believes that anything occurs in "isolation" everything is part of much greater system and feedback mechanisms. There is no such thing as "isolation".
  19. LibertyBell
    lmao awww poor baby, is 88 your IQ? sure seems like it. if even that high. sorry, we're not in Europe, I'll use miles. You can convert them back and forth, it's easy even for someone like you also you're not going to last very long on here with that attitude of yours. The person you weenie'd is actually a moderator and a trained meteorologist.
  20. LibertyBell
    lol he weenie'd Will's post just because Will made a good forecast of having over >4 million sq mile minimum being very unlikely, I mean it hasn't happened since 2006, so we have history "on our side"
  21. LibertyBell
    and this isn't just about the fossil fuel cartels, it also applies to Dow Chemical and DuPont and Monsanto/Bayer and all other conglomerates that do evil things and cover them up.
  22. LibertyBell
    And we should follow the example of the French and dust off the old guillotine....
  23. LibertyBell
    The exxon thing really got to me, they actually think they can keep using this stuff indefinitely? They need to be taxed into oblivion. And everyone should buy electric cars.
  24. LibertyBell
    Okay so this is a lot more than just 50/50 to experience it globally once a year lol.
  25. LibertyBell
    yes I remember the Europe event! London hit 100! Alaska now too that you mentioned it, like 5 straight days of 85+? and that historic 130 at Death Valley, probably the highest temp ever recorded reliably and the first 130 on the globe!
×
×
  • Create New...