Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Maybe I'm wrong to call it "rigged" but it just so happens that this incontrovertible fact favors the spin that the original poster wanted. And Grok even cited climate as an example, I didn't even bring it up in my query. All I'm saying is that explains a significant portion of why records - both highs and lows - tail off later in the dataset. Of course, lows are dropping more rapidly than highs because the mean is not constant, but rather is slowly rising.

As the famous saying goes - often attributed either to Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain - "there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics."

 

Cripes man - not sure you really need to delve into the details of semantics with all your posts like that.

From a scientific standpoint, there's no such thing as a "tie" when it comes to records.   Temperatures are analog, with infinite granularity, and no two daily peaks are ever actually equal   Perhaps there could be a tie from a measurement-device standpoint because no measurement device has infinite granularity - e.g. a given device may measure both 98.8 degrees and 99.2 degrees as "99" and consider it a tie.   So thus how often one would expect a tie depends on the granularity of the measurement, and the units (F vs C).   That's not mentioned in the OP.

The main point I want to make though is - IT DOESN'T MATTER, because even in a "tie is considered another instance of a record" scenario - one would *still* expect a downward slope in the number of records over time.   As you say - that's the nature of random number generation.   Any new time an extreme peak is seen it means there's a lower possibility that peak  (the record - be it a tie or not) will be achieved at any given point in the future, for any given sensor.

As such - no I don't think the data presented could be considered "rigged".   In part this is because the units and granularity of measurement aren't indicated, but also just the fact that the data trend is flat, and not downward-sloping (for daily record highs) indicates a general warming trend over the period.   A rigged data set (e.g. if someone wanted to claim that warming wasn't going on) would show a downward-sloping trend.

[Cobalt]

On 1/20/2026 at 11:29 AM, ChescoWx said:

Wow, this clearly shows that record highs have been outpacing record lows at a near 4:1 or 5:1 rate since 2020. Even at the apex of record highs in the 1930s the ratio was only 3:1 at max. Chris Martz is incredibly agenda-driven so that is likely why he didn't accompany this graph with one showing the ratio of high to low records, it would've dismantled his entire argument. Instead he has to rely on big scary numbers and his audience's lack of critical thinking, which is a pretty easy thing to bank on. 

[WolfStock1]

28 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Wow, this clearly shows that record highs have been outpacing record lows at a near 4:1 or 5:1 rate since 2020. Even at the apex of record highs in the 1930s the ratio was only 3:1 at max. Chris Martz is incredibly agenda-driven so that is likely why he didn't accompany this graph with one showing the ratio of high to low records, it would've dismantled his entire argument. Instead he has to rely on big scary numbers and his audience's lack of critical thinking, which is a pretty easy thing to bank on. 

You sure you're reading those charts right?   That's not what I'm seeing.

E.g. in the 1950-1995 period it looks like the average number of record highs was about 2,000 or maybe 2,200, whereas the average number of record lows was around 2,500, before they diverged starting around 1995.   Not sure how you're asserting a big ratio like that at any point the 20th century, aside from *only* a few peaks in the 1930's.

The key thing seems to be the divergence after 1995, with record highs increasingly outpacing record lows.   That trend doesn't go back as much as you describe though.