tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post5295632435826652124..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Keeping PerspectiveTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-27566551394816530382016-10-05T00:33:39.772-04:002016-10-05T00:33:39.772-04:00Yep, bloggers being funny.
Last attempt and then ...Yep, bloggers being funny. <br />Last attempt and then I'll stop spamming you. :/ My apologies. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-36060356872423820642016-10-05T00:31:49.462-04:002016-10-05T00:31:49.462-04:00Testing.... (Sorry, it put a funky email in for th...Testing.... (Sorry, it put a funky email in for the last one, even though I typed my wordpress in; I think my cousin checked her email on my machine and didn't practice good security. Or blogger's being funky.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-28979089243349982592016-10-05T00:20:09.092-04:002016-10-05T00:20:09.092-04:00Logging was also stopped in a large number of plac...Logging was also stopped in a large number of places during the 90s, so there isn't the thinning (especially of dead wood and young, tightly packed trees where all the lower branches die) and they aren't upkeeping the logging roads. About 98 or so, at least in our area, the Forest service started randomly destroying the old logging roads-- we're talking 20 foot trenches in multiple places to make sure you can't get up them. They weren't always careful to make sure that they were legally allowed to do it-- my family manages some cattle on grazing permits, and there were some ugly situations when state roads got removed. <br /><br />This makes it really hard to use them to fight fires. <br /><br />They've also put in policies, at least in Washington, to not stop "natural" fires. <br />That's how Washington got record-setting fires just recently. Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02095145312137904824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-50783191576606006212016-08-31T09:15:56.828-04:002016-08-31T09:15:56.828-04:00Also, there isn't a dearth or hurricanes, it j...<i>Also, there isn't a dearth or hurricanes, it just so happens the US hasn't been hit luckily. But the rest of the oceans have been quite active.</i><br /><br />...<br /><br />That's EXACTLY what TOF said! Can you read??Nate Winchesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00630873800235819300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-67483641716871257152016-08-30T19:58:40.615-04:002016-08-30T19:58:40.615-04:00Your temperature graph is also not dealing with av...<i>Your temperature graph is also not dealing with averages</i> <br /><br />Technically, neither is anyone else. They are dealing with the outputs of models, not actual averages of measurements. This is due to the homogenizing of data to identify anomalous stations, such as a new instrument or an uncalibrated instrument. Unfortunately, such adjustments in the face of serially correlated data will often pick up anomalies even when they are not there, and if the statistical adjustments of the data are automated (as they are in this instance) the measurements will be tweaked even when there is no reason to tweak them. See also:<br />http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/04/americas-next-top-model-part-iv.html<br /><br />Raw temperatures were higher in the 30s. The adjusted data shows the 90s as being higher. Curiously, the adjustments also have been lowering the 40s, and you'd think it would be unlikely to experience a cooling of the past over time. <br /><br /><i>The way you tell temperatures are going up or not is to check how many stations are showing departure from average temperature for time of year, not how many stations hit X temp.</i><br /><br />Oh dear, then the media needs to be told, lest they hype every heat wave as if it were unprecedented. In this latest run, however, I did not see any newsreader ascribe the heat wave to global warming, unlike previous instances. <br /><br />The same goes for hundred-year floods and the like. These are all examples of what are called extreme value events and and they follow an extreme value distribution, beloved by reliability engineers. The amusing thing is that if you take a distribution of a measured property and estimate the percentage beyond a particular cut-off, like an upper specification limit in industry, then if you shift the mean value of the distribution upwards even slightly, the percentage of measurements falling outside the spec limit will increase dramatically. A simple example is the normal distribution. Consult the normal tables for Z=(USL-mu)/sigma to get the estimated percentage from the model that falls above the Upper Spec Limit. Now make mu higher and rerun the calculalation. You will typically find a big jump in the % out of spec for even a modest increase in mu. <br /><br /><i>Also, there isn't a dearth or hurricanes, it just so happens the US hasn't been hit luckily. But the rest of the oceans have been quite active.</i><br /><br />Good for them. We better tell the weather service. <br />TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-9731436848921070462016-08-30T13:16:01.047-04:002016-08-30T13:16:01.047-04:00No it is the climate question, because you are mak...No it is the climate question, because you are making claims that recent weather is not any different from the past.<br /><br />Your temperature graph is also not dealing with averages. The way you tell temperatures are going up or not is to check how many stations are showing departure from average temperature for time of year, not how many stations hit X temp.<br /><br />Also, there isn't a dearth or hurricanes, it just so happens the US hasn't been hit luckily. But the rest of the oceans have been quite active.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4423307011066632722016-08-30T12:28:08.133-04:002016-08-30T12:28:08.133-04:00I am sorry, O Nameless One, but percentage is perc...I am sorry, O Nameless One, but percentage is percentage. NOAA's HCN (Historical Climatology Network) is a set of 1221 stations (previously 1219) chosen so as to be uninfluenced by heat island effects and other such pilpul. A list and history can be found here:<br />http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/cli/HCN-Stns_CR.pdf<br /><br />Our human penchant for being overly influenced by recent impressions is likely due to the fact that most of those being impressed weren't around in the 1930s. My own father, now in his 90s was then a toddler and not keeping a weather eye out. <br /><br />The stations have all been in continuous operation since 1900 and there has been no substantive change in the denominator across the duration of the graph. <br /><br />This is not about the "climate question" but about "weather."<br /><br />Disasters of the same magnitude are more costly today because the dollar has dropped in value and more property has been developed on flood plains and coastlines than was previously the case. Sandy was more destructive than the almost identical "Long Island Express" unnamed hurricane of 1938 largely because there are a) more people and houses in the way and b) prices are way inflated over 1938: $100 in 1938 is $1706 in 2016 from inflation alone, without taking account of things like features in housing, cars, etc. that were no possible or available in 1938. (http://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome)<br /><br />For the terrible Mississippi River floods of 1927 that gave us the TVA: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2016/03/ive-never-seen-it-this-bad.html<br /><br />Agreed: people think the hurricane count is up because we're comparing apples (satellite detection) to oranges (ship reports and landfalls). But the current dearth of hurricanes <i>is</i> by dint of weather satellites. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-16488282581204427612016-08-30T10:14:09.596-04:002016-08-30T10:14:09.596-04:00Your percentage of US HCN temperature stations gra...Your percentage of US HCN temperature stations graph is inconclusive for proving that recent heat waves aren't worse. For one, the percentage is not giving you how many temperature stations there were from each year, nor where they are. It's also not giving you the global average temperature, which is what the climate question is all about.<br /><br />That hurricane stat is also misleading. It doesn't count Sandy which was one of the costliest disasters in American history. It's also a limited sample size because the US coast is only a small portion of the world's oceans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-70319118150191323192016-08-29T20:21:03.095-04:002016-08-29T20:21:03.095-04:00I favor "the Kachinas are angry". It'...I favor "the Kachinas are angry". It's a lot more rational than most AGW alarmism.Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.com