Posted on 12/31/2019 10:33:27 AM PST by CedarDave
Someone has said ignorance is not only not knowing something, but also knowing something to be true that isnt. What Im about to tell you is just such a thing.
Some time ago, the Albuquerque Journal quoted a long-time resident who claimed to be an expert on record Albuquerque temperatures to say, record-high Albuquerque temperatures are more common in recent years. The data show this is not true, although widely believed. I have become increasingly disturbed by non-scientists and some scientists quoting scientific results incorrectly.
The data below [omitted from this excerpt] come from the Albuquerque National Weather Service [NWS} morning broadcasts on station WX134 162.4 MHZ. Every morning ... the normal high and low for the day are given, also the record high and low.
This data shows that record-high temperatures occurred over 100 years ago in Albuquerque. That means that, for that date, over 100 attempts to exceed that temperature have failed. They also show that the record-high temperatures are also flat over this long period. The record-high temperatures also occur independent of season from April through November. ...
Albuquerque was a quite different city 100 years ago. Smaller population, lower CO2, fewer heat-trapping streets and buildings. All those changes would tend to give higher temperatures in recent years.
What is the explanation? Also record-low temperature data seems to show they tend to be in earlier years as expected.
Perhaps Sandia scientists can find an explanation. Could it be that CO2 or other gases have a saturable heat absorption for high concentrations? Also, these investigations could provide an excellent school project to show children how a scientific investigation is conducted.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Key observation:
I have become increasingly disturbed by non-scientists and some scientists quoting scientific results incorrectly.
Regarding school science projects, he suggests getting the data from the NWS and plotting the data versus each date of the year. Then draw a conclusion and suggest future investigations. This could be done for each city in New Mexico.
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keyword
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for FR member use; its use in the News Forum should not be for trivial or inconsequential posts. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)
Is there any FReeper who knows enough about physics to give us the run down on Dr. Patrick Frank?
He is emeritus, aka “retired” thus is more willing to speak the truth than those whose project funding is dependent on deep staters who are pushing the climate nonsense.
Tony Heller is all over this stuff like stink on Schiff.
This channel will keep you busy for weeks:
https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1
He produces something like three videos a week. He focuses on REAL data and includes a lot of charts and newspaper articles going back over a century. Expose yourself to five or six of his videos and you’ll be a hard core “denier” for life and be able to argue your point effortlessly.
I like how they keep “correcting” recorded data upward due to supposed “errors and cold bias in the equipment” yet they haven’t replaced the supposed defective equipment.
A bozo weatherman in Austin, TX kept saying every day this past summer was record breaking highs. Strange how this was one of the cooler summers we’ve had. The biggest heat was his lying pants on fire.
Dumb@$$ must not have been around in 2011...
THAT was a record challenging summer.
Bookmark.
I find the format of the data list is confusing.
For what date (CCYY) is the RH data and for what date (CCYY) is the NH data???
Is the format attempting to say the RH date is for the ONLY date (CCYY) date shown next to it, and the NH data is for when????
Thanks for the link, I’m subscribing.......Happy New Year buddy!
Apparently was never hot or cold before records. Weird huh?
“Albuquerque was a quite different city 100 years ago.” LOL! Hell it was quite a different city when I first moved there in 1963. So, like 57 years ago?
A very quick illustration (short enough for leftard sheeple attention span) :
To mention that ‘historical’ temperatures (usually quoted) being mostly in town/city centers where there is NOW more Concrete and Asphalt covering the location - it is hardly surprising that the temperatures compare higher.
Mention the word ‘Cherrypicking’ about the data presented being a form of fraud.
.
Normal highs are determined on a 30-year moving average for the shown date, presently from 1981-2010. Thus 30-year averages for November 23 from 1961 to 1990 and 1971-2000 may be (and likely are) different from the current "normal" high for that date.
Wow! Thank YOU Grandpa Dave, for re-writing this! I had not heard it before, cherish this statement, and I'll be using it a bunch in the future. Great item to start my new year.
Happy New Year old FRiend.
Please use this reality where appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.