Posted on 07/25/2006 8:37:56 AM PDT by drellberg
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - July 2006 is on track to be the hottest month in the Netherlands since temperatures were first measured in 1706, the Dutch meteorological institute KNMI said on Tuesday.
Average daily temperatures in the first 24 days of July were a record of 22.3 degrees Celsius (72.14F) compared with the previous record of 21.4 degrees in July 1994 and normal average temperatures of 17.4, the KNMI said.
"July 2006 is the hottest month ever," it said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
1. If any Leftie brings this up at any gathering you attend today, wager them that the record will not be broken. Do this even if you believe there might be global warming. The reason is that we are only 24 days into the month. From a pure statistical perspective, the chance that it will remain hot enough through the end of the month to break a 300-year old outlier is slim.
(David Ortiz is on a pace where he just might hit more home runs than Babe Ruth's old record, and Joe Mauer right now is batting close to .400 and just might be one of the few ever to achieve that level. But folks, don't hold your breaths.)
2. There are 12 months in a year and 7 contintents. The chances are basically one in three that during one month this year a 300-year old record will be broken somewhere in the world -- even if the weather is entirely random.
These global warming folks are pathetic.
So how do they explain the hot temperatures 300 years ago?
this logic is lost on me...and i typically ace logic tests.
Your two comments are right on, and there is a third: You could hardly call it "global warming" when we've merely caught up to where we were three hundred years ago.
Shhhhhh - you're not supposed to think like that!
Then WHY was it so HOT there 300 years ago? I was just there and it was nice and cool. Went to the beach in July at Den Hague. NICE and COOL there!
Well, the Sun is currently at it's brightest for the past 1000 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
That President Bush sure causes a lot of global problems! </sarcasm off> LOL
Please, read the article on more time and you should read this :
"Dutch meteorologists say they cannot make a direct link between global warming and the heatwave in Europe"
12 months * 7 continents = 84 observations.
84 divided by 300 is approximately 1/3. (OK, a bit less.)
And this is very crude probability, I know.
My point is only that somewhere in the world at some point during the year it's likely be hot, hot, hot. This headline, 'hottest in 300 years,' is not at all as impressive as it seems at first. I'd wager that if you add Hawaii and a few other places to the mix, you'd find at least one spot in the world most every year that breaks a 300-year old record.
Cheap thermometers?
Fricking 72 degrees? I'd kill for that! It's looking to be about 97 in the shade here today with 90+% humidity. Oh well, glad I moved south. It was 101 in Helena, Montana on Sunday.
Does anyone have that graph showing the decline of the number of pirates vs increasing temperatures.
Very funny.
Let me put this even more simply. It's a big planet and a year is a long time. Somewhere on the planet somebody is likely going to have the hottest month in three centuries. The observation that Denmark is hot means exactly nothing.
Actually, they don't. If you read carefully, it was 300 years ago that they started keeping track of temperatures. Nothing in this statement implies how hot it was 300 years ago.
FWIW, I agree that the alarm over these temps is overblown.
By saying that, they are clearly implying that we should be considering it.
Like the best jokes, the punch line should be supplied by the listener.
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.
