Badmovies.org Forum

Full story at cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/us/weather-record-warm-march/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

 :bluesad:

It got up to 81 degrees here in SW Michigan one day....which is 40 degrees higher than normal!
Of course it's only 29 dgrees this morning-and all that warm weather made the fruit trees blossum-and frost killed a lot of the would be fruit-which means that the farmers are screwed-which means I'm screwed,because I work in a canning factory-and cherries are our cash crop.  :bluesad:

Sounds like half the U.S. saw the warmest March on record, and the other half saw it cooler than average . . . which makes the headline a little misleading.

Temperatures...rainfall...storms...all these have fluctuated throughout history. It kinda gets me that this generation seems to think anything that happens has never happened before.

I think the weather is just having mood swings at this point before it settles on angry hot.

Did you say the weather - or my wife?????? :teddyr:

I don't get it. The article didn't say anything except that it was a record-breaking March, and people are up in arm like there was an explicit global-warming agenda. Did I miss something?

Anyway, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the last four months have been unseasonably warm across the entire northern hemisphere. All you have to do is go to weather.com and do an unbiased random search. Choose ten northern hemisphere locations at random, choose ten dates over the last six months at random and you will see that the temps are well above average. I've done it for far more than 10 and it's pretty obvious, it's been unseasonably warm.

As for the cause, I haven't the foggiest.

The press always  has an agenda. 'Recorded  History?'  WTF, The history of weather was  only recorded  since 1895, what about  all these  archeological  and fossil  records, which go back millions  of years and show proof of massive  temprature  changes over millenium?  This is  just more  hysterical , in the case left-wing, proganda, nothing more  or less.

Every day is record breaking in some way.  They choose what they report.

The records don't mean a single thing given the paucity of "recorded data."  The whole thing is a straw man to even discuss "record breaking."

Tracy made the million dollar comment above.  The current generation(s) is alarmingly preoccupied with superlatives.  Everything has to be the warmest, the fastest, the coldest, the biggest, etc.  I find it alarming, anyway, and at the same time, a little amusing.

It just seems like their is a knee-jerk reaction going on. There was nothing even mentioned about global warming or climate change unless I missed something. All of a sudden accusations of liberal agendas are coming out of the woodwork. It all seems rather "conspiracy theory" to me, that's all.

Do they mention the records of "fastest cooling from 6:00 pm to 7:00" and "biggest wind gust with a dew point above 73 degrees"?

No.

Why not?

There is no significant "association" of that data in the minds of the readers.  A lot of the data they don't report may well be of more meteorologic significance than the data they do report.

They are milking the 'global warming' psychology whether they mention it or not.  They cherry pick which of this kind of news they report, and none of these records mean much of anything.  However, in the choosing, they are, intentionally or not, manipulating what is on the consciousness of the readers.

Well, okay, I supposed that might be going on. All I'm saying is that it has been a verifiable record-breaking heat year. Are they not allowed to report the noteworthiness of that? I mean, it is a perfectly valid thing to report, is it not? I swear, everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, is too damn sensitive about the news.

I find the whole "Global Warming" debate interesting.
No doubt-things are changing.
But politics wont change it.
Nothing will.
Watch it and check it out.
I find it fascinating.
I'm alive at a pivotal point in earth history.
I like it.
As far as it being a threat to the human race-so what.
Were not that great.

Well, not to me.  I think it's a waste of time.  What's the "news" with "it's hot outside."  Big flipping deal.

But hey, as long as they are talking about this and not mentioning one single word about Andrew Wordes, all's right with the world, eh?

I don't think I was suggesting that it should be front page news, but I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree. I think a record heat wave that affected the majority of the Northern hemisphere is worthy of reporting, with or without an agenda. I guess I'm a flaming liberal now.

My point is that "record heat wave" is meaningless.  It makes good copy, but it has absolutely ZERO scientific merit.

Really.  Look up Andrew Wordes and tell me which is more important to be on our public consciousness....some hot weather or that.

I looked it up. It is a far more meaningful human story. What made you assume I wouldn't think so?

the guy who won the boston Marathon last year dropped out at mile 18 due to cramping. it was like 85 or something today

Zero scientific merit? It's the very essence of scientific observation. Forget all the surrounding politics, temperature recordings are nothing but science. How it's interpreted, that's a bunch of craziness, but ZERO scientific merit? That just isn't the case.

I think you completely missed my point.  The reporting of it as "record breaking" has zero scientific merit.

One of the goals of scientific measurement and observation is dispassion and objectivity about the data.

Calling it a "record" is disingenuous.  The time frame is arbitrary (record for "March"), and the way "hottest" is defined is arbitrary.  What is and is not reported as a record is arbitrary.

Every single day weather related records are broken.  That's the nature of a sparse dataset.

Analogy:

Suppose on my 40th birthday I claim that for my New Year's resolution I will not get into fist fights.  What is the meaning of a "news" story on January 2nd that "January 1st was ulthar's least violent day in recorded history"?

It has no value scientifically because the dataset is so incomplete.  January 1-6 will be ulthar's least violent week, January will be the least violent month, etc.  With no data prior to the arbitrary time frame of "the record," these superlatives have no basis and no importance whatsoever.

Thus, reporting them as "news" is misleading at best.  This kind of news reporting survives on the ignorance and gullibility of the readership.  This is junk reporting masquerading as "science."

ulthar, you are being anything but objective in your posts in this thread. You clearly have an emotional reaction to the story. You're almost the antithesis of objectivity. "Record breaking" simply means in terms of what has been recorded, despite what zero scientific merit you give it. Is there an agenda? Maybe. Is it as important as some other news stories, certainly not. But it was an uncommonly warm winter across much of the northern hemisphere. It was an notable anomaly within the context of recorded weather patterns. It is worthy of being reported. End of story. You're taking such a hardline and stubborn posture that you are becoming the very antithesis of objectivity.

Yep.  You are right.  I'm wrong.  It is OBVIOUS that I have no analytical or debating skills whatsoever and everything I say on this board is driven by either an agenda or an overblown emotional response.  It's obvious because you keep pointing it out.

Yep. That's me to a tee.

In only point it out on occasion. I can take criticism, and I tend only to criticize people I think can take it. I'm beginning to reconsider in your case.

"March 2012 will go down as the warmest March in the United States since record-keeping began in 1895, NOAA said Monday."

Limits and boundaries clearly defined in the first sentence of the article. Everything is "arbitrary," if you want to get down to brass tacks. I don't understand your objection. Has the time period "March" changed since 1895? Or the way we measure temperature or calculate averages?

The article is saying no more than some very basic statements. Since "reliable" record-keeping began in 1895, the average temperature in the United States for the period of March is the warmest yet. The article even hedges its bets by including the statement: "Short-term weather patterns such as the one that affected the United States are poor indicators of global climate trends, however."

Datasets have to start somewhere. Six days of ulthar non-violence isn't very significant, but 117 years of weather data is less so. But it doesn't really matter, the limits of the article were clearly defined in the article.


That can't be what you mean. By that logic, all observation is meaningless because it doesn't take into account everything that was non-observed throughout the history of the universe. All science involves simplification of the natural world.

In the article, those simplifications were explicitly stated.

Personally,I don't think it has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or cowboys or ballerinas. Weather has been changing for as long as there has been a world....that's why we have "averages" and not "normals". :wink:

Agreed. However, that's also why we have statistical anomalies, and this year was certainly one.

Very true. :smile:

All true, what  is  also true is these  hysterical  headlines  are also being used  by extreme environmentalists to push an agenda. Of course,  those who  don't want to conserve and  just consume are also to blame for the hysteria.

I think if there is hysteria about most anything someone from the media will blow it up for the sensationalism. The old phrase that it sells papers doesn't exactly apply ,though.  Most folks I know read news online or watch one of those 24/7 news networks.

The internet is far worse, it's immediacy does not allow for rebuttal or refelction.

That's why you have to look around for your news....it's easy to pass something off as truth if there is only one side presented. :wink: