we never predicted we'd manufacture 100 million shoes! we said we'd make only 5 million, we produced over 20 million, so we beat projections by over 4x! look how amazing we are!
oh, those 80 million people you're saying who don't have shoes? they don't need new shoes... they should be more respectful of resources. actions have consequences. next time they shouldn't be so racist.
Science is a process, and a significant part of that process is trying to disprove pet theories. If Einstein had been forced to operate in today's political environment his theory of relativity might have never gotten off the ground, because it technically proved Newtonian mechanics wrong (even though it's only noticeable in extreme situations).
Well we've gone thru stages of that throughout history to be sure. I'm fairly certain the theories of buoyancy and round earth/solar center were not well received by society.
Observe, hypothesize, test, document, repeat. The endless cycle.
If you find yourself without any interesting observations, test something you already think you understand. It just might surprise you.
On a largely unrelated note, I once had an argument with a coworker about COVID. He fell back on an appeal to authority - "I studied science in college."
I later found out he dropped out after one semester. It would be funny, if it wasn't so infuriating that anyone at all gives him the time of day.
Meanwhile, 75% of my day job is applying the scientific method, and the other 25% is repeating my findings to people who weren't listening the first time or didn't like the conclusions.
The climate hysteria movement is the most successful doomsday cult in history and very likely has already succeeded in dooming humanity to hundreds of years of darkness.
If it relies on fraudulent data, models that have never been accurate and on erasing all evidence contrary to their theory and using government funds to push narratives, propaganda and fund studies that always act with the same bias, can you really call it an "organic" movement?
So basically they suspect this dude from 110 years ago didn't make accurate recordings, based on the fact it makes no sense for him to have recorded such wildly differing temperatures when cross-checked with the recorded temperatures in the nearby surrounding area back then and the decades since then. discredits the climate cult's beliefs.
They literally explain why it's not physically possible for the old recordings taken by this guy to be accurate.
Yes, I'm sure they all just missed this supposedly blatant flaw for 110 years and it's just a coincidence that it was being used to discredit climate catastrophism, which coincidentally is associated with a corrupt field of science which has been shown to manipulate data that tends to disprove its climate catastrophism.
They never say where these "closest surrounding stations" are. Are they also in Death Valley? Or are they outside of Death Valley? These pricks complaining about "Denton may have ignored standard procedures" fail to provide basic, specific, factual information to substantiate their claims. Why should anyone take them seriously?
Nobody from 110 years ago made perfectly accurate recordings.
Most of the early temperature recordings were of water temperature, because they measured it by literal buckets.
That information is still useful because we can make estimates about what the air temperature would have been like given all other available sources of information, and how air and water temperature relate to each other; but you can't just call it "the hottest temperature on record", let alone "the hottest temperature ever".
As the local Anthropogenic Climate Change supporter on the sub:
There was never any chance that "hottest temperature ever" was even potentially correct.
The statistical concept of "global air temperature" is around 51 F. The temperature we are concerned about getting to is 56 F.
During the Triassic period, the average global air temperature is estimated to be closer to 75 F. Additionally, there was one continent, and the primary element in the atmosphere was Oxygen, not Hydrogen.
You will never, in your lives, see the hottest day in Earth's history. Nor will you see the coldest (See: Snowball Earth).
Places on earth have gotten to terrifying levels of up to 150 F and up, and that's within the human era. I don't even want to think of how hot it would have gotten 200 million years ago.
the UN once claimed that if we didn't immediately address climate change, that entire nations would be underwater in 10 years.
that was in 1989. https://archive.is/aR27Q. they founded the IPCC based on this climate doomsday cult prediction... which 34 years later is thoroughly debunked. it's so bad that AP stripped later the date off the article when people found out about this debunked prediction. https://archive.is/vF3Tv
it's so bad that there are entire graveyards of debunked climate doomsday cult predictions. arctic ice. glacier national park. coast lines in california and martha's vineyard and florida. the list goes on. it's why they keep moving the goalposts, and most have stopped claiming that "bad things will happen by x year" and instead switched to "bad things will happen many years in the future if we don't impose climate communism by x year".
As far as I've been alive, I haven't seen anything in Climatology that suggests anything besides a concern that we could hit a global average temperature of 53 to 56 degrees by 2100.
Everything else is crap coming from the media and politicians advocating communism.
It's honestly like attacking someone who is opposed to Grooming Gangs because it's a "Feminist Conspiracy"
Essentially "it couldn't have been that hot, because that's too hot." Meanwhile they're fine with taking readings at airports as jets are flying past, or comparing cities to rural areas.
Here's the thing: Even if that reading was wrong, the people going after it are wrong too, because they're doing it for political reasons, not scientific ones.
Now, as the world warms, more experts are beginning to look critically at the record — including UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain, whose Twitter and YouTube coverage of California’s weather have made him a minor celebrity.
Kill me now.
Denton was the caretaker and foreman at the ranch between 1912 and 1920...He was also tasked with running the Weather Bureau’s station, including taking daily temperature readings.
Now, I'm certainly not going to appeal to authority, but the intro made it sound like this was some nobody, when he was literally in charge of taking official readings.
On the day Denton logged the 134-degree record, he was still relatively new to the job.
I wish they'd define "relatively." The record was in July, he'd been working at the very least (if he'd starting on December 31st, 1912) seven and a half months. And who knows what his experience was before he started working at that one station? Even if it was his first job like that, you'd think that would be enough time to learn to read a thermometer, but what do I know...?
And according to California climatologist and storm chaser William T. Reid, who has taken a decadeslong deep dive into Denton’s logs, there’s evidence in the erratically kept records that Denton may have ignored standard procedures.
Just show how his readings were wrong, please. And, again, I'm not even discounting that they might have been. But the way they're going about this is super slimy. Zero evidence, basically. Just 'he was sorta new, and the numbers were high.'
Reid explained in an email, "In the warm months leading up to July, 1913, there are a handful of instances in which the daily maximum temperature at Greenland Ranch appears too warm, by 5 to 10 degrees perhaps, compared to the maximums at the closest surrounding stations."
Was that generally the hottest station in the area generally, or no?
The anomalous maximums culminated in early July, Reid said, when Denton logged an improbable five consecutive readings of 129 or above the week he recorded the record-setting high, including 130 degrees on July 12 and 131 on July 13, as well as 134 degrees on July 10.
Not an expert, but that just seems to make his readings more believable, not less. It was hot there that week, I guess...
Christopher Burt, an Oakland-based weather historian who has worked with Reid to analyze the data, has looked at the temperatures recorded at nearby locations on July 10, 1913. Based on historical correlations, Burt believes the temperature in Death Valley on July 10 likely could not have been higher than 125 degrees.
What happened to trusting the experts? These people are second guessing the person who was alive and there at the time, and had the equipment and data in front of him. And these losers are, after the fact, just saying 'nah, don't make sense.'
The hottest place on Earth couldn't be that hot! That's an anomaly, unlike, you know, the whole hottest place on Earth thing...
“It’s virtually impossible that Death Valley hit 134” that day, said Burt, who was part of the team that decertified the 1922 Libya record. "134 is way out there, it’s way offline."
So it's the same group of people that went after other historical records...
Swain agrees. “The large-scale meteorological pattern and the overall heat of the air mass in the Southwest when the 1913 record purportedly occurred does not appear to be capable of generating such extreme temperatures in Death Valley short of a truly exceptional and highly localized event,” he wrote in an email.
Exceptional and highly localized event...such as, for example, the hottest place on Earth being extremely hot that week?
we never predicted we'd manufacture 100 million shoes! we said we'd make only 5 million, we produced over 20 million, so we beat projections by over 4x! look how amazing we are!
oh, those 80 million people you're saying who don't have shoes? they don't need new shoes... they should be more respectful of resources. actions have consequences. next time they shouldn't be so racist.
Science is finding ideas through information. If you don't do this, you are not a scientist.
Science is a process, and a significant part of that process is trying to disprove pet theories. If Einstein had been forced to operate in today's political environment his theory of relativity might have never gotten off the ground, because it technically proved Newtonian mechanics wrong (even though it's only noticeable in extreme situations).
Well we've gone thru stages of that throughout history to be sure. I'm fairly certain the theories of buoyancy and round earth/solar center were not well received by society.
don't forget experimentation and observation. very important
Observe, hypothesize, test, document, repeat. The endless cycle.
If you find yourself without any interesting observations, test something you already think you understand. It just might surprise you.
On a largely unrelated note, I once had an argument with a coworker about COVID. He fell back on an appeal to authority - "I studied science in college."
I later found out he dropped out after one semester. It would be funny, if it wasn't so infuriating that anyone at all gives him the time of day.
Meanwhile, 75% of my day job is applying the scientific method, and the other 25% is repeating my findings to people who weren't listening the first time or didn't like the conclusions.
If you don't shit on past data, how can you claim its hotter than ever now.
The climate hysteria movement is the most successful doomsday cult in history and very likely has already succeeded in dooming humanity to hundreds of years of darkness.
How organic does a movement have to be to fit the definition of "cult"?
If it relies on fraudulent data, models that have never been accurate and on erasing all evidence contrary to their theory and using government funds to push narratives, propaganda and fund studies that always act with the same bias, can you really call it an "organic" movement?
Probably not, which is why we ask.
These people are not hoodwinked cultists, but unthinking followers of the largest propaganda campaign in human history.
"Climate Change" is a more far-reaching, more influential, more destructive hoax than even the most virulent skinheads will claim the Holocaust was.
FTFY
Yes, I'm sure they all just missed this supposedly blatant flaw for 110 years and it's just a coincidence that it was being used to discredit climate catastrophism, which coincidentally is associated with a corrupt field of science which has been shown to manipulate data that tends to disprove its climate catastrophism.
it's only impossible in that it doesn't match their flawed climate models.
it's death valley... it regularly has much higher temperatures than the surrounding areas.
Their entire worldview isn't physically possible so who gives a shit?
They never say where these "closest surrounding stations" are. Are they also in Death Valley? Or are they outside of Death Valley? These pricks complaining about "Denton may have ignored standard procedures" fail to provide basic, specific, factual information to substantiate their claims. Why should anyone take them seriously?
Are you gay? You sound gay.
Sort of like "heat island" modern data is questionable?
https://www.epa.gov/heatislands
Nobody from 110 years ago made perfectly accurate recordings.
Most of the early temperature recordings were of water temperature, because they measured it by literal buckets.
That information is still useful because we can make estimates about what the air temperature would have been like given all other available sources of information, and how air and water temperature relate to each other; but you can't just call it "the hottest temperature on record", let alone "the hottest temperature ever".
True, but people from 110 years ago had no political pressure to get "correct" recordings either.
As the local Anthropogenic Climate Change supporter on the sub:
There was never any chance that "hottest temperature ever" was even potentially correct.
The statistical concept of "global air temperature" is around 51 F. The temperature we are concerned about getting to is 56 F.
During the Triassic period, the average global air temperature is estimated to be closer to 75 F. Additionally, there was one continent, and the primary element in the atmosphere was Oxygen, not Hydrogen.
You will never, in your lives, see the hottest day in Earth's history. Nor will you see the coldest (See: Snowball Earth).
We all died from climate change in 2020. This is actually just hell now, that's why it's so hot.
For context, this article is about the highest individual reading, anywhere, ever: A reading in Death Valley over 100 years ago.
Then I'm going to throw it away entirely.
Places on earth have gotten to terrifying levels of up to 150 F and up, and that's within the human era. I don't even want to think of how hot it would have gotten 200 million years ago.
the UN once claimed that if we didn't immediately address climate change, that entire nations would be underwater in 10 years.
that was in 1989. https://archive.is/aR27Q. they founded the IPCC based on this climate doomsday cult prediction... which 34 years later is thoroughly debunked. it's so bad that AP stripped later the date off the article when people found out about this debunked prediction. https://archive.is/vF3Tv
it's so bad that there are entire graveyards of debunked climate doomsday cult predictions. arctic ice. glacier national park. coast lines in california and martha's vineyard and florida. the list goes on. it's why they keep moving the goalposts, and most have stopped claiming that "bad things will happen by x year" and instead switched to "bad things will happen many years in the future if we don't impose climate communism by x year".
As far as I've been alive, I haven't seen anything in Climatology that suggests anything besides a concern that we could hit a global average temperature of 53 to 56 degrees by 2100.
Everything else is crap coming from the media and politicians advocating communism.
It's honestly like attacking someone who is opposed to Grooming Gangs because it's a "Feminist Conspiracy"
Comrade!
The primary element today is Nitrogen, not Hydrogen; Hydrogen escapes much too easily unless it's bound in a molecule.
But are you sure Oxygen was the primary element back then? I thought Nitrogen's been the primary element since the Cambrian Explosion, at least.
My mistake, I should have known that it wasn't hydrogen. If I made that mistake, I could be mistaken on the composition.
Essentially "it couldn't have been that hot, because that's too hot." Meanwhile they're fine with taking readings at airports as jets are flying past, or comparing cities to rural areas.
Here's the thing: Even if that reading was wrong, the people going after it are wrong too, because they're doing it for political reasons, not scientific ones.
Kill me now.
Now, I'm certainly not going to appeal to authority, but the intro made it sound like this was some nobody, when he was literally in charge of taking official readings.
I wish they'd define "relatively." The record was in July, he'd been working at the very least (if he'd starting on December 31st, 1912) seven and a half months. And who knows what his experience was before he started working at that one station? Even if it was his first job like that, you'd think that would be enough time to learn to read a thermometer, but what do I know...?
Just show how his readings were wrong, please. And, again, I'm not even discounting that they might have been. But the way they're going about this is super slimy. Zero evidence, basically. Just 'he was sorta new, and the numbers were high.'
Was that generally the hottest station in the area generally, or no?
Not an expert, but that just seems to make his readings more believable, not less. It was hot there that week, I guess...
What happened to trusting the experts? These people are second guessing the person who was alive and there at the time, and had the equipment and data in front of him. And these losers are, after the fact, just saying 'nah, don't make sense.'
The hottest place on Earth couldn't be that hot! That's an anomaly, unlike, you know, the whole hottest place on Earth thing...
So it's the same group of people that went after other historical records...
Exceptional and highly localized event...such as, for example, the hottest place on Earth being extremely hot that week?
According to records we do have the US experience even more volatile weather around every 100 years during the 20s