4 ms·

In case somebody is wondering about the significance of a temperature record https://books.google.com/books?id=N0FLSOmeFPsC&pg=PT59 https://books.google.com/bo

In case somebody is wondering about the significance of a temperature record https://books.google.com/books?id=N0FLSOmeFPsC&pg=PT59 https://books.google.com/books?id=N0FLSOmeFPsC&pg=PT59 Bottom line: records are extremely rare if events occur at random. If new records become far more common than the harmonic series predicts, then this is telling us that annual climatic events are no longer independent annual events but are beginning to form part of a systematic non-random trend.

kbutler 6y ago
1915: 100 degrees (from the article) 2020: 100.4 degrees (unverified, as described in the article) How significant is this newly reported record temperature? Is it conceivable that the warm day in 1915 reached 100.4 degrees? Maybe we've changed - the amount of reporting of records - the way we measure (thermometer and other equipment changes) - the frequency of measurement (periodic to continuous) - the immediate area (urbanization, equipment use) - the number of measurements (every location gets a chance for a record update) - the precision of reporting etc.
- refurb 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted? These are entirely reasonable questions. One reason why climate research is so hard is because of the variability of historic temperature data.
  - alecco 6y ago
    because hivemind no like
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't post dross to HN. As you know, we're hoping for a bit better than internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mcphage 6y ago
    Because it was written as a response to a statement that, individual records being broken on their own isn't significant, it's the number of records being broken over time. And so when your parent poster responded with "yeah well maybe this record isn't real", while they might be right, it really isn't all that relevant.
    - tasuki 6y ago
      > parent poster responded with "yeah well maybe this record isn't real" That's your interpretation, kbutler wrote nothing like that.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > unverified, as described in the article
- kbutler 6y ago
  On the "precision of reporting" scale, one should also note that the 1915 was recorded in Fahrenheit (100F) in Alaska, and the 2020 record was recorded in Celsius (38C) in Siberia and then converted to Fahrenheit, adding the record-making decimal (100.4F). Oh, and then rounded up to 101F apparently just for the headline. Honestly, who rounds 100.4 to 101?

kbutler 6y ago

1915: 100 degrees (from the article) 2020: 100.4 degrees (unverified, as described in the article) How significant is this newly reported record temperature? Is it conceivable that the warm day in 1915 reached 100.4 degrees? Maybe we've changed - the amount of reporting of records - the way we measure (thermometer and other equipment changes) - the frequency of measurement (periodic to continuous) - the immediate area (urbanization, equipment use) - the number of measurements (every location gets a chance for a record update) - the precision of reporting etc.

refurb 6y ago
Why is this downvoted? These are entirely reasonable questions. One reason why climate research is so hard is because of the variability of historic temperature data.
- alecco 6y ago
  because hivemind no like
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post dross to HN. As you know, we're hoping for a bit better than internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mcphage 6y ago
  Because it was written as a response to a statement that, individual records being broken on their own isn't significant, it's the number of records being broken over time. And so when your parent poster responded with "yeah well maybe this record isn't real", while they might be right, it really isn't all that relevant.
  - tasuki 6y ago
    > parent poster responded with "yeah well maybe this record isn't real" That's your interpretation, kbutler wrote nothing like that.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > unverified, as described in the article
kbutler 6y ago
On the "precision of reporting" scale, one should also note that the 1915 was recorded in Fahrenheit (100F) in Alaska, and the 2020 record was recorded in Celsius (38C) in Siberia and then converted to Fahrenheit, adding the record-making decimal (100.4F). Oh, and then rounded up to 101F apparently just for the headline. Honestly, who rounds 100.4 to 101?