02-26-2015, 05:11 PM
(02-26-2015, 03:18 PM)tvguy Wrote:(02-26-2015, 02:56 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:(02-26-2015, 11:15 AM)tvguy Wrote:(02-26-2015, 08:59 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:(02-24-2015, 11:51 PM)chuck white Wrote: http://www.adn.com/article/20150223/febr...re-records
They have been keeping weather records in Alaska for 100 years or less.
It's been there for some hundreds of thousands of years. (More?)
So does anyone really know what the "normal" weather is like there?
It seems to me that they are saying these usually warm temps are not "normal" based on the rerecords they have been keeping. Isn't that meaningful?
I guess. For what it's worth. But it can't be worth a whole lot because it's such a short sample. So it's warm. If it wasn't it would be cold. Or wet. Or something. We take what we get and trying to forecast long-term weather is a fools errand.
So, that it's warmer than "usual" is kind of misleading because we really don't know what "usual" is. A 100 year sample in many hundreds of thousands of years ain't worth spit.
Who was trying to forecast long-term weather?
Yes I get it, 100 years out of many hundreds of thousands of years is a small slice when you look at it that way. And who was trying to forecast long-term weather? I also haven't heard it was tied to climate change.
Buy when you say it's the warmest it's been in a very old mans lifetime then I think it is indeed meaningful as far as trying to describe how rare it is and it's not really misleading at all as far as I'm concerned.
It means exactly what they say. These warm temps are not normal and are unusual based on the last 100 years.
Good enough for me.
Matter of fact, I wasn't all that interested in the weather up there anyway.
It is what it is and will be what it will be.