Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thaumaturgy" data-source="post: 53057076" data-attributes="member: 169303"><p>HOW BAD IS OKEMAH AND OKMULGEE?</p><p> </p><p>Let's assume that Okemah and Okmulgee have some serious problems. CAN they be counted on to "see" the same warming trends?</p><p> </p><p>Since each year is, in effect, a little "warming trend" from Jan to Aug in North America. </p><p> </p><p>Well, let's rather randomly grab two years, 1913 and 1972 and let's see if they "see" the same warming from January 1st to July 31st. </p><p> </p><p>Let's just PLOT the temperature versus day:</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://members.cox.net/hagiograph/okok_seeing.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p> </p><p>So Okmulgee "sees" a 0.27[sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months and Okemah "sees" a 0.28 [sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months </p><p> </p><p>What about 1972?</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://members.cox.net/hagiograph/okok_seeing1972.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>Okmulgee "Sees" a 0.24[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months and Okema "sees" a 0.23[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months.</p><p> </p><p>These don't like like they are having significant problems in "seeing" the same temperature increases.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thaumaturgy, post: 53057076, member: 169303"] HOW BAD IS OKEMAH AND OKMULGEE? Let's assume that Okemah and Okmulgee have some serious problems. CAN they be counted on to "see" the same warming trends? Since each year is, in effect, a little "warming trend" from Jan to Aug in North America. Well, let's rather randomly grab two years, 1913 and 1972 and let's see if they "see" the same warming from January 1st to July 31st. Let's just PLOT the temperature versus day: [IMG]http://members.cox.net/hagiograph/okok_seeing.jpg[/IMG] So Okmulgee "sees" a 0.27[sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months and Okemah "sees" a 0.28 [sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months What about 1972? [IMG]http://members.cox.net/hagiograph/okok_seeing1972.jpg[/IMG] Okmulgee "Sees" a 0.24[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months and Okema "sees" a 0.23[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months. These don't like like they are having significant problems in "seeing" the same temperature increases. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
Top
Bottom