Newspaper and TV News Weather Proclamations of "Record Rain Fall" and "Record Temperatures" Are Often Pure B.S,

This is a really short article for good reason. The information contained within is simple to understand and important to you. Before nodding your head along with reports that you are experiencing record temperatures or other weather temperatures you should expect the news reporter to issue a disclaimer statement to explain exactly what it is that makes it a record.

Often times one turns on the television weather news and the talking head on television says, "we had record low or high temperatures for today." What this statement often means is that for the 14 th of July, or what ever numeric date happens to be discussed, the record is for that numeric day in particular-- all of the 14th's of July going back to when weather records started to be kept. It does not mean that there were not 13ths or 12ths of July that did not have even hotter or cooler "record" temperatures in other years. Why is it that you need to compare days by the date and have a record kept for each numeric day?

Record weather reporting is nothing short of stupid and absurd. Just because 110 degrees is the record for July 13 in 1979 does not mean that it is the hottest temperature ever recorded in a particular place over long periods of time. There is so much time and effort reporting on records per numeric date in the mass media it just becomes a joke reading it or listening to it. A better form of reporting would be to say that a particular place, say Portland, Oregon, only had recorded temperature of 110 degrees in July 5 times in a century and a quarter of record keeping. That seems to be too sophisticated even for the best of journalists to offer the general public.

Somewhere online you can probably find weather station record charts going back in time that show temperature ranges recorded each day. The record per each numeric day is complete nonsense. The next time you read or hear the weather records reported think about how meaningless it is that someone wants to tell you it is a record because it is really a record of deception since numeric dates should not have any expectation of any particular temperature range except maybe warmer ranges for summer dates and cooler ranges for winter dates.

If the reporting starts to bother you , not that you know what they are actually talking about, call and complain to the newspaper or TV station and ask them for more sophisticated data analysis. Once it occurs to you that the weather journalists don't know much about the records they are talking about you might also begin to wonder where it is that they get their global warming records and how they come up with that record temperature analysis. The reason to be concerned is that the NASA based whole earth satellite measurement of earth temperature models is first just a theoretical model and a means of making such measurements less than 20 years old. The news media does not seem to worry about the complexity of what they seem to be reporting. You also hear a lot about sea level records but those records were inaccurately kept until GPS satellite measurements by various means including radio imaging were perfected. Because of the movement of the earth's surface over time with some continental areas subsiding and some rising coming up with exact sea levels to the centimeter was never as precise as it is now. The sea level determined sea level. That is and was tautological. Watch out when ever someone tells you there is a world's record for geological / geophysical data because they are probably talking about a more limited period of time when measurements were kept and may not even be aware how past less reliable data is guesstimated or even extrapolated by inference and then meshed with present more accurate data. It all comes down to being just as dumb and useless about hearing or reading about the record temperature for a particular numerical date. The same exact fallacy and deception. It sounds good. Seems interesting but is really meaningless without seeing much more of the original embedded data. Every July 14th for the past 120 years might not be a July 14th with an east wind instead of a west wind. There may be more east wind on the 15th. Does that make any difference? It could but it might be more logical to talk about mid July tendencies in the weather?