Where in the U.S. is the temperature no more than 75 degrees in the summer?
Sep 10th, 2019, 01:32 PM
#61
Vermont was in 70s-80s most of the summer but around Sept 1 temperatures went down to 60s and low 70s. We have even had the heat on a few times. You do get humidity which is rare out west. But so beautiful and green.
Sep 11th, 2019, 03:31 PM
#63
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody loves a 14-year-old thread...
Seattle reached 90 on just one day so far in the summer of 2019 (as of Sept. 11), so it's still a safer bet than most... and of course it will often be above 75 here, but people from Phoenix should be cozy here as a general bet (on the averages). (average daily high temps in Seattle "officially" (so at SeaTac airport) range from 73 to 77 degrees, during Seattle's typically hottest month of July) (that is combined with humidity that is usually approximately nothing significant - though there have been a few slightly-muggy days in recent times which make us pause)
I recently researched a 4-year period straddling Y2K where Seattle reached 90 on just one day during the 4 years.
The current issue (Harry Stiles) of Rolling Stone has a global warming map that seals the deal - Seattle IS it.
(Seattle has grown in population by 31% during the duration of this thread - so word is getting out)
July of 2012 was perhaps the first recent month about which the alarmists shouted from the rooftops:
"... was the hottest month on record on the planet for all time!"
(* until those alarmists reviewed their data and decided: "(eh, no, warmest was still a month back in 1934)" )
Meanwhile, Seattle's official temperature readings show daily high temperatures for July of 2012 having been an average of 2.5 degrees lower than their norms.
It used to be "global warming" (when Al Gore invented it - probably without understanding what both "global" and "warming" meant).
Now it's "climate change" (when they can change the data to suit their narrative as they see fit)
Thank heaven some corners of the internet print the raw data for intelligent people to view for themselves.
The rest just soak up the media's love for taking a tiny sliver of climate data and pretending it is significant against the history of the planet.
That being equivalent to polling exactly 4 voters somewhere and from just those 4 then forecasting the winner of a U.S. Presidential Election.
Everybody knows the media can't get the election forecast correct even with 50 million votes counted, so why do they take the talking heads seriously on climate change when the media has the equivalent to just four votes of data against the entire history of the planet?
Seattle reached 90 on just one day so far in the summer of 2019 (as of Sept. 11), so it's still a safer bet than most... and of course it will often be above 75 here, but people from Phoenix should be cozy here as a general bet (on the averages). (average daily high temps in Seattle "officially" (so at SeaTac airport) range from 73 to 77 degrees, during Seattle's typically hottest month of July) (that is combined with humidity that is usually approximately nothing significant - though there have been a few slightly-muggy days in recent times which make us pause)
I recently researched a 4-year period straddling Y2K where Seattle reached 90 on just one day during the 4 years.
The current issue (Harry Stiles) of Rolling Stone has a global warming map that seals the deal - Seattle IS it.
(Seattle has grown in population by 31% during the duration of this thread - so word is getting out)
July of 2012 was perhaps the first recent month about which the alarmists shouted from the rooftops:
"... was the hottest month on record on the planet for all time!"
(* until those alarmists reviewed their data and decided: "(eh, no, warmest was still a month back in 1934)" )
Meanwhile, Seattle's official temperature readings show daily high temperatures for July of 2012 having been an average of 2.5 degrees lower than their norms.
It used to be "global warming" (when Al Gore invented it - probably without understanding what both "global" and "warming" meant).
Now it's "climate change" (when they can change the data to suit their narrative as they see fit)
Thank heaven some corners of the internet print the raw data for intelligent people to view for themselves.
The rest just soak up the media's love for taking a tiny sliver of climate data and pretending it is significant against the history of the planet.
That being equivalent to polling exactly 4 voters somewhere and from just those 4 then forecasting the winner of a U.S. Presidential Election.
Everybody knows the media can't get the election forecast correct even with 50 million votes counted, so why do they take the talking heads seriously on climate change when the media has the equivalent to just four votes of data against the entire history of the planet?
Sep 11th, 2019, 04:21 PM
#64
