> The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
There are numerous years, going back decades, with highs higher than the numbers you claim. See https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/WA/Seattle...
Can statistics ever proof causality? At what point do you draw the line?
The numbers are not the numbers I claim. Those are the numbers the national weather service is reporting. I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
The numbers recorded now are the highest on record since we started keeping track. Show me where else you see 110 for Seattle being recorded. Ever.
Yes, this is an entire field of study. It’s what spawned phrases like “statistical significance”.
> I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
You said in your two earlier comments, “The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.” I shared evidence that Seattle regularly surpassed that level historically. You’re now moving the goal post by asking me to show a higher temperature than today. That question doesn’t matter since it still isn’t evidence that the record high is caused by climate change.
"10-15 years ago you did not need AC. Today every summer you're in danger of a heatstroke if you don't have it."
I would count this as a decently statistical argument, anecdotal as it is, because it's an economic observation, that if true, signals that the market is lagging behind some environmental change.
Also, PDX did record 117F, by far the highest record in recorded history, by like 10F.