@TMTisFree
Quote:

It was the year the North Pole would "melt entirely, allowing you to swim to it". Instead, nuclear-powered icebreakers became trapped in unseasonably thick ice.

@olegil
Quote:

Oh, and the north pole ice cap WAS at it's smallest in known history this summer: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/

@TMTisFree
Quote:

It was a year of record-breaking cold and snow, everywhere from Baghdad to the beaches of Malibu

Record snowfall in 1 season for Minneapolis is 1983 of 98.6 inches . While the snowfall in 2008 of 48 is about half the record. While there may be record snow somewhere it clearly is not here and therefore was not 'everywhere'. The record-breaking cold doesn't apply either. 2008 set some records in Minnesota as we hit -40F. However, the 1996 coldest day recorded .of -60F still stands. So again coldest 'everywhere' is not true.

@olegil

Quote:

Oh, and the north pole ice cap WAS at it's smallest in known history this summer:

thats yesterday's news !

The new facts: Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Quote:

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

read more

not bad IMHO

Last edited by Interesting on 04-Jan-2009 at 10:15 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@thread

It warms the cokkles [1] of my heart, coming in here to find so many people who don't buy the manmade global warming meme, and post facts to back up their views. Hehehehehehe...

[1] dang word-sensor! It sabotages legit, innoculus words, too!

Last edited by NomadOfNorad on 04-Jan-2009 at 10:48 PM.

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Yo Quote: Continuation of the discussion found here nice! first topic of mine to go dual thread

Thus, the End must be nigh.
Then again, even Helgis gets a few multi-page threads...

Last edited by wegster on 04-Jan-2009 at 11:38 PM.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK Here we've been on average about 1.5 C above normal throughout all of 2008. http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Vestfold/Sandefjord/Sandefjord~508257/statistics.html And it's NOT a local phenomenon. Same thing all over southern Norway...

I follow the link you provide. I quote the first sentence:
Quote:

The station is located in Stokke municipality

Bold by me.

Now go to "How not to measure temperature" to learn what is an urban heat island effect.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Urban? Urban?

Urban?

Urban?

The center of Stokke is about 100 x 100 meters, with a place selling lamps and a place selling new tractors.

Either you or the people who made that site don't know what a municipality is.

And, as I said, it's not a local phenomenon. The same thing can be observed all over southern norway, through that website.

Last edited by olegil on 05-Jan-2009 at 12:49 PM.
Last edited by olegil on 05-Jan-2009 at 12:48 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Btw, I'm not saying I guarantee that the numbers there haven't been measured right next to a heating vent or something, but automatically assuming all numbers that show increase in temperature MUST be due to bad placement of sensors is a bit strange.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @olegil ...but automatically assuming all numbers that show increase in temperature MUST be due to bad placement of sensors is a bit strange.

Stations located in towns have been concerned with artefacts data which are not found in other stations properly located. So data coming from stations near human activities are a bit suspect and have to be taken with care before drawing conclusions.

Btw I don't care if temperatures are higher or lower here or there or anywhere else. My main concern is about the fallacious theory of "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) that some persons with financial interests want us to believe in without any evidences supporting it. Climate is a complex enough phenomenon to reduce it to the AGW lie propagated by the IPCC technocrats and the band of pseudo-scientists following their propaganda (not even talking about the corrupted or self-interested politicians/mass-medium playing double game in this mess).

Here is an illustration:

Newsweek 22, jan 1996.

Bye,
TMTisFee

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Jan-2009 at 04:30 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Jan-2009 at 04:28 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

But municipality != town. You put the word municipality in bold. All weather stations in Norway are located in a municipality. No single part of mainland Norway is outside a municipality.

So if I put a sensor in the middle of nowhere you will still discredit it for being in a municipality?

Come on, fess up. You ####ed that one up.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Municipality translates in "municipalité" in my French dictionary, which is another word for a town (it is the administrative word for a town). Now if this word has an other meaning in Norway or anywhere else, fine, just define it: I'm not an English teacher. What I said is still right: data from stations in towns are suspect.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Jan-2009 at 07:29 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree
Quote:

My main concern is about the fallacious theory of "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) that some persons with financial interests want us to believe in without any evidences supporting it.

There is of course persons with financial interests that have promoted the anti-gw agenda. No side is free of cash.

What I'm concerned about is we should come upon our views fairly. Quote:

2008 was the year predicted to be the "hottest in a century".

Seems unsupported with instead the evidence being early in the year when anti-gw crowd cried foul on the cooler weather predictions.
Scienists predicted cooling I don't see credit to the anti-gw crowd when they falsely misrepresent the scientists by assigning a claim from the Farmer's Alamac to them.

Quote:

It was a year of record-breaking cold and snow, everywhere from Baghdad to the beaches of Malibu

Again I don't see credit to the anti-gw crowd when they make claims which some rudimentary research can quickly discredit as not true.

Now this isn't to say GW is or isn't correct. It's simply saying the anti-gw crowd doesn't gain much favor with such false claims.

@BrianK

You just miss a letter in your post, rendering it useless: it is anti-"A"gw.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

I don't know if the A adds any real value. *shrug* I think it's been very clear that GW talked about is seen as the factors which man controls and our relationship to the environment. Also what you call the anti-AGW crowd hasn't only argued that the causes aren't man made but seem to continue to argue that we're actually cooling (pro-GC?)


@Thread
Ran across a good link. Here are the major scientific agencies that back GW (or AGW if you so want)

NASA GISS http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
IPCC http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
NAS http://books.nap.edu/collections/glo...ing/index.html
SOCC http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
EPA http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....tent/index.html
UK RS http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
AGU http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html
NCAR http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
AMS http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
CMOS http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 This last one is interesting as it has statements from:
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

If the anti-AGW are true isn't this a bigger world wide conspiracy than what the Gnome of Zurich and Illumnati could do cooperatively?

Quote:

Oh, and the north pole ice cap WAS at it's smallest in known history this summer: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/

There was actually more ice this year compared to 2007 which can be seen here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
2008 has also afaik been the coldest year globally since the 80s or so.

Last edited by zerohero on 07-Jan-2009 at 12:12 AM.

@BrianK

Again you miss an important word in your list of agencies: governmental. It is well understandable that politics/policies of governments are followed by their own agencies...and that the official credo is the only credo of the scientists of these agencies even if these very scientists personally think differently. As an example, read the testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008:
Quote:

On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.

So eloquent.
There is also the example of the APS board which directives on the AGW subject are written by a couple of pro-AGW directors and not voted by the thousands of members, etc, etc.

The AGW theory is just a trap:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Municipality in this case means the area governed by the lowest level of administration.

I'm sitting 4km from the nearest town, that's still 4km from the border of the municipality.

So you have no proof that the weather station in question is located within a town.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Again you miss an important word in your list of agencies: governmental. It is well understandable that politics/policies of governments are followed by their own agencies...and that the official credo is the only credo of the scientists of these agencies even if these very scientists personally think differently

Yup as I said biggest conspiracy evar!

@TMTisFree

I find your approach interesting. You seem to throw out claims 'coldest and snowest everywhere' and 'hottest year ever failed'. Yet when provided evidence that these are highly probably as wrong there's no response. You skip over that like it never happened to try out some new claim. Is this moving target strategy common in the anti-gw crowd?

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jan-2009 at 05:07 AM.

@olegil

Quote:

Btw, I'm not saying I guarantee that the numbers there haven't been measured right next to a heating vent or something, but automatically assuming all numbers that show increase in temperature MUST be due to bad placement of sensors is a bit strange.

Well, if the weatherstation is the classic white one, there are international standards where to place it, it is a long time ago since I did run one, but as I remeber it was something like "at least 30 meters from nearest building, or other obstacles".

Here in South of Sweden, most of the official stations are located at airfields, which are outside urban areas.

OT info: the WMO LPNN for my station was 02942 2101.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@olegil

Quote:

So you have no proof that the weather station in question is located within a town.

And you have no proof it is not located in a town either.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".