@BrianK

Reply is already here and here.
Btw my post here was an ironic response to the ironic post above it, in case you do not understand irony (hence the cartoon). The quote I provided is not from me (I prefer scientific papers) and I'm not entitled to defend everyone's opinion on the matter even if I think that its author is right about it (hence the quote).

It is interesting how the AGW crowd jump at quote without knowing its source: it is probably how the AGW crowd do its 'science'.

You are the one writing about conspiracy. Reread my post to try to understand what I wrote.

I forgot to say a word about scientific societies. This is equally pathetic: as a former member of five ones, I can assure you that they have absolutely no weight in any matter except, when they have one, the organization of their annual congress and, when they have one, as editors of their journal. Most of their board are retired scientists dealing more with politic than with science. They do/are nothing regarding experimental science and research.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Jan-2009 at 10:49 AM.

_________________
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".

@tomazkid

I'm not sure there is an international standard about station location. The NOAA has only a guideline (updated in 2008) about meteorological measurements in which the air temperature section is just the following:
Quote:

• Standard mounting elevation is 1.2 to 2.0 m (4.0 to 6.5 ft) above grade. • The sensor should be mounted over a plot of open level ground at least 9 m (30 ft) in diameter. The ground beneath the sensor should be short grass or natural earth, not asphalt, concrete, areas of standing water, etc. • The distance between the sensor and any obstruction should be at least 4 times the height of the obstruction (40 m for a 10-m obstruction). It should be at least 30 m (100 ft) from large paved areas and not close to steep slopes. • If mounted on a tower, the sensor should be on a tower boom at least as long as the tower diameter. • Temperature sensors should have downward facing aspirated shields.

Source

There are probably some other infos at WMO. I remember seeing a paper or a guide from WMO stating that the data collected by them have to have a plethora of additional metadata requirements such as "What is the airfield composed of in the 10km² around of the meteorological station", etc.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Jan-2009 at 10:30 AM.

_________________
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".

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @olegil 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/ Of course, that's just facts, and we all know how silly it is to drag facts into a discussion...

Since you are from Norway, you might be interested by that easy to read article:
Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
Quote:

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the 'Medieval Warm Period' of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Easy to see why the AGWarmists denies the MWP (see thread #1), but I disgress.

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

Speaking of stations, below is a plot showing an interesting figure:



The relationship between “warming” and the number of ground stations used to calculate monthly averages is rather strange...
GISS uses today about half the number of ground stations they used in 1989 to calculate global temperatures.
Most of the deleted stations are rural.

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

Quote:

Reply is already here and here.

Those don't cover the issues. The first is #72 from you where you don't say anything but I should call it AGW not GW. This doesn't show anything you said was or wasn't correct. But is you highlighting what you consider to be a spelling error? Personally if we're going to get exact we should talk about ACC, Anthromophic caused Climate Change. Cuz afterall some of the GW claims are for localized areas of cooling.

Post #68 talks a bit about temperature probe location. If it's correct in it's assessment it may prove some error but it doesn't prove how much. MN's temp of -60F was in Tower in 1996. Tower has 500 people on a busy day. There is no urban island effect. Perhaps the probe was moved in the last decade. Do your sources tell us if the probe was moved? Where was it moved to? How more proximal to heat sources it it? Do they have a forumla they applied to Tower to adjust the heat down by more than 20 degrees? What's the new record? How were they able to establish Tower really did break the -60F record so their coldest everywhere claim is true?

And of course neither post addresses that 'record snow everywhere' didn't exist either. Minnesota is but one place but is part of everywhere. Here we got 1/2 our record snowfall in 2008. 'Record snow everywhere' is wrong no matter where a temp probe is as that has nothing to do with snowfall.


Quote:

my post here was an ironic response to the ironic post above it, in case you do not understand irony

Post #57may have been an attempt at irony. But, since '2008 was the year predicted to be the "hottest in a century". ' appears to be not the Climate Scientists. I provided links that early 2008 the Climate Scientists predicted cooling until 2015 at least. So do you have any early 2008 or 2007 quotes from Climate Scientists showing us they claimed 2008 would be the hottest? As for irony it appears to be on the Farmer's Almanac not Climate Science.

Quote:

The quote I provided is not from me (I prefer scientific papers) and I'm not entitled to defend everyone's opinion on the matter

Was your post something you think is true and backs your argument to proving anti-agw? If the answer is yes then you are using someone's arguments to back your understanding. So yes you should defend why you believe why we should consider this part of your understanding is true. If the answer is no then the post was for frivolous fun and please mark them as humor next time.


Quote:

It is interesting how the AGW crowd jump at quote without knowing its source

If you read my post #58 I comment how I tried to find the source and wasn't able to and I asked you to find the source and let us know so we can research.

Quote:

it is probably how the AGW crowd do its 'science'

For me or you it's not that we are doing science. We are relying upon the science out there to prove or disprove our understanding of the climate changes. In the case of the quote there was a statement of records around the globe. Having lived through the records in my home state they were easily dismissable with the scientifically recorded 2008 records compared against the records ever recorded. The statement you included isn't true. You need to dismiss it as a lossed attempt towards anti-agw. This doesn't prove gw. But, since it's false you can't use it to support anti-agw either.

@BrianK

I didn't link the source of my quote on purpose; with little research you should have been able to find it as the cartoon link directly to the article. Anyway, I have appreciated the effects induced by slightly exaggerating facts, or not providing proper sources, or generalizing phenomenons to global ones, or bringing science to sensationalism, all things usual to the AGW fear-mongers. You should understand that. Or not.

Anyway, thanks for playing/experimenting.

Bye,
TMTisFree

PS: you understand I will not bother to reply to your post, don't you?

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Jan-2009 at 02:17 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

Btw I think while the article is globally right, it is formally a popular one (typically for people without any or poor knowledge on the matter):

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the (Climate) Forum

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

Quote:

Anyway, I have appreciated the effects induced by slightly exaggerating facts, or not providing proper sources, or generalizing phenomenons to global ones, or bringing science to sensationalism, all things usual to the AGW fear-mongers. You should understand that. Or not.

I think I understand your approach now. You feel that some agw over exaggerate so feel justified you can too. The mocking style you have displayed doesn't have much value with my approach here. I tried to be open to your anti-agw "facts" and validate them to enhance my understanding of GW issues.

Quote:

PS: you understand I will not bother to reply to your post, don't you?

Yes certainly I understand my approach of understanding isn't compatible with your mocking. So continue with your games.

Thanks.

@TMTisFree and @All

Hahahaha, nice, I did not think anyone would actually reply to my original posting.

It seems you are french, after reading the various posts here.

They tell me here downunder (Australia) that the french think backwards, is this true IYHO?

Either way, I like all the responses recieved from my little comical line of,

"anyone.................................for some fun."

Got another one though, are modern lcd's better or worse for your eyes versus Billiard Ball Screen CRT monitors. (Not FLAT CRT's, the Billiard Ball Shaped ones)

AND

What is better engine for modern environmentally friendly cars,

Water, Hydrogen, Gas, Petrol or Electric, and which of these that are environmentally friendly, could get the most power out of the same 2 litre engine?

CHeers.

_________________
Courtesy of SAM440Flex & Amiga OS4.1 only
Flex is 800mhz
A1000 with Classic 520 Amiga OS3.2.1
AmiKit 12
MorphOS PowerBook G4 (which can play youtube vids)

https://blitterwolf.blogspot.com

Wrong Question 8)

If your making an enviromentally freindly vehicle for average person use, you do not use an Intrenal Combustion engine at all, because its a design thats a complex set of compromises. As soon as you start looking atany use of Electric, you realise that Power and Propulsion are two seperable values. No more do you need a high power high torque generator that also has to be high efficient.

Capacitors supply acceleration for a few seconds, batteries supply lower powers for cruising in clean areas and round town, your existing fuel systems are used in a small hyper effiicent generator that is tunable so it can run as constant as possible. Stirling engines might be piston, Brayton are turbine designs, like turbo chargers but without the engine atatched, or you can go for solid state, take a catalytic converter, attatch thermoelectric elements, turn air and fuel pump on, very clean. Its even possible that you would end up with an engine in which you injected some biofuel from the refueling station, and it only reacted with the hydrogen, or a portion of it, so it did the carbon capture itself, running less efficiently, but overall far cheaper than trying to scrub the stuff out of chimneys.

At current UK purchase rate, in decent economic times, car makers can replace all standard electric generation capacitry with distributed car style generators, in any given single year. Nukes take 5 years or so to build each.

Even a Cathedral Diesel per town would be cheaper, faster to install, and cleaner, as they are more efficient than standard steam power stations.. 55% for a 100 Megawatt, as opposed to 45% at best for a 300-3000 Megawat steam.

You can run Cathedral Diesels quite happily on coal dust and water solution. Thats easy to come by, theres lots of flooded coal mines in the UK.

What you should be thinking about is, Stirling class generators of 95% efficiency, generating electricity, to run the electric motors, driving the power fans on aircraft. No more heavy inefficient jey engines. 8)

You can even recycle the thremal energy caused by drag on teh fuselage depending on design. and if the generators are again solid state, they can be virtually silent.

anyone for nonexploding planes with 300% improvement in performance per fuel? 8)

_________________
The older and more respected a scientist is, the longer it takes to prove him wrong.

@BrianK

There is no value understanding it now after I explain the goal.
I believe discovering that having been right at the place of the monkey for a few posts could be somewhat unpleasant for the ego but one has to draw lesson from everyday life's experience. And it can not be denied that this little game was unfair to either side.

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".

@Gebrochen

Quote:

They tell me here downunder (Australia) that the french think backwards, is this true IYHO?

Well, if it is French people that tells you that, you understand why they have emigrated to Australia. If it is not, are they lived long enough in France to be able to think as they do?

In either case, if by 'backwards' you mean enjoying the French way of life and wanting to keep it against fast food/aculturation or cultural uniformity/sex abstinence/political correction/mind's dependency/unilateralism/schoolboy pranks ban/alcohol drink ban/war and inhumanity/bad bread or wine, so yeah, I'm glad and proud of thinking backwards, living the 2 words of the poet: carpe diem.

If 'french think backwards' means otherwise for you, please elaborate.

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

Proposition of legislation coming from Oklahoma and found here:

Title: "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act"

Aim: if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."

Topics quoted: "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Your goal: find the suspect.

Good luck -;)

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

Quote:

Your goal: find the suspect.

The loony creationists from the Discovery Institute would be a fair guess.

@BrianK

We have a winner!
Still, I don't quite understand why they have put 'global warming' in the proposition list as everybody knows that "the science is settled" in this matter and that the "time for denial is over" (irony from me here).

Oh well, it is not my country and I have nothing to loose with that mess.
Everyone deserve the consequence of his acts. I just hope that I will live long enough to see a Nuremberg case against these pseudo-scientists.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-Jan-2009 at 10:57 AM.

_________________
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".

Double post

Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-Jan-2009 at 10:57 AM.

_________________
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:

Still, I don't quite understand why they have put 'global warming' in the proposition list as everybody knows that "the science is settled" in this matter and that the "time for denial is over" (irony from me here).

Looking at some of the anti-agw scientists they do seem to have a relationship with the creationist scientists. Roy Spencer I believe is one of this ilk.
Quote:

I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world

-- Dr. Roy W Spencer ... So eloquent.

@BrianK

Fascinating! Thanks for the quote.
How and why USA and its leadership still survive with so much contradictions is interesting. Even if explaining the past of man has little influence on today's life, building ignorant generation leads questions about the future.

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".

Some new input on Greenland

Massive Greenland meltdown? Not so fast, say scientists
The recent acceleration of glacier melt-off in Greenland, which some scientists fear could dramatically raise sea levels, may only be a temporary phenomenon, according to a study published Sunday.


the news item

Quote:

The ice sitting atop Greenland could lift oceans by seven metres, though even the gloomiest of climate change projections do not include such a scenario.

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

@Interesting

Another interesting (ahem) related post on that matter:
Quote:

We all have heard many times that summer sea ice minimums have declined in the northern hemisphere over the last 30 years. As mentioned above, this causes more sunlight to reach the dark ocean water, and results in a warming of the water. What is not so widely discussed is that southern hemisphere sea ice has been increasing, causing a net cooling effect. This article explains why the cooling effect of excess Antarctic ice is significantly greater than the warming effect of missing Arctic ice.

Polar Sea Ice Changes are Having a Net Cooling Effect on the Climate

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".