Council Member
Posts: 1,961 
July 24th, 2008, 01:55 AM
Quoting Scott Free
Don't sell yourself short!
*sigh* no, but I might as well have been...
Council Member
Posts: 1,822 
August 31st, 2008, 12:40 PM
City has coldest August since 1944
August 31, 2008
Sydney has shivered through its coldest August in 64 years.
The harbour city had an average maximum temperature during the month of 17 degrees celsius, slightly below the long-term normal of 18.
The average overnight temperature also was down one degree to eight degrees, according to the Weatherzone.com.au figures.
With the average minimum and maximum temperatures combined, Sydney's average temperature during the month came in at 12.7 degrees.
Weatherzone.com.au meteorologist Matt Pearce said while it was a sliver below the long-term normal of 13.3 degrees it was the coldest August since 1944.
"We have seen a prolonged period of very cold air across southeast Australia in general this August," Mr Pearce said. "This has resulted in one of the best snow seasons in recent years in the Snowy Mountains, but has also kept Sydneysiders shivering."
It was also dry as Sydney picked up just 44mm of rain - well below the long-term normal of 82 mm - to make it the driest August since 2005.
"It is not that unusual to see the combination of low temperatures and low rainfall. Colder air cannot hold as much moisture as warmer air, so we would expect drier weather to accompany the chilly conditions we have experienced this month," Mr Pearce said.
City has coldest August since 1944
August 31, 2008
Sydney has shivered through its coldest August in 64 years.
The harbour city had an average maximum temperature during the month of 17 degrees celsius, slightly below the long-term normal of 18.
The average overnight temperature also was down one degree to eight degrees, according to the Weatherzone.com.au figures.
With the average minimum and maximum temperatures combined, Sydney's average temperature during the month came in at 12.7 degrees.
Weatherzone.com.au meteorologist Matt Pearce said while it was a sliver below the long-term normal of 13.3 degrees it was the coldest August since 1944.
"We have seen a prolonged period of very cold air across southeast Australia in general this August," Mr Pearce said. "This has resulted in one of the best snow seasons in recent years in the Snowy Mountains, but has also kept Sydneysiders shivering."
It was also dry as Sydney picked up just 44mm of rain - well below the long-term normal of 82 mm - to make it the driest August since 2005.
"It is not that unusual to see the combination of low temperatures and low rainfall. Colder air cannot hold as much moisture as warmer air, so we would expect drier weather to accompany the chilly conditions we have experienced this month," Mr Pearce said.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,298
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
August 31st, 2008, 02:04 PM
I think you've been right all along Walter.
I think you've been right all along Walter.
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
September 27th, 2008, 05:55 PM
Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused”
27 09 2008
We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Community Perspective
Published Saturday, September 27, 2008, Fairbanks AK News-Miner
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.
The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since 1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several.
Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.”
The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.
The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past, this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling — many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a positive gradient (warming — many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around 2000, and a negative trend began at that time.
The second component has a large amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the temperature rise. Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.
Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative). We have an urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting future changes.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, both on the campus of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused”
27 09 2008
We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Community Perspective
Published Saturday, September 27, 2008, Fairbanks AK News-Miner
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.
The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since 1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several.
Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.”
The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.
The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past, this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling — many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a positive gradient (warming — many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around 2000, and a negative trend began at that time.
The second component has a large amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the temperature rise. Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.
Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative). We have an urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting future changes.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, both on the campus of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
October 3rd, 2008, 05:56 AM
Ireland has 30 year cold event, plus coldest September in 14 years
2 10 2008
From the Press Association
Most of the country suffered the coldest September in 14 years, forecasters revealed.
In its monthly summary Met Eireann said the temperature never rose above 20 Celsius anywhere - the first such occurrence in more than 30 years.
Ireland has 30 year cold event, plus coldest September in 14 years
2 10 2008
From the Press Association
Most of the country suffered the coldest September in 14 years, forecasters revealed.
In its monthly summary Met Eireann said the temperature never rose above 20 Celsius anywhere - the first such occurrence in more than 30 years.
No party affiliation
Posts: 2,014
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 3rd, 2008, 09:10 AM
Global temperatures are still rising Walt, yes there are dips in areas and cooler periods from one year to the next but the overall temperature is rising.
All you buddies believe it as well, McCain, Harper, Bush the editorial board of the Toronto sun....etc etc.
Global temperatures are still rising Walt, yes there are dips in areas and cooler periods from one year to the next but the overall temperature is rising.
All you buddies believe it as well, McCain, Harper, Bush the editorial board of the Toronto sun....etc etc.
No party affiliation
Posts: 2,014
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 3rd, 2008, 05:11 PM
It's fun here on he bandwagon, they have cookies.
Quoting Scott Free
I'm hardly hysterical....concerned yes.
Do you have a reason for their rising or are you on the hysterical "carbon" bandwagon?
It's fun here on he bandwagon, they have cookies.
Council Member
Posts: 1,814
Location: BC
Location: BC
October 3rd, 2008, 05:28 PM
Quoting Avro
Cookies taste better than evidence I suppose.
I'm hardly hysterical....concerned yes.
It's fun here on he bandwagon, they have cookies.
It's fun here on he bandwagon, they have cookies.
No party affiliation
Posts: 2,014
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 3rd, 2008, 05:34 PM
Quoting Scott Free
Why bother, you've made up your mind.
Cookies taste better than evidence I suppose.
Council Member
Posts: 1,814
Location: BC
Location: BC
October 3rd, 2008, 05:41 PM
I'm wondering what is causing it.
Correlated data (carbon theory) isn't evidence; it is a coincidence unless a causation can be demonstrated and so far it hasn't. Nor does that explanation explain what is happening on the other planets. It is possible that is a coincidence too but, since we don't know what is heating up our planet, it might very well not be either.
The fact is that I don't know and apparently no one else does either. That being said, I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face either.
Walter suggests it is a long climate cycle and I think he is probably correct.
Quoting Avro
No I haven't as a matter of fact. I have no idea why this globe or any other is warming up.
Why bother, you've made up your mind.
I'm wondering what is causing it.
Correlated data (carbon theory) isn't evidence; it is a coincidence unless a causation can be demonstrated and so far it hasn't. Nor does that explanation explain what is happening on the other planets. It is possible that is a coincidence too but, since we don't know what is heating up our planet, it might very well not be either.
The fact is that I don't know and apparently no one else does either. That being said, I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face either.
Walter suggests it is a long climate cycle and I think he is probably correct.
No party affiliation
Posts: 2,014
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 3rd, 2008, 05:52 PM
For someone who says they haven't made up there mind you sure don't think it's Carbon....which it is. My sister is in the field, I had severe doubts about AGW but she set me straight with of all things....real science not some guy who writes a blog pretending to be one.
Seems to me you go after AGW believers and never deniers, we both know what you really think so stop pretending....it's kind of irritating.
You haven't found your answers yet, not my fault, keep searching.
For someone who says they haven't made up there mind you sure don't think it's Carbon....which it is. My sister is in the field, I had severe doubts about AGW but she set me straight with of all things....real science not some guy who writes a blog pretending to be one.
Seems to me you go after AGW believers and never deniers, we both know what you really think so stop pretending....it's kind of irritating.
You haven't found your answers yet, not my fault, keep searching.
Council Member
Posts: 1,814
Location: BC
Location: BC
October 3rd, 2008, 06:00 PM
Quoting Avro
What blogs do you mean? I haven't read any blogs on this topic.
For someone who says they haven't made up there mind you sure don't think it's Carbon....which it is. My sister is in the field, I had severe doubts about AGW but she set me straight with of all things....real science not some guy who writes a blog pretending to be one.
Quoting Avro
That's right because they (AGW believers) have no hard evidence global warming is caused by carbon but they (AGW believers) act as though they (AGW believers) do - now that is irritating since our idiot elites keep pandering to their ( AGW believers) hysteria.
Seems to me you go after AGW believers and never deniers, we both know what you really think so stop pretending....it's kind of irritating.
Quoting Avro
I'm not prone to settling on a solution until the reason can be demonstrated.
You haven't found your answers yet, not my fault, keep searching.
No party affiliation
Posts: 2,014
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 3rd, 2008, 06:02 PM
You don't know what it is but you know it's not carbon?
That makes no sense at all.
Quoting Scott Free
So how do you know it's not carbon.
What blogs do you mean? I haven't read any blogs on this topic.
That's right because they have no hard evidence global warming is caused by carbon but they act as though they do - now that is irritating since our idiot elites keep pandering to their hysteria.
I'm not prone to settling on a solution until the reason can be demonstrated.
That's right because they have no hard evidence global warming is caused by carbon but they act as though they do - now that is irritating since our idiot elites keep pandering to their hysteria.
I'm not prone to settling on a solution until the reason can be demonstrated.
You don't know what it is but you know it's not carbon?
That makes no sense at all.
October 3rd, 2008, 06:06 PM
Quoting Scott Free
Ignoring your ignorance of what statistics are actually involved with attribution studies, even the correlation works marginally in this case, because it has been shown that carbon dioxide traps heat from escaping a closed system. The vibrational, rotational and vibro-rotational state of the carbon dioxide molecule can be measured via the energy transfered when IR radiation is absorbed and re-emitted as the molecule goes back to it's ground state. This has been shown in lab experiments. And now we have spectroscopic measurements from the atmosphere going back to the 60's. You can read more about HITRAN(High-resolution transmission) and it's analogous HITEMP(HIgh-temperature spectroscopic absorbtion parameters) here and here.
Correlated data (carbon theory) isn't evidence; it is a coincidence unless a causation can be demonstrated and so far it hasn't. Nor does that explanation explain what is happening on the other planets. It is possible that is a coincidence too but, since we don't know what is heating up our planet, it might very well not be either.
Council Member
Posts: 1,814
Location: BC
Location: BC
October 3rd, 2008, 06:12 PM
It has been demonstrated that the carbon in the atmosphere couldn't possibly account for all the excess heat. Carbon is a very minor contributer to the problem.
Quoting Tonington
Your wrong.
Ignoring your ignorance of what statistics are actually involved with attribution studies, even the correlation works marginally in this case, because it has been shown that carbon dioxide traps heat from escaping a closed system.
It has been demonstrated that the carbon in the atmosphere couldn't possibly account for all the excess heat. Carbon is a very minor contributer to the problem.
October 3rd, 2008, 08:03 PM
Quoting Scott Free
And what does that have to do with your correlation mumblings? It has been demonstrated that there is a causative effect. More heat trapping gases means more heat trapped. How much it has caused is still debated, and suffice it to say your assertions don't cover the spectrum of possible attributions.
Your wrong.
It has been demonstrated that the carbon in the atmosphere couldn't possibly account for all the excess heat. Carbon is a very minor contributer to the problem.
It has been demonstrated that the carbon in the atmosphere couldn't possibly account for all the excess heat. Carbon is a very minor contributer to the problem.
Council Member
Posts: 1,814
Location: BC
Location: BC
October 3rd, 2008, 11:31 PM
The polar caps melting, for example, is probably due to airborne pollutants landing on the ice, which in turn traps heat at the surface by not allowing the snow and ice to reflect it, which in turn, causes melting. Carbon doesn't cause that.
Quoting Tonington
Sure but there isn't nearly enough carbon to explain all the heat. Carbon only accounts for a tiny small fraction. There are many more natural mechanisms that explain the heat even better, like say, natural planetary cycles.
It has been demonstrated that there is a causative effect. More heat trapping gases means more heat trapped.
The polar caps melting, for example, is probably due to airborne pollutants landing on the ice, which in turn traps heat at the surface by not allowing the snow and ice to reflect it, which in turn, causes melting. Carbon doesn't cause that.
