Such a post encourages nothing... From now on I will post it how it is, if you don't agre that's okay. These long arguments solve nothing, you all want to be correct and get me so frustrated I can't accurately present the facts. It's not a conducive environment. You guys rely on internet links like cars rely on oil...
No, dummy - we rely on accepted authority, which iS present on the web. You want us to accept your personal statements which are totally worthless. That's the REAL difference between you and the rest of us!!!
Really. Yet earlier you said. Firstly no where in his post does DH claim that culture will be enough to define winter. But you do, in the above quote. So you are not even being consistent in your posts. Now I happen to agree that, in general, winter is a cultural term. And it is clear from DH's posted information that the culture of the South Pole Station make a clear distinction between summer and winter. This directly and comprehensively refutes your statement Do you wish to tell the Innuit, or shall I.
In fairness, and for completeness, many of us make statements which may superficially appear to be statements of opinion. When called upon, however, we can demonstrate that these are not opinions, but well established positions - or at least viable and plausible positions - within the scientific community. I should prefer to offer at times like these references from standard texts or from published papers, however these are often unavailable on the internet, so we take what is available and offer that.
*** Both of you clearly have a different philosophy than I do. I do very little of my work on the internet, for the most part it is done in the library. I do depend on the computer for raw data, and currently north pole/south pole seasonal changes are not my topic of study...both of which are specialties. I'm gearing up to research key elements of meteorological events in a one year period over a very small stretch of land. Since I don't do much research on the internet, I wouldn't know where to find it.
Isn't the internet, at least in part, a vast library? Or perhaps references only count if they are in hardcopy form?
As a student my teachers don't like internet sources, so I follow their rules. There's large databases of maps over the past 60 years in the library, I don't think they've found an efficient way to move them to the internet since the size of the maps is often 2ft by 2ft. You do need the internet to get weather maps if you need them, luckily I had the opportunity to work at the weather station for a couple months where I live. However most climatological data is stored in hard copy, where the events are just listed in massive tables, generally a book per year per region.
Pray tell -- what continental region or continent is near the North Pole? Last time I read, another name for the region in the vicinity of the North Pole is called the "Arctic Ocean". Depends on what you mean by "nearly at". If you had looked at your own link, you would have seen where the lab is located: Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory NOAA /R/PMEL 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115The PMEL deploys unmanned buoys in the ice pack and collects data from the buoys via satellite. What is wrong is that you employed two fallacies in one short statement. Your argument is both a red herring and a straw man. Climatological models differ significantly from meteorological models. Weather and climate are different concepts. The random variations that make weather forecasting beyond seven days next to impossible are not an issue to climatology because climatology is concerned with climate, not weather. In the long term, those short term variations average out. What is left is climate. Climatology models focus on energy balance and energy transfer over long periods of time and long distances. Meteorological models don't care so much about these long-term variations and thus aren't very good at tracking climate. Climatological models on the other hand operate at too coarse a time scale and too coarse a distance scale to be of any use in predicting tomorrow's weather.
You also exhibit another major character flaw: not acknowledging your mistakes - as in the location of the PMEL when it's shown to you. I'm sorry to say that your credibility is rapidly falling each and every hour. You're not far from rock-bottom already...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I posted the wrong link, they have an organization that detects the glacial melt near the north pole. I'm sure it could be found somewhere in the link I did provide though.
For **** sake man, can you read. What did I say above: I should prefer to offer at times like these references from standard texts or from published papers, however these are often unavailable on the internet, so we take what is available and offer that. Most of the time I could offer support for my statements from my personal library. That is hardly helpful to the majority of readers who are not likely to have ready access to the same works. So I find something comparable and accessible on the internet and quote that instead.
Since PeskyChips is being somewhat annoying I thought I'd throw in a touch of frivolity. In my home town we often used to say that we had a great climate, it was only the weather that was awful. I always thought it a pithy way of capturing the difference.
Good grief, man! Then post an excerpt from it that shows that! Do you realize that throughout this entire discussion you've not yet presented much more than just your opinion? That's pretty terrible!! And while not everthing is presented on the web, a HUGE amount of actually is. Several of us have provided links to some of that information, yet you seem to be too unskilled or too lazy to do the same. NOAA and the NWS have TONS of data on the web available to researchers. Just what IS it with you? Just like to talk? And expect everyone to take your word as gospel????? Science does NOT work like that - try presenting a paper sometime that consists of nothing more than your word. You'd be torn to shreds and tossed to the dogs in an instant!
The University of Washington runs the North Polar Environmental Observatory. Their website: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html. Do note what they call this observatory: "An automated scientific observatory in the central Arctic Ocean". There are no glaciers near the North Pole. A student of meteorology/climatology should know this. There is of course a lot of sea ice, but not quite so much as there used to be. NOAA assesses the extent of sea ice by remote sensing. A student of meteorology/climatology should know this, too.
Good point! I let that one slip by me. You know, I'm beginning to have serious doubts this guy is even what he claims to be or has even studied what he says he has. If he really did, he sure didn't get much out of those studies.:shrug:
You all have strayed so far from the original topic that there's no point in continuing. The inability to discuss a single topic by claiming I made some vast unrelated errors in a topic that's outside of any relevance. Have fun patting yourselves on the backs.
To the contrary!!! It's been perfectly revelant to precisely what you interjected into it - good grief, man!!:bugeye: But no problem at all - if you can't take the pressure of being asked to be accurate, you are more than welcome to run away and hide.
The errors were not vast. You enlarged them by failing to recognise them up front, but instead defending them with increasingly weak arguments and faulty evidence. If that is going to be your modus operandi around here you will lose respect very quickly. Does that matter? Well it does if you wish people to listen to what you have to say. And I would only indulge in back patting if we had been able to get that point across to you. You were not being attacked, your poor methodology is what was under attack.
