It's officially hot today!

[n45048]

Let's not get into the whole climate debate. It doesn't matter what anyone says, those who think differently won't be convinced otherwise.

Let's all just agree that "climate changes", as to the cause, keep those thoughts to yourself :-)

[TerraHertz]

So it is in an urban heat island, with solid concrete on all sides.......

Even more than that. The road circle around it is a deep ramped cutting, from the Cahill Expressway tunnel. One way, right to left in the photo, then up the spiral to the bridge, So all the 'hot traffic wind' rises up from the LH end of the tunnel - not far from the weather station. Plus the very many lanes of Harbor Bridge approaches.

Probably would have been a better site 800m east in those open fields by Vista Pavilion.

'Better' depends on the motive for choosing the monitoring site. Those following events will know there's been a long history of monitoring sites in relatively cool areas (eg higher altitudes) being closed down, and substituted with sites in urban hot spots. There are some especially amusing images around of sites placed close to large aircon heat exchangers, in the middle of large bitumen paved areas, etc.

Anyway, that site is 'perfect for purpose'. Genius even.

@Halon: What 'outlets'? Do you mean the tube things on the lawn near the white temperature gauge box? Those are rain gauges.
"Let's not get into the whole climate debate. It doesn't matter what anyone says, those who think differently won't be convinced otherwise."

Actually, that's quite insulting of humankind in general. It's true a proportion of people tend to be 'believers' by nature, and latch onto viewpoints that they then identify with and treat information incompatible with their belief as if it's some kind of assault on their person.
But I'd hope members of a technical forum such as this would be able to take a more rational scientific position, in which all information is just that - information. If you don't agree with something, just file it away for reference. You never know, it might end up forming a pile that turns out to have more weight than another pile, that you happened to originally think was closer to truth. Those are quite wonderful moments, I find. It's the basis of how human knowledge progresses.

"Let's all just agree that "climate changes", as to the cause, keep those thoughts to yourself :-)"

Because what's really important is to never express disagreement with anyone, and f*ck all that 'searching for truth and consensus by rational discussion' bullsh*t? Discourse and communication, who needs it?
Especially with topics that are serious and affect all of us in very real ways, including in the wallet, right? After all, the idea that democracy critically depends on people developing informed opinions that they can support with fact-based argument, is obviously ridiculous. Better to remain silent and accept whatever you're told by official sources. Things go so much smoother that way.

How truly shocking that a thread titled 'It's officially hot today!' should dare any mention of the 'AGW- real or fake?' issues, as opposed to a series of superficial anecdotes and jokes. What's the world coming to?

[n45048]

But I'd hope members of a technical forum such as this would be able to take a more rational scientific position, in which all information is just that - information. If you don't agree with something, just file it away for reference. You never know, it might end up forming a pile that turns out to have more weight than another pile, that you happened to originally think was closer to truth. Those are quite wonderful moments, I find. It's the basis of how human knowledge progresses.

You and I are on the same page on that one. I had that hope too! However certain users have already demonstrated on several threads that they can't enter into a constructive discussion without argument, dismissing others and just being downright jerks.

So rather than fueling that fire and turning this into a 40-something page thread which really hasn't got anything to do with EE, I thought it safer to leave well enough alone. You and I might be able to express our disagreement in a mature manner, unfortunately some others can't.

[Vgkid]

I see a  k-6 school
I figured it would be censored out...

[GK]

Probably would have been a better site 800m east in those open fields by Vista Pavilion.

'Better' depends on the motive for choosing the monitoring site. Those following events will know there's been a long history of monitoring sites in relatively cool areas (eg higher altitudes) being closed down, and substituted with sites in urban hot spots. There are some especially amusing images around of sites placed close to large aircon heat exchangers, in the middle of large bitumen paved areas, etc.

Anyway, that site is 'perfect for purpose'. Genius even.

LOL.

That's a historical site. The B.O.M. lists max air temperature records from that site back to Jan 1859. I'm not sure that global warming was much of a talking point back then and I am sure the surrounding environs were somewhat different too.


And furthermore:

"Observatory Hill derives its name from the Sydney Observatory which grew from plans for a simple timeball tower to a full astronomical observatory in 1858. The Sydney Observatory is currently a part of the Powerhouse Museum. When it was operating, the Observatory took daily records of Sydney's weather until 1922 when the Weather Bureau building was erected. Nowadays, the weather station is automatic and housed in the enclosure next to the Environmental Education Centre. A limited number of readings are taken at this location because construction and development in the city has rendered some recordings unreliable."

From here:

http://www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/section06/observ_index.php

But lets not let facts and reality hinder the start of a good conspiracy theory. Now I guess that I can perhaps expect another anti-Semitic slur because you figure that I must be a Jew or you will accuse me of being US agent paid to spread propaganda on internet forums again - all part of the repertoire of an enlightened, "mature" debater.
 
 

[EEVblog]

So rather than fueling that fire and turning this into a 40-something page thread which really hasn't got anything to do with EE

That is precisely why AGW, religion, politics, and *insert conspiracy* etc will not be allowed to run-a muck on this forum.
People will simply not leave these subjects alone, and they will end up as the biggest threads on this forum, and hardly anyone wants that.
Those who don't like that policy can leave, there are countless other forums for that stuff, this isn't one of them.

[n45048]

That's a historical site. The B.O.M. lists max air temperature records from that site back to Jan 1859. I'm not sure that global warming was much of a talking point back then and I am sure the surrounding environs were somewhat different too.

The Observatory Hill site has been there a very long time indeed. It was moved about 150 metres South sometime in the early 1900's to its current location. Even then, they observed anomalies in the recorded readings (I read somewhere it was as high as 0.7C out) all because of it's proximity to buildings, paths, roads etc...

From then on, any weather station that needed to be moved would be decommissioned and an entirely new site be created rather than just appending new data.

Although I would have assumed they would move it somewhere a little bit more secure than that.

[GK]

That's a historical site. The B.O.M. lists max air temperature records from that site back to Jan 1859. I'm not sure that global warming was much of a talking point back then and I am sure the surrounding environs were somewhat different too.

The Observatory Hill site has been there a very long time indeed. It was moved about 150 metres South sometime in the early 1900's to its current location. Even then, they observed anomalies in the recorded readings (I read somewhere it was as high as 0.7C out) all because of it's proximity to buildings, paths, roads etc...

From then on, any weather station that needed to be moved would be decommissioned and an entirely new site be created rather than just appending new data.

Although I would have assumed they would move it somewhere a little bit more secure than that.

Right. These "anomalies" are present to some degree in any urban environment, understood and accounted for when actually applying the collected data. The past and continued existence of this weather monitoring site still fails to look promising as actual evidence for an unofficial conspiracy to inflate the reality of climate change.

[TerraHertz]

[That is precisely why AGW, religion, politics, and *insert conspiracy* etc will not be allowed to run-a muck on this forum.
People will simply not leave these subjects alone, and they will end up as the biggest threads on this forum, and hardly anyone wants that.
Those who don't like that policy can leave, there are countless other forums for that stuff, this isn't one of them.

What I'm curious about, is why you *care* if some threads exist on such topics, and grow large. You've never explained your reasoning, just stated that as a rule you don't allow it. Why does it matter?

You can't be concerned about server bandwidth, since you allow embedding of large images in threads.

It's not like people are forced to read threads they are not interested in. There are huge threads on things like FLIRs, that I personally have no interest in and have never even opened. I see the title, just don't click it. If I ever decide I might buy one, *then* I'd read. It's a choice. How is a thread titled 'AGW Jihad' in 'general chat' or something like that any different? If most people are truly disinterested (as opposed to you deciding for them) what's wrong with them simply choosing not to read that thread? Do you somehow lose revenue from that? Or lose sleep, thinking about people saying things you don't agree with?

You're right that for any given interest, there are typically other forums. The problem with that is most such forums are predominantly non-technical, and so the standard of discussion is low. I'm not aware of any forum of predominantly EE types, in which important social issues are discussed, are you? I'm pretty sure that's not a result of *all* EE types being completely disinterested in 'civics', so what's the deal?

The only real downside I can see for you in allowing wide-ranging discussion, is that if you see yourself as a gatekeeper, obliged to remove viewpoints you disapprove of, then such discussion implies an increased Mod workload. For which the simple solution would be, don't play gatekeeper.

Like it or not, you've created a community. It's pretty fascist to insist you're going to strictly forbid that community to discuss things they want to, even if it's only some that are interested and you disagree with certain ideas.

You could take a few hints from this guy: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.it/2014/11/on-conspiracy-theories-and-credibility.html  That's a much more mature and constructive attitude.  But then I guess it ultimately depends on your job description.

Hmm. Excellent lightning storm around here atm. I'm going outside to enjoy it. Thunder and lightning, yay!

[GEuser]

Out here where I am (Southern Darling Downs) it was 42c three weeks ago maybe 4 , get up with the times chaps 

[n45048]

You've never explained your reasoning, just stated that as a rule you don't allow it. Why does it matter?

He's the boss. To be quite honest, what Dave has put down as the rules is quite reasonable. Not to mention the fact that there is enough off-topic conversation going on which really has nothing to do with his core business as it is.

Let's keep EEVblog for the somewhat intelligent (as best we can) and those who are experts in the field rather than attracting all manner of nut bags and trolls.

Think of it like the road rules: Some exist because the majority of the population is stupid, but we all have to abide by them even if we disagree.

[EEVblog]

What I'm curious about, is why you *care* if some threads exist on such topics, and grow large. You've never explained your reasoning, just stated that as a rule you don't allow it. Why does it matter?

I have explained it many times.

• People come to an electronics forum expecting (mostly) electronics.
• The majority of the existing audience expect (mostly) electronics.
• The majority expect (mostly) electronics.
• The majority use the forum with the "Show unread posts" option
• Topics like AGW, religion, politics, and *insert conspiracy* typically do not end, demonstrably typically descent into vitriolic abuse

When you combine these things such topics are a very very very bad idea.
Regular users and newbies will just be subjected to constant off-topic crap between a handful of users. And it will lead to being the most "popular" threads on the forum and show up on the stats.
I don't want that, hardly anyone else wants that.

You can't be concerned about server bandwidth, since you allow embedding of large images in threads.

I'm not.

It's not like people are forced to read threads they are not interested in. There are huge threads on things like FLIRs, that I personally have no interest in and have never even opened.

They are at least on-topic, the other crap is not.

I see the title, just don't click it. If I ever decide I might buy one, *then* I'd read. It's a choice. How is a thread titled 'AGW Jihad' in 'general chat' or something like that any different?

Because it's off-topic.

If most people are truly disinterested (as opposed to you deciding for them) what's wrong with them simply choosing not to read that thread? Do you somehow lose revenue from that? Or lose sleep, thinking about people saying things you don't agree with?

A care about the people who use this forum, and new people who want to join.

You're right that for any given interest, there are typically other forums. The problem with that is most such forums are predominantly non-technical, and so the standard of discussion is low. I'm not aware of any forum of predominantly EE types, in which important social issues are discussed, are you?

Yep. Try aus.electronics and sci.electronics design you'll love it.

I'm pretty sure that's not a result of *all* EE types being completely disinterested in 'civics', so what's the deal?

As above.

The only real downside I can see for you in allowing wide-ranging discussion, is that if you see yourself as a gatekeeper, obliged to remove viewpoints you disapprove of, then such discussion implies an increased Mod workload. For which the simple solution would be, don't play gatekeeper.

Nope, I simply care about the people who use this forum, and new people who want to join.

Like it or not, you've created a community. It's pretty fascist to insist you're going to strictly forbid that community to discuss things they want to, even if it's only some that are interested and you disagree with certain ideas.

Fine, then leave and start your own forum. I'll even let you put a final post here advertising it.

And in case you don't get it, I don't want to hear about this again from you, ever. I'm done.

[Leiothrix]

The problem is that it's a religious debate.

People will argue till they're blue in the face, no one will pay any attention to what anyone else is writing, and the argument will go round and round in circles and end up in personal attacks.

No one is going to convince anyone of anything, facts be damned.

Discussion is fine, pointless arguments are a waste of electrons.

[n45048]

People will argue till they're blue in the face, no one will pay any attention to what anyone else is writing, and the argument will go round and round in circles and end up in personal attacks.

Correct! Which is exactly what Dave is trying to avoid. We can't have a forum where it's one rule for some and another rule for others. We all play by the same rules so that it's fair. It's not about censoring or silencing anyone. It's about keeping this place civil and focussing on its intended purpose. Anyone who can't see that needs a reality check.

At the end of the day, what he says, goes. So tough titties if you don't like it.

[mrflibble]

Try aus.electronics and sci.electronics design you'll love it.

It used to be that you could read sci.electronics.design and filter out the nut jobs, but at some point I just gave up on it. Signal to noise was a bit too ... interesting for my tastes.

It's not about censoring or silencing anyone. It's about keeping this place civil. Anyone who can't see that needs a reality check.

Yup, precisely this. Besides with forum policies it is as with everything else, you cannot please everyone.

[magetoo]

It used to be that you could read sci.electronics.design and filter out the nut jobs, but at some point I just gave up on it. Signal to noise was a bit too ... interesting for my tastes.

Yeah, if anyone wonders what an unmoderated forum with discussion of "civics" might look like, try s.e.d.  Last I checked, almost every post was AGW or Obamacare, and it's the same five people going around in circles.  That place is officially hot!  As in flamewars.

comp.embedded and comp.dsp, in contrast, are pretty good.  That's probably because people come there via a web interface that's moderated.


Back on topic, yesterday's snow has all melted now.  Looks like 3-4 degrees Celsius or so.

[EEVblog]

Yeah, if anyone wonders what an unmoderated forum with discussion of "civics" might look like, try s.e.d.  Last I checked, almost every post was AGW or Obamacare, and it's the same five people going around in circles.  That place is officially hot!  As in flamewars.

I haven't looked at it or posted in maybe 4-5 years or so, but I was so confident it would be like that I didn't even bother to check what it's like now!
If you exclude two resident decades old veteran nut-jobs who mostly post vitriol, I was once the top poster to the aus.electronics forum.

[tautech]

aus.electronics who?
Never heard of them.
Just keep doing what you are doing Dave.