The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:23 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Look at weather forecasts as they have the same problem with predicting in
advance.

"Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so
why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100
years from now?

"Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the
level of predictability is comparably different.

"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time --
generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and
unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference
between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now
versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is
a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness
-- but the latter is routine and reliable.

"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But
seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate
model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

Now go and produce some more cr@p quotes

Quotes which nobody has yet produced a convincing argument against.

rather than actually thinking about it like you always do.

Don't give up the day job and take up mind reading. You are no good
at it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:49:03 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Even when graphs are printed people look at the peaks and say "its rising"
they don't integrate the graph over time to get the correct answers.
I guess its just poor education leading to people not being able to use
statistics correctly.

I see, so the IPCC, Royal Society and Meteorological Office are
staffed by poorly educated people. Fascinating.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:57:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Ah, the forum/newsletter article by Christopher Monckton. Note that
it is not a (peer-reviewed) scientific paper but is rather a forum
posting. There is nothing wrong with making forum postings, they are
a way of putting across one's ideas to others, but one should check
a posting carefully before relying on it.

Check?

Check. Checking can be done in a variety of ways but one way is to
see what others have said about the article being checked. In this
and other ways one may form an opinion on the veracity of the
article being checked.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Huge wrote:

On 2008-09-19, Terry Fields wrote:

Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I
think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful
grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one
expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic
suffered because of this.

Then, one day, the model stopped working.

The possible parallels here might prove interesting.

Possibly LTCM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Te...tal_Management

No, I don't think it was that one. The model name began with 'P' IIRC.

But look at the glittering names in that report...that have just run
into the buffers.

Modelling chaotic systems isn't quite as settled as some would have
one believe.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.

Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.

David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:57:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Ah, the forum/newsletter article by Christopher Monckton. Note that
it is not a (peer-reviewed) scientific paper but is rather a forum
posting. There is nothing wrong with making forum postings, they are
a way of putting across one's ideas to others, but one should check
a posting carefully before relying on it.

Check?

Check. Checking can be done in a variety of ways but one way is to
see what others have said about the article being checked. In this
and other ways one may form an opinion on the veracity of the
article being checked.

That's like voting for Bar Abbas.

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:28:35 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel.

It is always worth checking with the sources I have mentioned to see
if any anti piece has been debunked by others. Trying to exhaust
their opponents by getting them to respond to a mass of
pseudo-science is a well known anti tactic.

The debunking of the article at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php
is worth a read.

There is a short summary of the history of the article at
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html
which is followed by a debunking.

"The "Physics and Society" Forum of the American Physical Society
decided to open up their newsletter to a nice respectful debate on
the main conclusion of the IPCC: that "anthropogenic CO2 emissions
are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global
warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution". From
there, things went downhill quickly!

"Two articles appear in the forum's July 2008 newsletter. The "pro"
case is A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change, by David
Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz. The "con" case is Climate Sensitivity
Reconsidered, by Christopher Monckton.

"Monckton is rather … notorious … for those who follow these
debates; and an extraordinary choice for a physics journal. His
article has lots of formulae but little insight or competence. It
did not take long for things to turn ugly.

"In short order, half the blogsphere fell over themselves in triumph
that the APS had reversed its long standing recognition of the facts
of anthropogenic global warming; and gleefully concluded that the
APS with its 50,000 strong membership could now be added to the
ranks of the denialists. Fulsome praise was heaped upon Monckton's
article as a brilliant mathematical refutation of the IPCC
conclusions. It did not take long for the APS to add to its front
page a plain statement that there had been no reversal of position;
and add in red ink to the top of Monckton's article a notice that it
had not been subject to scientific peer review, and drew conclusions
that were in "disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community" and with the Council of the American
Physical Society. Monckton hit back immediately with a letter
demanding an apology and retraction.

"How this all plays out will be most interesting to follow. The
initial decision by the APS editor was extraordinarily naïve. I
don't know what they expected to achieve with this; but whatever
happens now it's a big win for Monckton and his fans. He's got a
pulpit, and any response will be dismissed as scientific
close-mindedness. Treating it as a serious debate is all that the
denialists really want to achieve. Firing the editor (as some have
suggested) is surely an over-reaction that would only make
everything even worse."





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.

Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.

As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.
--
Roger Chapman

Terry Fields wrote:


Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I
think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful
grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one
expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic
suffered because of this.

Then, one day, the model stopped working.

The possible parallels here might prove interesting.

I was under the impression that models in economics had the major
problem that people are aware of the models and what they predict.
Therefore their behaviour and hence the modelled system, tend to change
such that the model no longer works.

Unless we ascribe intelligence to the climatic systems, this probably
does not apply in the same way to the climate. (Though *our* behaviour
might be modified by knowledge of the models and their predictions.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

Quote from Monckton's paper:

"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8,
record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The
January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center
monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies;
University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly
lower-troposphere anomalies;"

What makes you think it's on the internet? The Hadley Centre may have
published it as a limited-circulation paper or electronic form, or
made it available on subscription.

If you don't like that, contact them.

In the mean time, try this inconvenient truth, which is in the open
literatu

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...rctic-ice.html

-----
There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians
have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping
winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to
record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since
late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C
in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea
ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared
to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a
senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on
Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as
last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most
areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the
Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to
recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so
that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice
coverage will continue to expand.

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will
have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage
ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer
melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further
south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130
kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from
where it was last year.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global
warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of
climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting
sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land
surfaces.
-----

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.

Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.

As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.

And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:41:39 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-


Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

Quote from Monckton's paper:

"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8,
record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The
January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center
monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies;
University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly
lower-troposphere anomalies;"

Ah, so Mr Monckton is a "major player".



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.
I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.


Deny away mate, Dynamo Hansen has this time trumped your two of clubs.

Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.
I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.
Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.

And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

Economy and efficiency: no one responding here agrees with you - in fact
all you have succeeded in doing is unearth yet more evidence that
strengthens the case against your view..

Ero, you are no longer even interesting.

Terry Fields wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2008-09-19, Terry Fields wrote:

Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I
think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful
grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one
expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic
suffered because of this.

Then, one day, the model stopped working.

The possible parallels here might prove interesting.
Possibly LTCM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Te...tal_Management

No, I don't think it was that one. The model name began with 'P' IIRC.

But look at the glittering names in that report...that have just run
into the buffers.

Modelling chaotic systems isn't quite as settled as some would have
one believe.

£cnomists are very poor scientists: in fact many would say they are not
scientists at all.

Huge wrote:
On 2008-09-19, Terry Fields wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2008-09-19, Terry Fields wrote:

Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I
think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful
grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one
expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic
suffered because of this.

Then, one day, the model stopped working.

The possible parallels here might prove interesting.
Possibly LTCM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Te...tal_Management
No, I don't think it was that one. The model name began with 'P' IIRC.

But look at the glittering names in that report...that have just run
into the buffers.

Modelling chaotic systems isn't quite as settled as some would have
one believe.

Yep. It was something I tried at college, with a very simple system containing
two bacteria growing in a fermenter, one of which had a nutritional requirement
excreted by the other. After a few thousand generations, my simulation went mad.
I thought it was because I was a crap FORTRAN programmer, whereas it was in fact
a chaotic system, before anybody had heard of chaotic systems.


er..we knew all about positive feedback , singularities and the like
long before anyone called it chaos..

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

Quote from Monckton's paper:

"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8,
record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The
January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center
monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies;
University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly
lower-troposphere anomalies;"

If that page 25 graph is correct Monckton's claim that a pronounced
downward trend dates from late 2001 is patently false.

What makes you think it's on the internet? The Hadley Centre may have
published it as a limited-circulation paper or electronic form, or
made it available on subscription.

If you don't like that, contact them.

In the mean time, try this inconvenient truth, which is in the open
literatu

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...rctic-ice.html

-----
There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians
have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping
winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to
record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since
late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C
in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea
ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared
to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a
senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on
Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as
last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most
areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the
Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to
recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so
that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice
coverage will continue to expand.

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will
have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage
ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

Right to be cautious wasn't he given that just a few months later the
summer limit was setting a new record low.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer
melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further
south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130
kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from
where it was last year.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global
warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of
climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting
sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land
surfaces.
-----

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.

I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)

I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.

Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.

As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.

And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

Funny, I was sure I said I couldn't be bothered or something very
similar about some of your endless side issues. That might not have been
the answer you wanted but it wasn't failure to respond.

--
Roger Chapman

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.
I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.
Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.

And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

Economy and efficiency: no one responding here agrees with you - in fact
all you have succeeded in doing is unearth yet more evidence that
strengthens the case against your view..

Ero, you are no longer even interesting.

I didn't come on here to talk about this to be popular. I came on here
to discuss the issues of the myth of AGW.

I have presented data.....no-one has countered that data.

I posed questions....they remain unanswered.

There has been, though, a range of opinions expressed, which even you
will recognise is not data.

David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:41:39 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-


Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

Quote from Monckton's paper:

"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8,
record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The
January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center
monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies;
University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly
lower-troposphere anomalies;"

Ah, so Mr Monckton is a "major player".

Oh, so you can't read either.

Q: Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the
information is

A: Quote from Monckton's paper: Data sources: Hadley Center

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was
published by major players in the field, I guess character
assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.

Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information
is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern
winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in
average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.

Quote from Monckton's paper:

"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8,
record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The
January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center
monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies;
University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly
lower-troposphere anomalies;"

If that page 25 graph is correct Monckton's claim that a pronounced
downward trend dates from late 2001 is patently false.

What makes you think it's on the internet? The Hadley Centre may have
published it as a limited-circulation paper or electronic form, or
made it available on subscription.

If you don't like that, contact them.

In the mean time, try this inconvenient truth, which is in the open
literatu

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...rctic-ice.html

-----
There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians
have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping
winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to
record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since
late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C
in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea
ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared
to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a
senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on
Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as
last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most
areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the
Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to
recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so
that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice
coverage will continue to expand.

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will
have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage
ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

Right to be cautious wasn't he given that just a few months later the
summer limit was setting a new record low.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer
melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further
south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130
kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from
where it was last year.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global
warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of
climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting
sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land
surfaces.
-----

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2008-09-19, Terry Fields wrote:

Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I
think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful
grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one
expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic
suffered because of this.

Then, one day, the model stopped working.

The possible parallels here might prove interesting.
Possibly LTCM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Te...tal_Management

No, I don't think it was that one. The model name began with 'P' IIRC.

But look at the glittering names in that report...that have just run
into the buffers.

Modelling chaotic systems isn't quite as settled as some would have
one believe.

£cnomists are very poor scientists: in fact many would say they are not
scientists at all.

I'll bet they're better paid, though ;-)

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

snip

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

Logic is indeed not your strong point. Nor for that matter is
comprehension. Is there anything you are good at apart from taking as
gospel anything that agrees with your fundamentalist position and
ignoring or rubbishing anything and anyone who doesn't?

--
Roger Chapman

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:23 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Look at weather forecasts as they have the same problem with predicting in
advance.

"Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so
why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100
years from now?

"Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the
level of predictability is comparably different.

Wrong answer.
The fact that you chose to answer with such a stupid "quote" shows that you
don't have a clue.
They are both chaotic systems and can't be modeled over long periods that
have yet to occur.
Now if you have the maths to show how its possible to model a chaotic system
reliably I think you should tell the Met office and the climate modelers as
they will bite your hand off. You would probably get a Nobel prize for it.


"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time --
generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and
unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference
between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now
versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is
a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness
-- but the latter is routine and reliable.

Absolute cr@p, the high tide tomorrow will depend on the air pressure and
they can't predict it.
Look up storm swells in your list of quotes and think about how you have
just contradicted yourself in those two quotes.


"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But
seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate
model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

Now go and produce some more cr@p quotes

Quotes which nobody has yet produced a convincing argument against.

There is no argument against them, they are cr@p.
You don't even understand them and are using inconsistent quotes in an
attempt to prove something.

You still have not produced a single thing of any substance.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:49:03 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Even when graphs are printed people look at the peaks and say "its rising"
they don't integrate the graph over time to get the correct answers.
I guess its just poor education leading to people not being able to use
statistics correctly.

I see, so the IPCC, Royal Society and Meteorological Office are
staffed by poorly educated people. Fascinating.

If you say so.
I was referring to you.

The message
from Roger contains these words:

January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center

I have now tracked this down:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...riability.html

The fall is of the order of 0.6C which is indeed steep and maybe the
greatest so far (not by much) but being monthly averages rather than
yearly we should expect more variability and what Monckton doesn't say
but the Met Office does is that January 2007 was the warmest January
since records began, hardly evidence of global cooling.

It remains to be seen whether January 2007 really was the peak or
whether January 2008 is just another sore thumb like 1998 in the annual
figures.

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where the January 2009 figure is
likely to be? The Met Office thinks the trend is still upward. The
actual figure should be available in about 6 months time.

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:



"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:23 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Look at weather forecasts as they have the same problem with predicting in
advance.

"Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so
why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100
years from now?

"Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the
level of predictability is comparably different.

Wrong answer.
The fact that you chose to answer with such a stupid "quote" shows that you
don't have a clue.
They are both chaotic systems and can't be modeled over long periods that
have yet to occur.
Now if you have the maths to show how its possible to model a chaotic system
reliably I think you should tell the Met office and the climate modelers as
they will bite your hand off. You would probably get a Nobel prize for it.


"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time --
generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and
unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference
between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now
versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is
a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness
-- but the latter is routine and reliable.

Absolute cr@p, the high tide tomorrow will depend on the air pressure and
they can't predict it.
Look up storm swells in your list of quotes and think about how you have
just contradicted yourself in those two quotes.


"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But
seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate
model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

Now go and produce some more cr@p quotes

Quotes which nobody has yet produced a convincing argument against.

There is no argument against them, they are cr@p.
You don't even understand them and are using inconsistent quotes in an
attempt to prove something.

You still have not produced a single thing of any substance.

I think the point that's being missed here is that the models can't
even retrodict succesfully; they have retrodicted absolutely nothing,
yet they are used to advise governments about the future. FHS, AGW is
more of a religion than anything scientific. No wonder the believers
take the attitude they do.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

snip

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

Logic is indeed not your strong point. Nor for that matter is
comprehension. Is there anything you are good at apart from taking as
gospel anything that agrees with your fundamentalist position and
ignoring or rubbishing anything and anyone who doesn't?

The classic non-response.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Roger contains these words:

January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest
since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center

I have now tracked this down:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...riability.html

The fall is of the order of 0.6C which is indeed steep and maybe the
greatest so far (not by much) but being monthly averages rather than
yearly we should expect more variability and what Monckton doesn't say
but the Met Office does is that January 2007 was the warmest January
since records began, hardly evidence of global cooling.

It remains to be seen whether January 2007 really was the peak or
whether January 2008 is just another sore thumb like 1998 in the annual
figures.

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where the January 2009 figure is
likely to be? The Met Office thinks the trend is still upward. The
actual figure should be available in about 6 months time.

Interesting...thanks for the link.

It's a matter of personal opinion, but the very last sentence in that
report - "In future, while the trend in global temperatures is
predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent
variability of this kind" - is just a tad weasley, and may be the
start of a bit of back-tracking.

As you say, only time will tell.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I have now tracked this down:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...riability.html

The fall is of the order of 0.6C which is indeed steep and maybe the
greatest so far (not by much) but being monthly averages rather than
yearly we should expect more variability and what Monckton doesn't say
but the Met Office does is that January 2007 was the warmest January
since records began, hardly evidence of global cooling.

It remains to be seen whether January 2007 really was the peak or
whether January 2008 is just another sore thumb like 1998 in the annual
figures.

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where the January 2009 figure is
likely to be? The Met Office thinks the trend is still upward. The
actual figure should be available in about 6 months time.

Interesting...thanks for the link.

It's a matter of personal opinion, but the very last sentence in that
report - "In future, while the trend in global temperatures is
predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent
variability of this kind" - is just a tad weasley, and may be the
start of a bit of back-tracking.

They are keeping their options open. The points on the January graph go
up and down like a yo-yo and 0.3C reversals over 2 or 3 years are not
uncommon. Damp the vibrations out and you would end up with almost a
straight line since 1970 with an increase over the period of about 0.6C.

As you say, only time will tell.

Yes indeed. We can return to this argument every year and in 5 or so
years we should be reasonably certain whether any corner has been turned
in 2008. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

snip

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

Logic is indeed not your strong point. Nor for that matter is
comprehension. Is there anything you are good at apart from taking as
gospel anything that agrees with your fundamentalist position and
ignoring or rubbishing anything and anyone who doesn't?

The classic non-response.

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monkton who claims "record sea-ice extents were
observed at both Poles" but the news report quotes the man in the best
position to know the situation in the arctic as "seeing ice coverage
rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year" so on
one hand there is claim for a new record extreme and on the other a
claim that the extent is close to what was considered normal. One or
other of those has to be lying and I know which one my money would be
on.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

snip

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

Logic is indeed not your strong point. Nor for that matter is
comprehension. Is there anything you are good at apart from taking as
gospel anything that agrees with your fundamentalist position and
ignoring or rubbishing anything and anyone who doesn't?

The classic non-response.

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monkton who claims "record sea-ice extents were
observed at both Poles" but the news report quotes the man in the best
position to know the situation in the arctic as "seeing ice coverage
rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year" so on
one hand there is claim for a new record extreme and on the other a
claim that the extent is close to what was considered normal. One or
other of those has to be lying and I know which one my money would be
on.

The Canadian report I mentioned quotes actual figures.

Perhaps your man could also quote some? Rather than an
apparenty-subjective 'seeing'.

Roger wrote:

Yes indeed. We can return to this argument every year and in 5 or so
years we should be reasonably certain whether any corner has been turned
in 2008. :-)

LOL

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:51:45 +0100, Terry Fields
wrote:


Roger wrote:

Yes indeed. We can return to this argument every year and in 5 or so
years we should be reasonably certain whether any corner has been turned
in 2008. :-)

LOL

FFS can we have less of this ad hominem squabble, which has absolutely
SFA relevance to d-i-y?

Not just you, Terry, but all the argumentative parties... ;-)

What's needed here is a good old bashing together of heads...

--
Frank Erskine

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monkton who claims "record sea-ice extents were
observed at both Poles" but the news report quotes the man in the best
position to know the situation in the arctic as "seeing ice coverage
rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year" so on
one hand there is claim for a new record extreme and on the other a
claim that the extent is close to what was considered normal. One or
other of those has to be lying and I know which one my money would be
on.

The Canadian report I mentioned quotes actual figures.

Which other report are you referring to? The only one I can seen in your
numerous posts yesterday is:

"http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html"

Which is a news report.

Perhaps your man could also quote some? Rather than an
apparenty-subjective 'seeing'.

Not my man:

"Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in
Ottawa".

The only mention of actual areas in that news report was:

"Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice
expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the
average winter coverage in the previous three years."

Which is a very different story to Moncktons claim of record areas of ice.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monkton who claims "record sea-ice extents were
observed at both Poles" but the news report quotes the man in the best
position to know the situation in the arctic as "seeing ice coverage
rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year" so on
one hand there is claim for a new record extreme and on the other a
claim that the extent is close to what was considered normal. One or
other of those has to be lying and I know which one my money would be
on.

The Canadian report I mentioned quotes actual figures.

Which other report are you referring to? The only one I can seen in your
numerous posts yesterday is:

"http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html"

Which is a news report.

....of scientists findings. Are you suggesting that they have been
misreported?

Perhaps your man could also quote some? Rather than an
apparenty-subjective 'seeing'.

Not my man:

"Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in
Ottawa".

The only mention of actual areas in that news report was:

"Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice
expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the
average winter coverage in the previous three years."

Which is a very different story to Moncktons claim of record areas of ice.

I put up the reference, after discussing the non-availablity of the
Hadley Centre data on the internet, in case you found it of interest,
and which, in a narrow sense, suggested that Monckton's claim might be
correct, for one Pole at least.

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:51:45 +0100, Terry Fields
wrote:


Roger wrote:

Yes indeed. We can return to this argument every year and in 5 or so
years we should be reasonably certain whether any corner has been turned
in 2008. :-)

LOL

FFS can we have less of this ad hominem squabble, which has absolutely
SFA relevance to d-i-y?

Not just you, Terry, but all the argumentative parties... ;-)

What's needed here is a good old bashing together of heads...

We're trying, however badly, to get to the facts to support or refute
the OP's contention that calculating one's 'carbon footprint' is a
load of ********. The OP meant it in the sense that the website
mentioned gives roughly the same answer with highly-variable input
data, suggesting either very sloppy design or implimentation, or a
desire to coerce people into changing their modus operandi in favour
of a lower 'footprint'.

If it can be shown that GW due to CO2 in its variable forms is itself
an irrelevance to 'climate change', then the provenance of the website
becomes irrelevant...Hence the bunfight....;-)

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:38:25 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The fact that you chose to answer with such a stupid "quote" shows that you
don't have a clue.

Excellent,proof by assertion.

Absolute cr@p, the high tide tomorrow will depend on the air pressure and
they can't predict it.

That's funny, because tide tables have been available for centuries.

You still have not produced a single thing of any substance.

Others may wish to consider the differences between what various
posters have posted.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54