On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:48:29 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-

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.

And so far you have failed spectacularly to demolish the work if the
IPCC, Royal Society, Meteorological Office, scientists on
realclimate and so on.

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

Incorrect.

Do keep it up though. The best way to convince people of the reality
of climate change is to let the deniers present their views.



--
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:

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monckton 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?

No. What I am suggesting, and which you flatly denied, is that their
findings refute Moncktons Bogus claim to a record extent of polar ice.

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.

Pull the other one. The underlying message in the news report is that
the arctic ice is still a pale shadow of its former self . I haven't the
time to check but wasn't it only last year that Larsen B upped sticks
and left? So Monckton is wrong on both counts.

No more time to devote to the question atm. Mixing concrete all morning
and just in for a quick coffee break.

--
Roger Chapman

David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:48:29 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-

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.

And so far you have failed spectacularly to demolish the work if the
IPCC, Royal Society, Meteorological Office, scientists on
realclimate and so on.

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

Incorrect.

Do keep it up though. The best way to convince people of the reality
of climate change is to let the deniers present their views.

I posted references to three key graphs;

one was a Met Office publication, showing how little ("very low level
of scientific understanding") was known about eight forcing mechanisms
out of twelve; Data source: Hadley Centre.

one was a graph of satellite data 'suggesting', to put it mildly, that
planetary temperatures had fallen for a number of years; Data
sources: Hadley Center, University of Alabama

one showing over a 600 million year timescale the values of atmosperic
CO2 and mean planetary temperatures - in which the planet reached a
maximum of 22 degC mean temperature and with peaks of 7000ppmv CO2,
far out of line, in the wrong direction, from the proponents of
'global warming'; Data source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R.
Scotese; CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).

The Hadley Centre, the University of Alabama, and the IPCC are not
known for their 'denier' stance.

Have a nice day.

Roger wrote:

Pull the other one. The underlying message in the news report is that
the arctic ice is still a pale shadow of its former self .

The reference said that that "the ice cover had increased by 2 million
square kilometres over the levels of the last three years".

That refers to levels of increase, not absolute levels.

Have a nice day.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Pull the other one. The underlying message in the news report is that
the arctic ice is still a pale shadow of its former self .

The reference said that that "the ice cover had increased by 2 million
square kilometres over the levels of the last three years".

That refers to levels of increase, not absolute levels.

So? Polar ice has been shrinking for decades but Monckton would have it
that during the last arctic and antarctic winters both poles saw a
record extent of ice.

Meanwhile back in the real world:

"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.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, I will. The weather is great and the concrete mixing was over
quicker than I thought it would be.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

one was a graph of satellite data 'suggesting', to put it mildly, that
planetary temperatures had fallen for a number of years; Data
sources: Hadley Center, University of Alabama

Which graph was that then? I don't recall a single graph I looked at
where the trend was downward.

Can I take it that was not a graph of the original data before they
adjusted for orbital decay?

--
Roger Chapman

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
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.

But they are only forecasts and not absolutes as any ships captain will tell
you.

You decided that it proved your point when it does not.
It just adds to the evidence that you have very little understanding of
science or natural processes.
However that doesn't stop you searching for quotes in the hope it will prove
to be too much trouble for us to post real facts if you keep up the
avalanche of cr@p..


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

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

*You* have yet to post anything meaningful to support your views.
All you have done so far is show that you can't understand what you post.
You are like the born again christians with their little book of facts and
arguments to use whenever their beliefs are questioned.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"David Hansen" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:48:34 +0100 someone who may be geoff
wrote this:-

because you keep on spouting ********

That is one of the antis' tricks. It allows them to waste your time.
I think it is best to rebut them occasionally, with links to more
information which those with an open mind can follow and decide for
themselves.

Well so far *you* haven't posted any links to any useful data so I think
you fit your own description quite well.

All you quote is Sun reader press releases and no substance at all.

When someone does post some real data you either ignore it or
misinterpret it.

As for Geoff it has nothing to do with anti he just has a personal grudge
for some reason.

Err ...
lets see

You claimed to be the better engineer, but you don't even seem to
understand basic physics

and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you try and deflect it by
claiming that it was part of a bigger statement - which it wasn't

you claim that rain forests put more water into the atmosphere than the
oceans, expecting the other party to prove that it isn't the case

and you're an annoying self righteous **** who,deserves to get written
off in an RTA

capiche ragazzo ?

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"David Hansen" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:48:34 +0100 someone who may be geoff
wrote this:-

because you keep on spouting ********

That is one of the antis' tricks. It allows them to waste your time.
I think it is best to rebut them occasionally, with links to more
information which those with an open mind can follow and decide for
themselves.

Well so far *you* haven't posted any links to any useful data so I think
you fit your own description quite well.

All you quote is Sun reader press releases and no substance at all.

When someone does post some real data you either ignore it or
misinterpret it.

As for Geoff it has nothing to do with anti he just has a personal grudge
for some reason.

Err ...
lets see

You claimed to be the better engineer, but you don't even seem to
understand basic physics

You have even got that wrong.
You claimed a five year old was a better then me, I pointed out that the
five year old and I were better than you.
Its quite obvious to most people except you.


and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you try and deflect it by
claiming that it was part of a bigger statement - which it wasn't

When was that?
I have been wrong plenty of times but not when you were right.


you claim that rain forests put more water into the atmosphere than the
oceans, expecting the other party to prove that it isn't the case

No I didn't, you wrongly assumed that, and I didn't bother to correct you.
I said the problem was the burning of the rain forests which increased the
water in the atmosphere. You decided to bring up the sea which is of little
relevance unless you plan on filling it in. While stopping burning the rain
forests will have an effect I can't imagine anyone actually trying to change
the sea in any effective way. Of course if you weren't such an arsehole I
may have explained it to you rather than letting you rave like a loony.


and you're an annoying self righteous **** who,deserves to get written
off in an RTA

You are an areshole who can't think straight and wants to blame someone else
for your own stupidity.
You prove that some people should never be allowed to have kids.


capiche ragazzo ?

Sorry I don't speak Welsh.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

one was a graph of satellite data 'suggesting', to put it mildly, that
planetary temperatures had fallen for a number of years; Data
sources: Hadley Center, University of Alabama

Which graph was that then? I don't recall a single graph I looked at
where the trend was downward.

Can I take it that was not a graph of the original data before they
adjusted for orbital decay?

I had a punt about to find an answer for you, but I kept coming across
references to sea-ice growth of 9 percent in 2007/8. As these were not
scientific papers, but more along the lines of interested parties
exchanging emails and blogs, I mention it for interest only.

One such is he

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...-time-hadcrut/

which seems unhappy with some aspect or other of the Hadley Centre's
work.

Another reference he

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...lobal-metrics/

compares four different estimates of the Temperature Anomaly, all of
which show a (dramatic?) drop in temperature from January 07 to
January 08. Of interest is the statement "The difference between these
metrics is of course the source data, but more importantly, two are
measured by satellite (UAH, RSS) and two are land-ocean surface
temperature measurements (GISS, HadCRUT)", so that would appear to
rule out bias by the satellite measurements.

Another he

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=161

has an interesting mention at No. 8 of ocean currents that have
seemingly been only recently discovered, the impact of which remains
unknown - perhaps bad news for the modellers?


Taking a leaf out out your own book, Wikipedia turned up an aritcle on
satellite sensing of temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

For obvious reasons, I fell over laughing when I read this:

"The satellite records have the advantage of global coverage, whereas
the radiosonde record is longer. There have been complaints of data
problems with both records, and difficulty reconciling the
observations with climate model predictions."

It goes on to say:

"The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers states:

"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower-
and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar
to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within
their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy
noted in the TAR."

"However, as detailed in CCSP SAP 5.1 Understanding and Reconcilling
Differences, neither Regression models or other related techniques
were reconcilable with observed data. The use of fingerprinting
techniques on data yielded that "Volcanic and human-caused
fingerprints were not consistently identifiable in observed patterns
of lapse rate change." As such, issues with reconciling data and
models remain."

One may make of this what one will, but at the very least one gets the
impression of a certain frisson concerning satellite data and model
predictions that don't agree - perhaps because the latter have not yet
taken account of the newly-discovered ocean currents, but satellite
data, by its nature, would.

You may be happy to know that:

"The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance
record is difficult. The best-known, though controversial, record,
from Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (UAH), is currently version 5.2, which corrects previous
errors in their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The
record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems
with inter-calibration between the satellites are important,
especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between
the RSS and UAH analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a
2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal
correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend
from version 5.1 to 5.2.[16]"

....which should at least partly answer your question.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Pull the other one. The underlying message in the news report is that
the arctic ice is still a pale shadow of its former self .

The reference said that that "the ice cover had increased by 2 million
square kilometres over the levels of the last three years".

That refers to levels of increase, not absolute levels.

So? Polar ice has been shrinking for decades but Monckton would have it
that during the last arctic and antarctic winters both poles saw a
record extent of ice.

Perhaps the growth in sea-ice of nine percent was a record *increase*,
while the *total extent* (absolute value) of the sea-ice coverage
remained lower than previously.

Meanwhile back in the real world:

"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.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, I will. The weather is great and the concrete mixing was over
quicker than I thought it would be.

I'm glad at least that that went well.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
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.

But they are only forecasts and not absolutes as any ships captain will
tell you.

You decided that it proved your point when it does not.
It just adds to the evidence that you have very little understanding of
science or natural processes.


priceless

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"David Hansen" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:48:34 +0100 someone who may be geoff
wrote this:-

because you keep on spouting ********

That is one of the antis' tricks. It allows them to waste your time.
I think it is best to rebut them occasionally, with links to more
information which those with an open mind can follow and decide for
themselves.

Well so far *you* haven't posted any links to any useful data so I think
you fit your own description quite well.

All you quote is Sun reader press releases and no substance at all.

When someone does post some real data you either ignore it or
misinterpret it.

As for Geoff it has nothing to do with anti he just has a personal grudge
for some reason.

Err ...
lets see

You claimed to be the better engineer, but you don't even seem to
understand basic physics

You have even got that wrong.
You claimed a five year old was a better then me, I pointed out that
the five year old and I were better than you.
Its quite obvious to most people except you.


and refuse to admit that you are wrong, you try and deflect it by
claiming that it was part of a bigger statement - which it wasn't

When was that?
I have been wrong plenty of times but not when you were right.


you claim that rain forests put more water into the atmosphere than the
oceans, expecting the other party to prove that it isn't the case

No I didn't, you wrongly assumed that, and I didn't bother to correct you.
I said the problem was the burning of the rain forests which increased
the water in the atmosphere. You decided to bring up the sea which is
of little relevance unless you plan on filling it in. While stopping
burning the rain forests will have an effect I can't imagine anyone
actually trying to change the sea in any effective way. Of course if
you weren't such an arsehole I may have explained it to you rather than
letting you rave like a loony.


and you're an annoying self righteous **** who,deserves to get written
off in an RTA

You are an areshole who can't think straight and wants to blame someone
else for your own stupidity.
You prove that some people should never be allowed to have kids.


capiche ragazzo ?

Sorry I don't speak Welsh.

pretty crap at everything else too


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...

pretty crap at everything else too

Do you really think that your stupid remarks make you look like an adult?

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:


one was a graph of satellite data 'suggesting', to put it mildly, that
planetary temperatures had fallen for a number of years; Data
sources: Hadley Center, University of Alabama

Which graph was that then? I don't recall a single graph I looked at
where the trend was downward.

Can I take it that was not a graph of the original data before they
adjusted for orbital decay?

I had a punt about to find an answer for you, but I kept coming across
references to sea-ice growth of 9 percent in 2007/8. As these were not
scientific papers, but more along the lines of interested parties
exchanging emails and blogs, I mention it for interest only.

You could be right on that 2 million square km is a very large area.

Incidentally Wikipedia has so interesting information on polar ice
including the rather strange notice that the extent includes sea with
only 15% ice.

Seems I was wrong about the antarctic ice. Conditions in the Antarctic
are very different and much of that sea ice there comes and goes on an
annual basis and has been close to or at maximum extent in the recent
past. Arctic summer ice OTOH is mostly (or at least was) at least
several years old.

One such is he

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...-time-hadcrut/

That graph would appear to be a plot of the value every month unlike the
Met Office Jan graph but leaving aside that steep drop at the end for a
moment the graph does show a generally rising trend. 1998 as always
sticks out like a sore thumb but that is followed by a drop of similar
magnitude to that between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008 so there is some
expectation that the temperature should bounce back..

which seems unhappy with some aspect or other of the Hadley Centre's
work.

You mean the side issue posted by A Skepic esq.?

Another reference he

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...lobal-metrics/

compares four different estimates of the Temperature Anomaly, all of
which show a (dramatic?) drop in temperature from January 07 to
January 08. Of interest is the statement "The difference between these
metrics is of course the source data, but more importantly, two are
measured by satellite (UAH, RSS) and two are land-ocean surface
temperature measurements (GISS, HadCRUT)", so that would appear to
rule out bias by the satellite measurements.

Another he

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=161

That seems mostly about how someone is more than a little unhappy with
Met Office data.

has an interesting mention at No. 8 of ocean currents that have
seemingly been only recently discovered, the impact of which remains
unknown - perhaps bad news for the modellers?

Depends. 40 metres per hour is almost snails pace. If they have a
significant effect they should have been discovered earlier.


Taking a leaf out out your own book, Wikipedia turned up an aritcle on
satellite sensing of temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

Different methods give somewhat different results but they seem in
general agreement the trend has been upward.

For obvious reasons, I fell over laughing when I read this:

"The satellite records have the advantage of global coverage, whereas
the radiosonde record is longer. There have been complaints of data
problems with both records, and difficulty reconciling the
observations with climate model predictions."

The models aren't perfect in the first place and figures from satellites
are derived and thus much more open to accidental error in
interpretation than a thermometer directly reading temperature. So long
as the general agreement isn't down to collusion the more different
methods ending up with similar results the more certain we should be
that they are all on the right track.

It goes on to say:

"The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers states:

"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower-
and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar
to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within
their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy
noted in the TAR."

"However, as detailed in CCSP SAP 5.1 Understanding and Reconcilling
Differences, neither Regression models or other related techniques
were reconcilable with observed data. The use of fingerprinting
techniques on data yielded that "Volcanic and human-caused
fingerprints were not consistently identifiable in observed patterns
of lapse rate change." As such, issues with reconciling data and
models remain."

One may make of this what one will, but at the very least one gets the
impression of a certain frisson concerning satellite data and model
predictions that don't agree - perhaps because the latter have not yet
taken account of the newly-discovered ocean currents, but satellite
data, by its nature, would.

You may be happy to know that:

"The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance
record is difficult. The best-known, though controversial, record,
from Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (UAH), is currently version 5.2, which corrects previous
errors in their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The
record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems
with inter-calibration between the satellites are important,
especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between
the RSS and UAH analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a
2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal
correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend
from version 5.1 to 5.2.[16]"

....which should at least partly answer your question.

Now that is a right can of worms.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

So? Polar ice has been shrinking for decades but Monckton would have it
that during the last arctic and antarctic winters both poles saw a
record extent of ice.

Perhaps the growth in sea-ice of nine percent was a record *increase*,
while the *total extent* (absolute value) of the sea-ice coverage
remained lower than previously.

I go into more detail in my other response but I don't think that washes
as there has been very little increase in the Antarctic.

The growth of arctic sea ice may well have been a record coming as it
did off a record summer low but the situation was very different at the
other end.

--
Roger Chapman

AJH wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:30:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Things like pollution, water vapour and certain other chemicals that are
greenhouse contributors wash out of the air pretty quickly: Co2 does not.

For the purposes of its effect on trapping re radiation I think water
vapour can be considered a permanent effect but I'm open to arguments
on this. As far as I understand it, with a clear sky, the amount of
water molecules depends on the relative humidity, which will always be
less than 100% but what will the minimum be? The conjecture is that
there will always be sufficient water molecules to trap those
wavelengths that it can absorb whereas this is not true of CO2. What
puzzles me is that the CO2 will be fairly equally distributed through
the whole depth of the atmosphere, because of the gas laws and to do
with partial pressures, whereas, given the clear sky, the water
molecules will be concentrated in the warmer layers next to the earth
because otherwise their dew point would have been reached.

The big pollutant, from poor secondary combustion, that has a short
life in the atmosphere is soot or particulates. These seem to have an
effect of blocking incoming solar energy when in the air and absorbing
it, reducing albedo, once they settle or are washed out.
Ultimately we (in te west anyway) can create live and grow food in
artificial ecospheres if we have to, but boy we will need a lot of
energy to build and run them.

Not to mention exploiting finite resources, most renewable energy
deployment requires more concrete, steel and other "stuff" than our
current generation capacity per installed kW.


Yes. Its like 'organic' vegetables, worthy, but usually disease ridden,
small and not very nice to eat.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I had a punt about to find an answer for you, but I kept coming across
references to sea-ice growth of 9 percent in 2007/8. As these were not
scientific papers, but more along the lines of interested parties
exchanging emails and blogs, I mention it for interest only.

You could be right on that 2 million square km is a very large area.

Incidentally Wikipedia has so interesting information on polar ice
including the rather strange notice that the extent includes sea with
only 15% ice.

Seems I was wrong about the antarctic ice. Conditions in the Antarctic
are very different and much of that sea ice there comes and goes on an
annual basis and has been close to or at maximum extent in the recent
past. Arctic summer ice OTOH is mostly (or at least was) at least
several years old.

An interesting point, perhaps the relative stability of the Antarctic
ice-cover is the reason that much of the discussion is about the
Arctic - which has the benefit of being fairly close to populated
centres, etc, allowing easier coverage, on the ground or in the air,
that its sister Pole.

which seems unhappy with some aspect or other of the Hadley Centre's
work.

You mean the side issue posted by A Skepic esq.?

I didn't read the discussion, as I wanted to stick as closely as
possiblle to the original comments, so I#'ve no idea what Mr Skepic
said....

Another reference he

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...lobal-metrics/

compares four different estimates of the Temperature Anomaly, all of
which show a (dramatic?) drop in temperature from January 07 to
January 08. Of interest is the statement "The difference between these
metrics is of course the source data, but more importantly, two are
measured by satellite (UAH, RSS) and two are land-ocean surface
temperature measurements (GISS, HadCRUT)", so that would appear to
rule out bias by the satellite measurements.

Given the 'can of worms' that the information abourt satellite data
appear to have uncovered, this is perhaps an observation of note.


Another he

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=161

That seems mostly about how someone is more than a little unhappy with
Met Office data.

has an interesting mention at No. 8 of ocean currents that have
seemingly been only recently discovered, the impact of which remains
unknown - perhaps bad news for the modellers?

Depends. 40 metres per hour is almost snails pace. If they have a
significant effect they should have been discovered earlier.

Well, I'm not so sure. One problem that might arise is that the
models, which take something like a thousand different inputs, and
which to some extent then get tweaked in order to avoid wild swings in
output - implying great sensitivity to input conditions - have not
taken this into account. I know extremely little about chaotic systems
modelling, but what does come across is how tiny adjustments to the
initial conditions (of which there are so many) have this
disproportionate effect on output.

Data-collection methods such as satellite and ground observations will
take readings that incorporate the effects of these currents, whatever
the scale of their effect. The comment that these currents "may be the
discovery of the decade" suggests at the very minimum they are worthy
of study, and should certianly be considered for inclusion in the
modelling when more is known about them. After all, the discrepancies
between the data and the models predictions is currently leading to a
great deal of discussion; perhaps everyone is looking in the wrong
direction.

"The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance
record is difficult. The best-known, though controversial, record,
from Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (UAH), is currently version 5.2, which corrects previous
errors in their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The
record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems
with inter-calibration between the satellites are important,
especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between
the RSS and UAH analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a
2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal
correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend
from version 5.1 to 5.2.[16]"

....which should at least partly answer your question.

Now that is a right can of worms.

Isn't it just?


On the topic of recent data, I found a reference he

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74 (scroll down to the first two graphs)

which states that the data for one of the graphs we looked at earlier
- the one showing the Temperature Anomaly from ~1861 - 2004 and about
which we exchanged some data-reduction - has now been amended to
include figures up to January 2008, and published by the Met Office.
The author of the reference alleges that the data is not easy to find,
and that none of this new data appears to have been incorporated into
any MetO publication. His conclusion is that the MetO find this
apparent levelling-off in the recent TA figures somewhat inconvenient
to explain. I'm not suggesting I agree with him - or the trend-lines
added to the second graph, for that matter - but it is interesting
that such data is available but seems not to have been used so far.

One could read all sorts of things into that, and we could also
discuss this until we'd thrashed the possibilities to death. Would you
like to continue this interesting debate, or do you think we have
exchanged enough information for now for both of us to mull over? We
must have bored the group's other readers to death. I'm sure that more
data - and TV programmes! - will be along soon for us to pick up where
we left off.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

On the topic of recent data, I found a reference he

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74 (scroll down to the first two graphs)

A site written by a self confessed skeptic.

which states that the data for one of the graphs we looked at earlier
- the one showing the Temperature Anomaly from ~1861 - 2004 and about
which we exchanged some data-reduction - has now been amended to
include figures up to January 2008, and published by the Met Office.
The author of the reference alleges that the data is not easy to find,
and that none of this new data appears to have been incorporated into
any MetO publication. His conclusion is that the MetO find this
apparent levelling-off in the recent TA figures somewhat inconvenient
to explain. I'm not suggesting I agree with him - or the trend-lines
added to the second graph, for that matter - but it is interesting
that such data is available but seems not to have been used so far.

I followed the link through to the Met Office site and found this:

"In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time
series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the
filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be
treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the
data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on
these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final
value."

All I can say to that is ouch. It magnifies the effect of any anomaly as
can be seen with the deviation the other way in the prediction based on
the previous years figures.

Going back to the cited site you only need to look at the bold red line
added to Anthony Watts chart to see that the message is what is
important, not the data.

One could read all sorts of things into that, and we could also
discuss this until we'd thrashed the possibilities to death. Would you
like to continue this interesting debate, or do you think we have
exchanged enough information for now for both of us to mull over? We
must have bored the group's other readers to death. I'm sure that more
data - and TV programmes! - will be along soon for us to pick up where
we left off.

I think we have more than exhausted this topic for now but I for one
will be extremely interested to see where the Met Office smoothed trend
goes if 2009 does bounce back. The way their smoothing filter works the
last 3 or 4 years in the series don't tell us very much so 2012 may be
the year to look back at 2008.

--
Roger Chapman

Huge wrote:
On 2008-09-21, Terry Fields wrote:

I know extremely little about chaotic systems
modelling, but what does come across is how tiny adjustments to the
initial conditions (of which there are so many) have this
disproportionate effect on output.

That's one of the defining characteristics of chaotic systems.


However if the climate system were *that* chaotic we'd be growing
bananas one winter, and polar bears the next.

Roger wrote:

I think we have more than exhausted this topic for now but I for one
will be extremely interested to see where the Met Office smoothed trend
goes if 2009 does bounce back. The way their smoothing filter works the
last 3 or 4 years in the series don't tell us very much so 2012 may be
the year to look back at 2008.

Well, this whole exercise has been voyage of discovery - not the least
because the basic data itself appears capable of different
manipulations (such three or four groups analysing the satellite data,
for example) even before moving on to whether the data supports one
side of the debate or the other.

It seems like people may well be arguing over the difference between
two wrong numbers!

The Jan 2009 data is going to be interesting....but whether it will
settle any differences is probably a forlorn hope.

I'm sure we'll be back to this before 2012.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The Jan 2009 data is going to be interesting....but whether it will
settle any differences is probably a forlorn hope.

Definitely (a forlorn hope). :-)

As long as there are people on both sides, or even just on one side,
happy to cherry pick the data they use to prop up their position there
will be disputes.

I'm sure we'll be back to this before 2012.

Most probably.

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

The Jan 2009 data is going to be interesting....but whether it will
settle any differences is probably a forlorn hope.

Definitely (a forlorn hope). :-)

As long as there are people on both sides, or even just on one side,
happy to cherry pick the data they use to prop up their position there
will be disputes.

I'm sure we'll be back to this before 2012.

Most probably.

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

Smoothing filters are remarkably difficult to implement on data that
comes to a sudden stop..

I've had occasion to implement them, sometimes.

It's amazing how, if what you are trying to do, is produce a sine wave,
almost any random collection of points can be smoothed into one.

Roger wrote:


I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

I have many times emailed site owners about lack of information,
incorrectnesses, etc. The responses have varied enormously. At one end
of the scale, thanks for pointing out the problem and near-immediate
action to correct it. At the other, nothing, not even a reply, and no
change.

However, I do believe that it helps everyone when such questions are
asked, errors pointed out, etc. in the spirit of trying to get things
right.

--
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:


I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set? There must
be many such tools available. I need to monitor my blood pressure on a
daily basis, and to determine lomg-term trends I use the regressions
available in Excel to find the regression-line that results in the
least value of the variance - at least that has some authority to it.
A smoothing-filter exercise wouldn't even tell me the rate at which my
BP is changing. The MetO seems to be a little disingenuous here.

Terry Fields wrote:
I need to monitor my blood pressure on a
daily basis, and to determine lomg-term trends I use the regressions
available in Excel to find the regression-line that results in the
least value of the variance - at least that has some authority to it.
A smoothing-filter exercise wouldn't even tell me the rate at which my
BP is changing.

Interesting. Care to post the formulae for that?
I've been logging my readings over the last couple of months, and all I
can deduce is that they're good in the mornings and not so good in the
evenings. The rest is truly random it seems.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set? There must
be many such tools available. I need to monitor my blood pressure on a
daily basis, and to determine lomg-term trends I use the regressions
available in Excel to find the regression-line that results in the
least value of the variance - at least that has some authority to it.
A smoothing-filter exercise wouldn't even tell me the rate at which my
BP is changing. The MetO seems to be a little disingenuous here.

The smoothing filter seems to be there to iron out the large year on
year variations and give a better idea of the trend at a glance. It uses
a binominal distribution over 11 years with the central year getting a
weight of only 0.176197 and the adjacent years weighted at 0.160179. The
ends have so little weight I am surprised they bother with years 1 - 3
and 19 - 21. On historic data it would appear that it does a pretty good
job but IIUC at the end of the sequence when the 5 forward years are not
available they simply project the final value forward for 5 more years.
The previous year keeps its weight of 0.160179 but the end year then
gets a weight of approximately 0.588* and the 3 previous points on the
smoothed graph are significantly influenced in the same way which will
give totally the wrong impression if the latest figure is on the margins
for any reason.

*Doing that to the 1998 high would have had some of the watchers losing
control of their bowels.

--
Roger Chapman

stuart noble wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
I need to monitor my blood pressure on a
daily basis, and to determine lomg-term trends I use the regressions
available in Excel to find the regression-line that results in the
least value of the variance - at least that has some authority to it.
A smoothing-filter exercise wouldn't even tell me the rate at which my
BP is changing.

Interesting. Care to post the formulae for that?
I've been logging my readings over the last couple of months, and all I
can deduce is that they're good in the mornings and not so good in the
evenings. The rest is truly random it seems.

Use statistics to get a grip on the figures; there lots of functions
available in Excel., although they might take a bit of finding.

I use a number of X-Y charts:

Get your data into columns (I didn't know this function was available
at the time, but put time and date into one column - 'format','cells'.
time and date, 'special', and pick a style you like) with Systolic and
Diastolic in separate columns alongside, then select all three
columns.

Insert Chart X-Y scatter Type: Scatter and follow the
instructions. The chart takes a lot of setting up once it's generated,
too long for me go go into here, but it's worth the exercise.

You can add a trendline of several sorts: linear regression,
polynomial, etc. and you can change these at any time. Get the chart
to show the regression equation and variance. Change between them to
fins the least variance = best fit of data. There is a fair range of
statistical functions in Excel

I've done this for a number of items: BP versus date I changed
medication, BP as a function of time of day, pulse rate ditto,
Systolic vs diastolic etc etc; its easy once you've tabulated the data
and mastered how to set up a chart.

My BP has a smooth 'hump' as a function of time of day, peaking at
about mid-day, about ten points above the early-morning and
late-evening readings, but due to the scatter it would not otherwise
be obvious. Mean readings are 138 sd 9 systolic, 87 sd 7 diastolic.

My BP is falling at about 1mmHg every 8 days, again not obvious but
calculated form the regression equation slope of about - .12,

Have a go if you're interested, it's well worth going up the learning
curve, even if it takes a little time. Currently I'm bamboozling my
doctor with the graphs and statistics, as I don't want to take yet
another pill....the last one didn't do me any good at all, and he
wanted to put me on a combination that is currently not advised as it
is implicated in the formation of diabetes. I said 'no'....

Roger wrote:

The smoothing filter seems to be there to iron out the large year on
year variations and give a better idea of the trend at a glance.

To my mind this is the wrong approach - if you have data, then put the
statistical tools to work on it. Smoothing things out so you can see
what might seem to be a trend is IMVHO a very poor substitute for
getting the figures via an analysis - they'll tell you which way
things are going, and a whole lot more bedsides.

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set?

What is a smoothing tool if not an example of that?

There must
be many such tools available. I need to monitor my blood pressure on a
daily basis, and to determine lomg-term trends I use the regressions
available in Excel to find the regression-line that results in the
least value of the variance - at least that has some authority to it.
A smoothing-filter exercise wouldn't even tell me the rate at which my
BP is changing. The MetO seems to be a little disingenuous here.

Use statistics to get a grip on the figures; there lots of functions
available in Excel., although they might take a bit of finding.

I use a number of X-Y charts:

Get your data into columns (I didn't know this function was available
at the time, but put time and date into one column - 'format','cells'.
time and date, 'special', and pick a style you like) with Systolic and
Diastolic in separate columns alongside, then select all three
columns.

Insert Chart X-Y scatter Type: Scatter and follow the
instructions. The chart takes a lot of setting up once it's generated,
too long for me go go into here, but it's worth the exercise.

You can add a trendline of several sorts: linear regression,
polynomial, etc. and you can change these at any time. Get the chart
to show the regression equation and variance. Change between them to
fins the least variance = best fit of data. There is a fair range of
statistical functions in Excel

I've done this for a number of items: BP versus date I changed
medication, BP as a function of time of day, pulse rate ditto,
Systolic vs diastolic etc etc; its easy once you've tabulated the data
and mastered how to set up a chart.

My BP has a smooth 'hump' as a function of time of day, peaking at
about mid-day, about ten points above the early-morning and
late-evening readings, but due to the scatter it would not otherwise
be obvious. Mean readings are 138 sd 9 systolic, 87 sd 7 diastolic.

My BP is falling at about 1mmHg every 8 days, again not obvious but
calculated form the regression equation slope of about - .12,

Have a go if you're interested, it's well worth going up the learning
curve, even if it takes a little time. Currently I'm bamboozling my
doctor with the graphs and statistics, as I don't want to take yet
another pill....the last one didn't do me any good at all, and he
wanted to put me on a combination that is currently not advised as it
is implicated in the formation of diabetes. I said 'no'....

Thanks. Yes, I really must get into Excel charts, but I have an aversion
to pie charts and graphs.
What puts me off all this monitoring is the extent to which I know I can
influence the readings by slightly varying my everyday physical
activities in the previous couple of hours. Simple things like taking a
shower etc.

My BP has a smooth 'hump' as a function of time of day, peaking at
about mid-day, about ten points above the early-morning and
late-evening readings, but due to the scatter it would not otherwise
be obvious. Mean readings are 138 sd 9 systolic, 87 sd 7 diastolic.

My BP is falling at about 1mmHg every 8 days, again not obvious but
calculated form the regression equation slope of about - .12,



Have a go if you're interested, it's well worth going up the learning
curve, even if it takes a little time. Currently I'm bamboozling my
doctor with the graphs and statistics, as I don't want to take yet
another pill....the last one didn't do me any good at all, and he
wanted to put me on a combination that is currently not advised as it
is implicated in the formation of diabetes. I said 'no'....


Which one was that then?..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

My BP has a smooth 'hump' as a function of time of day, peaking at
about mid-day, about ten points above the early-morning and
late-evening readings, but due to the scatter it would not otherwise
be obvious. Mean readings are 138 sd 9 systolic, 87 sd 7 diastolic.

My BP is falling at about 1mmHg every 8 days, again not obvious but
calculated form the regression equation slope of about - .12,

Have a go if you're interested, it's well worth going up the learning
curve, even if it takes a little time. Currently I'm bamboozling my
doctor with the graphs and statistics, as I don't want to take yet
another pill....the last one didn't do me any good at all, and he
wanted to put me on a combination that is currently not advised as it
is implicated in the formation of diabetes. I said 'no'....

Which one was that then?..

Amlodipine was the one that caused problems - and it wasn't the usual
swollen ankles thing.

The suggested combination was beta-blockers/thiazide diuretics, which
I'd been taken off a couple of years ago due to the diabetes risk.

HTH

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.

I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set?

What is a smoothing tool if not an example of that?

It's the difference bewteen 'smoothing' the data, which doesn't seem
to do anything but tidy up the appearance, and statistics that tell
you everything about the data - IOW, chalk and cheese.

Roger wrote:

The smoothing filter seems to be there to iron out the large year on
year variations and give a better idea of the trend at a glance. It uses
a binominal distribution over 11 years with the central year getting a
weight of only 0.176197 and the adjacent years weighted at 0.160179. The
ends have so little weight I am surprised they bother with years 1 - 3
and 19 - 21. On historic data it would appear that it does a pretty good
job but IIUC at the end of the sequence when the 5 forward years are not
available they simply project the final value forward for 5 more years.
The previous year keeps its weight of 0.160179 but the end year then
gets a weight of approximately 0.588* and the 3 previous points on the
smoothed graph are significantly influenced in the same way which will
give totally the wrong impression if the latest figure is on the margins
for any reason.

You might be interested in the following exercise, where I took my BP
data and treated it to a) a 10-point smoothing exercise, and b) a
linear regression, which had a lower variance than a second-order
polynomial (not shown)(all data manipulation courtesy of Excel
spreadsheet).

Basic data, no form of data reduction:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/...2a5fcf16_o.jpg

10-point moving average:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/...28b914b0_o.jpg

Linear regression:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/...900527a5_o.jpg

The doc looks at the first graph, and says "you've got a problem".

The MetO looks at the second graph, and says "your BP is going up"

I look at the third, and note that my BP is falling at the rate of 1
mm Hg per seven days (from the slope of the systolic regression line),
and I say "if I keep this up, I won't need any extra medication, and
my BP will reach 120 systolic after 178 days, or 80 diastolic after
134 days". I'm already 73 days into the trial.

To my mind, there's no comparison between smoothing (which gives me no
figures and is misleading) and a regression exercise (from which I
can calculate all sorts of data). I'll go for the latter every time.

[For Stuart Noble's interest, here's my BP as a function of time of
day, complete with second-order polynomial regression - gives least
value of variance:]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/...fd1fc9c3_o.jpg

stuart noble wrote:

Thanks. Yes, I really must get into Excel charts, but I have an aversion
to pie charts and graphs.
What puts me off all this monitoring is the extent to which I know I can
influence the readings by slightly varying my everyday physical
activities in the previous couple of hours. Simple things like taking a
shower etc.

You might like to see my post of a few minutes ago to Roger, where I
illustrate several ways of manipulation of my BP data. For your
interest I've included a BP vs Time of Day graph.

I
[For Stuart Noble's interest, here's my BP as a function of time of
day, complete with second-order polynomial regression - gives least
value of variance:]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/...fd1fc9c3_o.jpg



Interesting I note the reverse of that High in the morning low around
midday and raising at night!..
--
Tony Sayer

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.
I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set?
What is a smoothing tool if not an example of that?

It's the difference bewteen 'smoothing' the data, which doesn't seem
to do anything but tidy up the appearance, and statistics that tell
you everything about the data - IOW, chalk and cheese.

Oh dear oh dear.

I see..

tony sayer wrote:


[For Stuart Noble's interest, here's my BP as a function of time of
day, complete with second-order polynomial regression - gives least
value of variance:]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/...fd1fc9c3_o.jpg


Interesting I note the reverse of that High in the morning low around
midday and raising at night!..

Ah....but is that by using a second-order polynomial regression ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

I am tempted to write to the Met Office about the bizarre way they
terminate their smoothing filter. Doubt if that will even provoke a
response let alone nudge them onto something a bit less extreme.
I'm sure you'll get a reply, but the chances are it will be some sort
of fob-off.

But why have a smoothing filter at all? Why not perform some sort of
regression or other statistical analysis on the data set?
What is a smoothing tool if not an example of that?

It's the difference bewteen 'smoothing' the data, which doesn't seem
to do anything but tidy up the appearance, and statistics that tell
you everything about the data - IOW, chalk and cheese.

Oh dear oh dear.

I see..

You're always at liberty to publish data that has been smoothed, and
compare that with the same data that has been statistically analysed,
to demonstrate how much better smoothing is for determining the
underlying trends.