Calculating your carbon footprint - a load of bollocks

[Roger]

The message from Terry Fields contains these words:

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

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

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]

The message from Terry Fields contains these words:

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.

[Terry Fields]

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.

[Terry Fields]

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.

[Terry Fields]

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

[Terry Fields]

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

[Roger]

The message from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

snip

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?

[dennis]

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.

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.

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.

[dennis]

If you say so. I was referring to you.

[Roger]

The message from Roger contains these words:

I have now tracked this down:

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.

[Terry Fields]

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.

[Terry Fields]

The classic non-response.

[Terry Fields]

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.

[Roger]

The message from Terry Fields contains these words:

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.

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]

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.

[Terry Fields]

The Canadian report I mentioned quotes actual figures.

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

[Terry Fields]

LOL

[Frank Erskine]

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...

[Roger]

The message from Terry Fields contains these words:

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

"

"Which is a news report.

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.

[Terry Fields]

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

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.