It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-51273
and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

Welcom back Al. LTNS.

On Aug 31, 9:26 am, Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming,

They are not heretical Alistair, just wrong.

It's daft to jump to one conclusion when there are many alternatives,
not least of which is our savage treatment of the sea. Or did you
expect god to allow it to be fished to oblivion and no abreaction?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...

310 wayne davidson Says:

I am a little puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent
yearly projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
to be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

As with the hurricane/glowballs hullaballoo when the records got
broken in 2005 and here we are in 2007 with a dearth, there is perhaps
a cycle to these things.

I feel I did quite a good job with 2005 and furthermore I couldn't see
anything outstanding showing up in 2007, so if I had said there
wouldn't be many hurricanes this year, I'd have been able to prove it
is lunarcy.

Next time I hope to know a bit more.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not.

What is this reason you mooted?.

On 31 Aug, 19:54, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Welcom back Al. LTNS.

On Aug 31, 9:26 am, Alastair wrote:

It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming,

They are not heretical Alistair, just wrong.

It's daft to jump to one conclusion when there are many alternatives,
not least of which is our savage treatment of the sea. Or did you
expect god to allow it to be fished to oblivion and no abreaction?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



310 wayne davidson Says:

I am a little puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent
yearly projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
to be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

As with the hurricane/glowballs hullaballoo when the records got
broken in 2005 and here we are in 2007 with a dearth, there is perhaps
a cycle to these things.

I feel I did quite a good job with 2005 and furthermore I couldn't see
anything outstanding showing up in 2007, so if I had said there
wouldn't be many hurricanes this year, I'd have been able to prove it
is lunarcy.

Next time I hope to know a bit more.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not.

What is this reason you mooted?.

Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

"Alastair" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 31 Aug, 19:54, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Welcom back Al. LTNS.

On Aug 31, 9:26 am, Alastair wrote:

It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming,

They are not heretical Alistair, just wrong.

It's daft to jump to one conclusion when there are many alternatives,
not least of which is our savage treatment of the sea. Or did you
expect god to allow it to be fished to oblivion and no abreaction?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



310 wayne davidson Says:

I am a little puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice
extent
yearly projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and
Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
to be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

As with the hurricane/glowballs hullaballoo when the records got
broken in 2005 and here we are in 2007 with a dearth, there is perhaps
a cycle to these things.

I feel I did quite a good job with 2005 and furthermore I couldn't see
anything outstanding showing up in 2007, so if I had said there
wouldn't be many hurricanes this year, I'd have been able to prove it
is lunarcy.

Next time I hope to know a bit more.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not.

What is this reason you mooted?.

Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?



Alastair I understand you may feel a tad concerned about GW as during the
history of the earth there has been a constant procession of warming and
cooling albeit at different tempos. I also empathise that your first reply
after a long tour of absence from this NG had to come from that **** known
as weather lawyer. However your shrill indignation manifested in a hatred
for the western civilisation leads me to suspect that as a scot you are
driven by hatred and ideology.Hatred for the west or should I say USA,
England and Israel.

I have seen your presence over on real climate and I found that link via
Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org/ . Now this is
all very ; interesting as S McIntyre who gained initial public awarness by
successfully challenging Mann's revision of truth the IPCC hockey stick,
has also recently discovered major flaws in NASA's/ IPCC weather statiom
recordings around the so called "hottest years in human history and the USA
adjustments made around 2000. This of course has thrown a completly
different light as to the roll of Co2 and the warmest years of this and the
last century. Now nasas guru James Hansen himself comes across as a total
nutter in his response to these accepted and forced adjustments
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/. Hansen of course claims that the USA only
accounts for 2% of the globes surface area-well that may be the case but not
only do the USA weathers stations account for a large bulk of data used they
themselves are now being exposed as flawed due to encroaching urbanisation
with such problems as being sited next to recently (last couple of decades)
installed air conditioner exhuast vents and increasingly larger areas of
tarmac-actually if this is the case then so-called greedy westerners have
actually contributed to the falsifying of what we see as an accurate record.

I will finish by saying that I find your outburst worrying as you seem to be
linked to the cryosphere information recording , and you seemed to have such
a pre determined agenda I'm beginning to smell a rat here to.

Alastair wrote:
Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

Erm, yes he is. But he fails to see the connection between (any) "rich
westerners" (?!) driving 4x4s and the Greek fires. Human presence in a
highly flammable environment surely puts a mature and ready-to-burn
ecosystem in danger, especially after an extremely hot and dry summer
(where a plain average temperature severely fails to summarise the
weather conditions in the last three months).
What was your question? :-)

Yannis, De Bilt/NL

On Aug 31, 11:43 pm, Yannis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

Erm, yes he is. But he fails to see the connection between (any) "rich
westerners" (?!) driving 4x4s and the Greek fires. Human presence in a
highly flammable environment surely puts a mature and ready-to-burn
ecosystem in danger, especially after an extremely hot and dry summer
(where a plain average temperature severely fails to summarise the
weather conditions in the last three months).
What was your question? :-)

His question was "Can you spell lunacy?" apparently good spelling
makes a difference. I suppose it does in a manner of speaking.

Wouldn't a crew of rich gas guzzlers driving through forests in Greece
lessen the chances of fires getting out of hand? I would have thought
all the natural fire beaks they'd create would help.

Perhaps if they also had good grammar?

On 1 Sep, 00:43, Yannis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

Erm, yes he is. But he fails to see the connection between (any) "rich
westerners" (?!) driving 4x4s and the Greek fires. Human presence in a
highly flammable environment surely puts a mature and ready-to-burn
ecosystem in danger, especially after an extremely hot and dry summer
(where a plain average temperature severely fails to summarise the
weather conditions in the last three months).
What was your question? :-)

Yannis, De Bilt/NL

Hi Yannis,

My argument is that it is rich city executives driving large and
unnecessary Land Rovers and other 4X4 around the streets of London
(See http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2157247,00.html ) that
are the main cause of global warming which has resulted in the hot dry
summer in south east Europe. It is the poor Greek peasants fleeing
from the flames in their horse and carts, with the mother in law in
the back, who are suffering. Of course I am sure that there are a few
4x4 owners in Athens as well.

I seem to be the only person who is blaming global warming for the
Greek fires and I was curious to know if you agreed with we. From your
reply it seems that I am still unique. I had another question for you,
but others may care to answer it. I heard that the fires started in
many places simultaneously when the sky was overcast. I was wondered
if the fires could have been started by an outbreak of dry lightning.
I was going to suggest that you contacted the electricity supply
authority to check this out, as they monitor for the lightning since
it can knock out their overhead lines. However your sig. line says you
are now in Holland, so I doubt you could do that now even if you
wished to.

Cheers, Alastair.

On 1 Sep, 00:31, "lawrence jenkins" wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

ups.com...



On 31 Aug, 19:54, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Welcom back Al. LTNS.

On Aug 31, 9:26 am, Alastair wrote:

It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming,

They are not heretical Alistair, just wrong.

It's daft to jump to one conclusion when there are many alternatives,
not least of which is our savage treatment of the sea. Or did you
expect god to allow it to be fished to oblivion and no abreaction?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...

310 wayne davidson Says:

I am a little puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice
extent
yearly projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and
Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
to be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

As with the hurricane/glowballs hullaballoo when the records got
broken in 2005 and here we are in 2007 with a dearth, there is perhaps
a cycle to these things.

I feel I did quite a good job with 2005 and furthermore I couldn't see
anything outstanding showing up in 2007, so if I had said there
wouldn't be many hurricanes this year, I'd have been able to prove it
is lunarcy.

Next time I hope to know a bit more.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not.

What is this reason you mooted?.

Someone, who cannot spell 'lunacy', would not be able to understand
that the Greek forest fires are caused by millions of rich westerners
driving 4x4s, rather than the few hypothetical Greek arsonists who the
ruling Greek governing party find it convenient to blame.l

Is Yannis still around?

Alastair I understand you may feel a tad concerned about GW as during the
history of the earth there has been a constant procession of warming and
cooling albeit at different tempos. I also empathise that your first reply
after a long tour of absence from this NG had to come from that **** known
as weather lawyer. However your shrill indignation manifested in a hatred
for the western civilisation leads me to suspect that as a scot you are
driven by hatred and ideology.Hatred for the west or should I say USA,
England and Israel.

I have seen your presence over on real climate and I found that link via
Steve McIntyre's Climate Audithttp://www.climateaudit.org/. Now this is
all very ; interesting as S McIntyre who gained initial public awarness by
successfully challenging Mann's revision of truth the IPCC hockey stick,
has also recently discovered major flaws in NASA's/ IPCC weather statiom
recordings around the so called "hottest years in human history and the USA
adjustments made around 2000. This of course has thrown a completly
different light as to the roll of Co2 and the warmest years of this and the
last century. Now nasas guru James Hansen himself comes across as a total
nutter in his response to these accepted and forced adjustmentshttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/. Hansen of course claims that the USA only
accounts for 2% of the globes surface area-well that may be the case but not
only do the USA weathers stations account for a large bulk of data used they
themselves are now being exposed as flawed due to encroaching urbanisation
with such problems as being sited next to recently (last couple of decades)
installed air conditioner exhuast vents and increasingly larger areas of
tarmac-actually if this is the case then so-called greedy westerners have
actually contributed to the falsifying of what we see as an accurate record.

I will finish by saying that I find your outburst worrying as you seem to be
linked to the cryosphere information recording , and you seemed to have such
a pre determined agenda I'm beginning to smell a rat here to.

Hi Lawrence,

You are quite correct that the climate has changed many times in the
past, but when it has happened it has been extremely quickly and the
global population of humans has always been far less than the 6.5
billion that exist on the planet today. I have read that during a
sharp cooling the human population may have dropped to only 20
individuals. The climate has been relatively stable for the last
10,000 years but in th etwo thousand years prior to that as we emerged
from the ice age there were several abrupt changes with the
temperature in Greenland leaping by 10 C in possibly only three years.
If such an event were to happen again global agriculture would be
devastated and we would all starve to death.

Several years ago I explained on this newsgroup that these rapid
warming are caused by sea ice sheets suddenly melting and that the
consequence would be a monsson in Britain. Well the sea ice is
rapidly disappearing and there has been unusually heavy rain this
summer.

It seems that I just was ahead of my time :-(

Alastair wrote:

It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-51273
and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...modeldata.html.
On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth a
read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The resultant
loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that is lost in
the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian side of the
Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for intensified cyclonic
activity in that region and hence increased the ice-flow out of the Arctic.
If this is the case, the loss of old ice from the Arctic each year could
now be creating the right conditions for future losses.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 1 Sep, 11:47, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
It is nice to see a few old names still here after my sojourn in other
realms of web space :-)

Presently, I am inflicting RealClimatehttp://www.realclimate.org/
with my heretical views on global warming, and have been presented
with a question I cannot answer. I was wondering if anyone here could
help? The question is at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rctic-sea-ice-...



and reads:

310 wayne davidson Says:
30 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

#288 Alastair, I take it you are from the UK? Well I am a little
puzzled by the met office no longer displaying sea ice extent yearly
projections until 2100. I am getting convinced that the ice and Polar
atmospheric models were off by 10 to 20 years, would have really
appreciated seeing their projections still, as I am curious about how
we take it from here. Is the met office ice model merely wrong
timewise? It will be very good to understand where the error is,
especially compare the 2007 melt with 2007 projection, it would help
narrrow down a bug, and perfect future models. I don't think its bad
yo be wrong, it is terrible when you can't know why.

I actually know where the models are going wrong but I am sure that
the MetOffice do not. However, I would be very interested in hearing
their take on this. Feel free to answer directly to RealClimate or
here.

Cheers, Alastair.

The predictions are still available on the Met Office site athttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html.
On the same page is a briefing document on climate change which is worth a
read.

I agree that the forecast looks to be going wrong. The reduction in ice
coverage has been accelerating so much in the past few years that I
wouldn't be surprised to see it vanish by 2020 instead of the Hadley
model's 2080.

As I don't know the parameters of the model, I couldn't say what, if
anything, is wrong. However, one feature of recent years has been the
increased forcing of multi-year ice through the Fram Strait. The resultant
loss of old ice in the Arctic increases the amount of ice that is lost in
the summer melt. As most of the ice is lost on the Russian side of the
Arctic, I wonder whether this has been responsible for intensified cyclonic
activity in that region and hence increased the ice-flow out of the Arctic.
If this is the case, the loss of old ice from the Arctic each year could
now be creating the right conditions for future losses.

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

People might be interested in the following links;
This is the position of the R.V. Polarstern
http://www.awi.de/en/infrastructure/...is_polarstern/
which is carrying a web camera
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa4.jpg

You can see that the ice near the North Pole is pretty thin.
In fact two weeks ago the arctic ice was covering a smaller area than
ever recorded and will probably continue to shrink for at least
another week.
The Yanks are so worried they are reporting on the state weekly. See:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_sea...810_index.html

The question is will the seasonal ice completely reform over the
winter or will it the melt be given a head start next spring. The
MetOffice model seems to think that the seasonal ice will be
completely reforming in 2100. That is one error!