Roger wrote:

>The message 
>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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
literature:

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

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:41:39 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
<no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> wrote this:-

>
>Roger wrote:
>
>>The message 
>>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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

David Hansen wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:41:39 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
><no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> wrote this:-
>
>>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>The message 
>>>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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
>> literature:
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-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

Roger wrote:

>The message 
>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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

The message 
from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> contains these words:

> >I have now tracked this down:
> >
> >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.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

Roger wrote:

>The message 
>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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
<no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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
><no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 bollocks. 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....;-)

The message 
from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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

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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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