Roger wrote:

>The message 
>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> contains these words:
>
>> >> The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
>> >> and he got it in spades.
>> >
>> >I got a lot of bullshit from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
>> >in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
>> >take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
>
>> I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
>> quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
>> that means  nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
>> everything.
>
>> Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
>
>As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see. 
>
>As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
>opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.
>
>I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
>you have so far exercised your right to silence. 

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

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

Terry Fields wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> 
>> The message 
>>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> contains these words:
>>>>> The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
>>>>> and he got it in spades.
>>>> I got a lot of bullshit from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
>>>> in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
>>>> take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
>>> I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
>>> quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
>>> that means  nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
>>> everything.
>>> Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
>> As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see. 
>>
>> As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
>> opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.
>>
>> I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
>> you have so far exercised your right to silence. 
> 
> And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?
> 
> Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

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

Ero, you are no longer even interesting.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Terry Fields wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>> 
>>> The message 
>>>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> contains these words:
>>>>>> The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
>>>>>> and he got it in spades.
>>>>> I got a lot of bullshit from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
>>>>> in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
>>>>> take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
>>>> I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
>>>> quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
>>>> that means  nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
>>>> everything.
>>>> Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
>>> As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see. 
>>>
>>> As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
>>> opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.
>>>
>>> I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
>>> you have so far exercised your right to silence. 
>> 
>> And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?
>> 
>> Apart from hypocrisy, that is.
>
>Economy and efficiency: no one responding here agrees with you - in fact 
>all you have succeeded in doing is unearth yet more evidence that 
>strengthens the case against your view..
>
>Ero, you are no longer even interesting.

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

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

I posed questions....they remain unanswered.

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

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:48:29 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
<no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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

David Hansen wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:48:29 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
><no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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.

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

Roger wrote:

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

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/another-global-temp-index-dives-in-jan08-this-time-hadcrut/

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

Another reference here:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-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 here:

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/Satellite_temperature_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.

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

> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/another-global-temp-index-dives-in-jan08-this-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 here:

> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-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 here:

> 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/Satellite_temperature_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

Roger wrote:

>The message 
>from Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 here:
>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-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 here:
>
>> 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 here:

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.

On 2008-09-21, Terry Fields <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

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

> On the topic of recent data, I found a reference here:

> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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 <no.spam.here@thanks.invalid> 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>