Is the summer of 2007 a turning point?

[Stratos Ferric]

Hey,I wasn't the only one to agree with Jethro y'know SF,so why single me out?! ...

Because, unless my eyes decieve me and my PC has a strange bug, replicated on my laptop, you were the only one to reply in open forum to Jethro's post. I can hardly single out people who didn't reply can I?

I also don't agree re "wrong and right" in the absolute sense. Jethro is making an argument, and others have before him (best of all the "temperatures peaked in 2003" strand) that does not stand up to robust examination. As Osm, myself, and others have pointed out, the facts are very clear and that line of argument, IS wrong; that much is totally and utterly irrefutable.

Where I have sympathies for your "right / wrong" is re futurecasting, we are all open to have a point of view. My preference is obviously for something backed up by data, but that's because an argument which otherwise goes against trend, without any obvious reasoning, and from a quarter which is apt to get excited about cold / snow SEEMS like mere whimsy. Most of my projections make absolutely clear that the die is not firmly cast one way, just that there is now an emerging clear bias in the trend of our climate.

I say it a million times over, I am as happy to see cold as anyone else on here, but meteorology is a science, founded on data and rigour. If there is a majority on here who dislike some of my projections it's certainly not because they aren't well reasoned so much as because my examination of the facts available suggests an outcome they would rather not have. When I argue with those projecting cold, or a reversal, let's be clear: I am NOT arguing against the possibility, so much as the continued lack, in many cases, of even a thin veneer of assessment of data to build a case more robust than "what comes up must come down".

[Glacier Point]

Please report yourself to SATSIGS headquarters for that. Two 1962/3 equivalents in the last three years ?

[ribster]

If you're going to insist on persisting with the "plateaued" argument, please try to present some facts because all the ones I'm looking at don't say that - most particularly that last year was the warmest on record in the UK, and nine of the ten warmest have occurred since 1989.

SF, I don't know why you are arguing the point about plateauing, the METO themselves make the claim, not anyone on here. Of course whether that turns out to be the case and what happens after remains to be seen.

[Stratos Ferric]

...by the way, and as a footnote, the same arguments for "blip" and "reversal" were doing the rounds on here in 2004, and before that for a couple of years on slowatch. I continue to offer the same question I have offered many times before, and which, so fr as I'm aware, has yet to be answered by any of those hanging on to notions fo future cold; "at what point in future, given continued warming in trend, would you be willing to concede that our clmate looks like it is locked into long-term warming?", or is there no line in the sand beyond which you would give up hope for a rebound downwards?

SF, I don't know why you are arguing the point about plateauing, the METO themselves make the claim, not anyone on here. Of course whether that turns out to be the case and what happens after remains to be seen.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, there was a recent thread suggesting temperatures had plateaued in 2003. That suggestion simply does not stack. However, this very evening I have pointed out in another post that our current differential (in CET) between ten and thirty year trend is nudging the ceiling IF there has been no acceleration in climatic warming. Given that "IF" then we would expect some rebound downwards, not necessarily back into the 9s, but certainly back towards the low-mid 10s. Back-to-back annual records are unprecedented in the annual series once the data set reached robust proportions.

[ribster]

...by the way, and as a footnote, the same arguments for "blip" and "reversal" were doing the rounds on here in 2004, and before that for a couple of years on slowatch. I continue to offer the same question I have offered many times before, and which, so fr as I'm aware, has yet to be answered by any of those hanging on to notions fo future cold; "at what point in future, given continued warming in trend, would you be willing to concede that our clmate looks like it is locked into long-term warming?", or is there no line in the sand beyond which you would give up hope for a rebound downwards?

How can anyone answer that, the 'facts' are not known about the millions of years of climate that this planet has been through, long before man even existed. No one can possibly know what will be happening in 1000 years, or what factors might be at play at that time.

You do argue your point with such vigour that I do worry about you. If you want a serious scientific/academic debate on the weather/GW I would have thought there were better places than this, rather than launching into amateurs on this forum. I would have thought your obvious talents better used on a forum of academic/scientific equals. To use a footballing analogy, it's a bit like Thierry Henry playing with the local village football team.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, there was a recent thread suggesting temperatures had plateaued in 2003. That suggestion simply does not stack. However, this very evening I have pointed out in another post that our current differential (in CET) between ten and thirty year trend is nudging the ceiling IF there has been no acceleration in climatic warming. Given that "IF" then we would expect some rebound downwards, not necessarily back into the 9s, but certainly back towards the low-mid 10s. Back-to-back annual records are unprecedented in the annual series once the data set reached robust proportions.

I don't know anything about the above. I made a simple post about the METO suggesting that temps were to plateau over the next few years (the link to the article can be found above). Not my claim, but theirs based on scientific research. Or are you refuting what they say, accepting the science when it suits, but rejecting it when it doesn't?

Edited August 19, 2007 by ribster

[Stratos Ferric]

How can anyone answer that, the 'facts' are not known about the millions of years of climate that this planet has been through, long before man even existed. No one can possibly know what will be happening in 1000 years, or what factors might be at play at that time.

You do argue your point with such vigour that I do worry about you. If you want a serious scientific/academic debate on the weather/GW I would have thought there were better places than this, rather than launching into amateurs on this forum. I would have thought your obvious talents better used on a forum of academic/scientific equals.

I don't know anything about the above. I made a simple post about the METO suggesting that temps were to plateau over the next few years (the link to the article can be found above). Not my claim, but theirs based on scientific research. Or are you refuting what they say, accepting the science when it suits, but rejecting it when it doesn't?

Ribster, I'm an amateur too. Two points: first up, so far as I'm aware, there is no constitution in place for N-W that says posts must not be challenged. Second, if people don't want to learn, I know I do, then what point a forum like this. There are plenty of examples of people on here whose knowledge has grown significantly from their presence and I include myself.

I don't see why an erroneous argument shoudl go unchallenegd, sorry, any more than anti-social behaviour should be tolerated.

I have clarified the point re the plateau. To reitterate, I had ALREADY posted this evening, before this mini-discussion, to an effect that aligns exactly with UKMO's point. My reference was to a previous suggestion that UK temperatures had plateaud in 2003, the essence of which neatly exemplifies some of what I've been railing against above: posts that argue against the current trend but which are either devoid of data or (worse) fly in the face of the data available.

[ribster]

Ribster, I'm an amateur too. Two points: first up, so far as I'm aware, there is no constitution in place for N-W that says posts must not be challenged. Second, if people don't want to learn, I know I do, then what point a forum like this. There are plenty of examples of people on here whose knowledge has grown significantly from their presence and I include myself.

I don't see why an erroneous argument shoudl go unchallenegd, sorry, any more than anti-social behaviour should be tolerated.

I have clarified the point re the plateau. To reitterate, I had ALREADY posted this evening, before this mini-discussion, to an effect that aligns exactly with UKMO's point. My reference was to a previous suggestion that UK temperatures had plateaud in 2003, the essence of which neatly exemplifies some of what I've been railing against above: posts that argue against the current trend but which are either devoid of data or (worse) fly in the face of the data available.

Don't really disagree with any of that SF, just the language sometimes, although you are not alone in that....

Thanks for the clarification regarding the 2003 plateau suggestion.

[laserguy]

Re trends and dire predictions of the future: Late 1970's... "there's an ice age coming,there's an ice age coming" etc,blah blah. History repeating itself?

SF,Osmposm,me et al, let's bury the hatchet,agree to disagree and get back on track...please! These debates are great fun AND educational,let's keep 'em like that without getting too worked up?

[jethro]

Hi folks,

I've been out all day so unable to respond to points raised here. It's late and to be frank I cannot be bothered with the ever decreasing circles tonight. Tomorrow when I'm a bit chirpier I shall answer your post SF but before going to bed I'll leave a few pondering thoughts: your first post of today replying to mine was all facts, figures in rebuttal to my thoughts of the possibility of a decline in temps in the future; later in the day you concede that perhaps, possibly we could expect some rebound downwards. As my point was precisely this possibility, why the hell have you been saying I am completely wrong? Why have you declared me a snow-loving denialist who ramps big time everytime we get a bit chilly? Try going back over last winters threads, find me one ramping post I've made. And first and foremost at what point did I, or have I said we plateaued last year, year before.... My posts here are as a result and in response to the METO prediction; I thought that was what this thread was all about, isn't it?

p.s I'm a her, not a him.

Edited August 19, 2007 by jethro

[osmposm]

Um, no - the thread started in July well before the Met Office announcement, and most of the early arguments were, as Stratos says, about whether UK temps had begun to plateau in 2003.

Since the Met Office "plateau" forecast Stratos has essentially just pointed out - as the Met Office themselves suggest - that although we/they may anticipate a temporary levelling off, as a shortish (naturally) colder period cancels out the underlying warming and brings us back to average, there's no evidence that the longer term "background" trend is anything but up.

Stratos, I admire your posts, and mathematical knowledge and statistical analysis. But if I'm being honest they can sometimes be a little inpenetrable - even for someone quite numerate, and with a basic knowledge of stats like me. I'm all for learning, and have, like you, learned much on here - but I think both you and I may occasionally need a good objective editor.

The danger of the over-erudite post is not just that it doesn't give your argument the force that it deserves, but that some take it as a deliberate attempt to browbeat. I make the same mistake with lots of long Latinate words, and lengthy sentences full of subordinate clauses. Browbeating may not be what we intend, but in my more reflective moments I can understand that it's easy be taken that way - and misunderstood as "getting too worked up".

[noggin]

My reference was to a previous suggestion that UK temperatures had plateaud in 2003, the essence of which neatly exemplifies some of what I've been railing against above: posts that argue against the current trend but which are either devoid of data or (worse) fly in the face of the data available.

Yep, that was my "suggestion".

A little unfair to say "devoid of data" and "fly in the face of the data available".

It depends on your viewpoint.

The data that I use is, inter alia....

a) my own personal observations of change during the past half century

b ) taken as a whole, news reportage over the past century

c) the general knowledge that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout time

Edited August 20, 2007 by noggin

[Bobby]

Talk of a plateau since 2003 really is baffling to me. It's only 3 and a bit years ago! You just absolutely cannot make any sort of judgement of a "plateau" from just 3 and a bit years of data. Ok, perhaps temperatures haven't moved up relentlessly since 2003 but nobody has ever said they will. It's all wishful thinking I think from people who want return to cold winters. In fact I find this whole argument silly.

I've always found Stratos Ferric's posts informative, I don't see what problem anybody may have with them.

[VillagePlank]

All this talk about a 'plateau' .....

If you get two or more years (two years is required to generate a straight line from y=mx+c) then you could be justified in calling it a plateau. That is there is enough information to generate a trend.

Whether this trend is useful is another thing entirely. I think that currently meteorologists and climatologists look for at least trends over a decade, so given that if temps haven't risen significantly since 2003 we'd still need another 7 years minimum before we'd be justified in calling a significant trend.

Furthermore there is also some talk about a 'baseline' Highly motivated but ill-defined. So I thought I'd have a go:

Here is the CET for 02/03, and the second one is for 04/05

Look at the equation (in the form y=mx+c) I propose to say that the 'baseline' is equivalent to 'c' ('c' is technically known as the intercept, and those who are more savvy in this area, will note, however, that the gradient, m, or the rate of change is slowing down)

And the baseline is going up.

And there is no plateau.

EDIT: the difference in the 'baseline' is 0.204 between the period 02/03, and 04/05

EDIT 2: and here's the code to generate the equation. Note that y=mx+c is simply a single term polynomial!!

polys.txt

Edited August 20, 2007 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Stratos Ferric,

I feel we may be arguing two different standpoints here. If we go back to the very beginning of this thread, my only thoughts were that sudden climatic shifts had happened in the past, and although I wasn’t suggesting that this had indeed happened, we should bare in mind it could and this summers’ difference from the accepted modern norm could be an indication of such.

Since Ribster posted the link to the METO announcement, my posts have been in direct response. At no point have I said or intimated that a downturn in temps has occurred, did occur X years ago. Indeed on many other threads on this forum I have advocated that this summer is no more than “weather”; an expected variation and it is our expectation of summers like the last few years which has skewed perception.

I accept fully the CET figures and the reason for your standpoint, the data is irrefutable; being an educated, reasonably intelligent person I can “get my head around the maths”. However, your data deals with, and documents the past; hypothesis for plateaus, cooling deals with the future, can you get your head around the abstract?

When I say future cooling is possible it is not because “I obviously get excited by snow” nor do I fail to present facts to back up my point; going back to my first post on this topic I posted a link for confirmation.

Getting back to the METO announcement; they are basing their tapering off of temps upon the Southern Ocean and Tropical Pacific; precisely the points I made in my first post, prior to their announcement. In 1976 a climate shift occurred which changed these to a predominately positive phase, although there has been variations since, there is ample evidence to suggest no major change in line with the magnitude of the 1976 one has occurred since.

http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/reports/np_04.pdf

I have said many, many times the loss of Artic Ice is more in direct correlation to this shift than AGW, ditto our “weather”. The CET figures you quote do indeed show an unending upward trend over the last thirty years but this is also the same time period for the positive cycle. If, as the METO predict we experience a negative cycle then I would expect Arctic ice and our weather to correspond accordingly; ergo a downturn in temps in our part of the world.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/303.htm

One major question I do have is the METO are predicting a period of a couple of years, these cycles last a great deal longer, 20-30 years being usual but sometimes longer; I’m not convinced the AGW signal is as yet strong enough to over-ride the signal to such an extent. We will have to wait and see.

There is also quite a lot of evidence to suggest the next and following Solar cycles will be a great deal quieter than recent ones; there is also quite a lot of evidence to suggest this was responsible for previous cooler periods. The Sun is known to have been unusually active in recent years; the expected downturn may produce some surprises for the established science especially when most of their findings are based on proxy measurements.

To sum up; for sound scientific reasons a downturn in temps may well be expected in the next few years. Although I have a penchant for Dickensian Christmases, my preference has no bearing on this; I’m not given to “whimsy”. The CET is not a prediction tool, it is historic data; it can tell what happened yesterday it cannot tell what will happen tomorrow – trend or no trend. Relying on the CET one could quite happily have expected this summer to be hot and dry; predictions of the hottest ever were bandied around after April.

One other note, drawing comparisons between agreement on a post from other forum readers (as you and I have concurred with one another over other points) as being akin to skinheads and violence is emotive, inflammatory and has no place on this forum.

[VillagePlank]

The CET is not a prediction tool

It depends.

Performing a fourier analysis of the data-set one can easily spot some frequency patterns that, dare I say it, are quite significant (sun-spot cycle appears as does Hale's winters etc etc)

[jethro]

It depends.

Performing a fourier analysis of the data-set one can easily spot some frequency patterns that, dare I say it, are quite significant (sun-spot cycle appears as does Hale's winters etc etc)

If that's so, where would you say we currently are in those cycles? Likely to continue warming or heading towards a cooler period?

[Cheviot]

The current trend in solar cycles is for a cooling period over the next few hundred years. However, GW and cloud insulation models predict increased temperatures over the next 100, so somewhere bewteen the two may be closer to reality in the years to come.

[VillagePlank]

If that's so, where would you say we currently are in those cycles? Likely to continue warming or heading towards a cooler period?

Heading toward a cooler period on natural phenomena alone. (from an analysis which I can't be ar5ed to repeat which ignores the last 30 years (1870-1970), so already I've made an evil assumption that the last 30 years is somehow different )

This technique is not always particularly successful (the weather is non-linear), either. See a failed effort (by me) here

Edited August 20, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

Stratos Ferric,

I feel we may be arguing two different standpoints here. ...

One other note, drawing comparisons between agreement on a post from other forum readers (as you and I have concurred with one another over other points) as being akin to skinheads and violence is emotive, inflammatory and has no place on this forum.

Latter point first: I'm not sure I'd describe it as emotive - though I know what you mean - it was certainly an exaggerated analogy, but at the same time it was in no way suggesting, nor could it reasonably be taken to be saying so, that Ribster was a lunatic skinhead thug.

Re the plateau argument, I think we're all in broad agreement about 2003 / current situation, and indeed regarding the potential going forwards. Regarding the bigger picture, and for the avoidance of doubt, there are two general positions and I think you and I stand apart, each of us in one of them. Yes, the current warming, absolutely without precedent as it is, might just be cyclical. Alternatively there might be a large measure of man-made forcing going on. I tend to dismiss a third option - external forcing - on the basis that science would have spotted it by now (let's not debate it here those who prefer that position, it's been covered ad nausaeum over on the environment pages).

The simple reason why I dismiss the first position is because the case for the second, to my mind, is now just too compelling. However, and I have been saying this on here for a few years now, we have not yet passed the point where we there is no longer any reasonable mathematical argument, though we are getting perilously near. I will argue strongly why I believe my position, but I will continue to defer the alternative, at least for a while yet. I do say it over and over though, it would be interesting to know when people, like you, who err to the view that "it's natural" might concede that perhaps it isn't.

You're right to say that looking backwards does not show the future necessarily. What it can do with huge robustness, though, is tell you just how unusual the present is, and there always comes a point in statistical analysis at which point the present can no longer be explained by random fluctuation.

For example, using the lottery example given previously, each number drawn is a random variable, quite unrelated to what has gone before. If, however, one number was drawn consecutively, draw after draw, there would come a point at which there could be absolutely no doubt that the balls (or that ball) were biased. And, in that case, it WOULD be quite plausible to predict that that same number would continue to be drawn.

If, in five years' time, we are still trending upwards on short cycles (we are virtually bound to be on long cycles), then as far as I'm concerned we'll be well past the point at which "natural cycles" can reasonably be blamed. In the meantime, like one of those pixcellated pictures being slowly revealed, some of us see pictures before others, not to say they're the right picture, but there's definitely a broad concensus that says we're warming and it's here to stay.

Yep, that was my "suggestion".

A little unfair to say "devoid of data" and "fly in the face of the data available".

It depends on your viewpoint.

The data that I use is, inter alia....

a) my own personal observations of change during the past half century

b ) taken as a whole, news reportage over the past century

c) the general knowledge that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout time

Noggin, I do apologise for cross-gendering you (again!).

Yes, you do use data, but - and please don't take this the wrong way - there's data and there's data. If your observations are numeric then fine, but if they're based on what you have observed with your eyes then we have both imprecision and potential filtering bias. I hold by the CET record because it is a very robust data set. 15C one day means exactly the same as 15C another. If I "doubt" your observation based suggestions than it's only because all the hard data I've seen is at odds with what you're suggesting. Perhaps I should have said "hard data".

And yes, climate has fluctuated, but as I point out above, the current fluctuation is outside anything previously recorded.

When I lie in my bed at night, the house creaks and cracks. Invariably I don't get up because the noise is consistent with all the noises I've heard before, perhaps slightly quieter, perhaps slightly louder. But when I hear a very loud crash I have to get up, because that's not normal.

[jethro]

Latter point first: I'm not sure I'd describe it as emotive - though I know what you mean - it was certainly an exaggerated analogy, but at the same time it was in no way suggesting, nor could it reasonably be taken to be saying so, that Ribster was a lunatic skinhead thug.

Re the plateau argument, I think we're all in broad agreement about 2003 / current situation, and indeed regarding the potential going forwards. Regarding the bigger picture, and for the avoidance of doubt, there are two general positions and I think you and I stand apart, each of us in one of them. Yes, the current warming, absolutely without precedent as it is, might just be cyclical. Alternatively there might be a large measure of man-made forcing going on. I tend to dismiss a third option - external forcing - on the basis that science would have spotted it by now (let's not debate it here those who prefer that position, it's been covered ad nausaeum over on the environment pages).

The simple reason why I dismiss the first position is because the case for the second, to my mind, is now just too compelling. However, and I have been saying this on here for a few years now, we have not yet passed the point where we there is no longer any reasonable mathematical argument, though we are getting perilously near. I will argue strongly why I believe my position, but I will continue to defer the alternative, at least for a while yet. I do say it over and over though, it would be interesting to know when people, like you, who err to the view that "it's natural" might concede that perhaps it isn't.

You're right to say that looking backwards does not show the future necessarily. What it can do with huge robustness, though, is tell you just how unusual the present is, and there always comes a point in statistical analysis at which point the present can no longer be explained by random fluctuation.

For example, using the lottery example given previously, each number drawn is a random variable, quite unrelated to what has gone before. If, however, one number was drawn consecutively, draw after draw, there would come a point at which there could be absolutely no doubt that the balls (or that ball) were biased. And, in that case, it WOULD be quite plausible to predict that that same number would continue to be drawn.

People like me actually say AGW is real. Time and time again but to little avail. I also say natural drivers have an effect too. Because I question the level of influence of AGW as opposed to the natural drivers, does not mean I advocate only natural. If we are to apply your robustness of figures robustly, then they need to be measured and compared to an equal length of time when the natural climatic drivers are in opposing stages, as yet that data does not exist. We have thirty odd years of accurate figures ALL of which have been taken during the POSITIVE cycle, if and when this situation reverses and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not happen, quite the reverse in fact; then conclusions of no random fluctuation can be drawn. Even the hallowed IPCC concur on this point, it is not a sceptic vision or dream.

Oh, and it is my gender you confuse, not Noggin although we are both girlies.

Edited August 20, 2007 by jethro

[laserguy]

For at least the last four months the sun has been exceptionally 'quiet' with practically no sunspots to speak of. Can anyone concisely explain what,if any effect this might have on global temps? This quiet spell obviously cannot be compared with the approximate period 1645-1720 (the Maunder Minimum,which is associated with the 'little ice age' during that period). But what if it endured for very much longer?

[The underwriter]

For at least the last four months the sun has been exceptionally 'quiet' with practically no sunspots to speak of. Can anyone concisely explain what,if any effect this might have on global temps? This quiet spell obviously cannot be compared with the approximate period 1645-1720 (the Maunder Minimum,which is associated with the 'little ice age' during that period). But what if it endured for very much longer?

Edited August 20, 2007 by The underwriter

[Stratos Ferric]

...

People like me actually say AGW is real. Time and time again but to little avail. I also say natural drivers have an effect too. Because I question the level of influence of AGW as opposed to the natural drivers, does not mean I advocate only natural. If we are to apply your robustness of figures robustly, then they need to be measured and compared to an equal length of time when the natural climatic drivers are in opposing stages, as yet that data does not exist. We have thirty odd years of accurate figures ALL of which have been taken during the POSITIVE cycle, if and when this situation reverses and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not happen, quite the reverse in fact; then conclusions of no random fluctuation can be drawn. Even the hallowed IPCC concur on this point, it is not a sceptic vision or dream.

Oh, and it is my gender you confuse, not Noggin although we are both girlies.

Further apologies.

I'm not sure quite what evidence there is to say that the last thirty years is all part of some known and established positive cycle, and if so, it doesn't show in the CET record. If I remember rightly two of the sun cycles are of shorter wavelength than this, but you may have some other positive natural forcing in mind.

So far as I'm aware the IPCC conclude no more than that there is still a chance that some as yet unknown forcing is at work. That argument could never absolutely be disproven IF we hold with the view that mankind can never know all that is knowable, but I'd see that as more purist prudence than expectation that any new knowledge really will emerge - in much the same way that a surgeon warns a patient of the risks before an operation, but has no expectation of actually killing or harming his/her patient.

I also think it's fair to say that we have more than thirty years of accurate data. For sure, not all variables have been measured for as long as temperature alone has, but there are good proxies and qualitative data. For example, the extent of polar ice has been measured reasonably reliably only for thirty years or so, but there is reliable recent written record of Iceland being ice-locked around its north coast in winter. Glaciers have not been measured accurately for more than 50-60 years in many cases, but there are pictures from much further back that clearly show the extent of retreat. And records of fauna and flora, collated long before there was much understanding of their relevance in indicating climate change, stretch back well into the C18th.

The one thing you've written on which you might elaborate is: if and when this situation reverses and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not happen, quite the reverse in fact. The one or two of us inclined to berate the doubters do so often because of this kind of statement. If there's evidence to say that the current trend is likely to reverse, then isn't it better, rather than just suggesting that it's there, actually to present it to us?

[summer blizzard]

For at least the last four months the sun has been exceptionally 'quiet' with practically no sunspots to speak of. Can anyone concisely explain what,if any effect this might have on global temps? This quiet spell obviously cannot be compared with the approximate period 1645-1720 (the Maunder Minimum,which is associated with the 'little ice age' during that period). But what if it endured for very much longer?

Still incomparable however interestingly, this minima has been much longer than predicted and it now looks as though will we will not see activity until 2008.

[jethro]

The one thing you've written on which you might elaborate is: if and when this situation reverses and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not happen, quite the reverse in fact. The one or two of us inclined to berate the doubters do so often because of this kind of statement. If there's evidence to say that the current trend is likely to reverse, then isn't it better, rather than just suggesting that it's there, actually to present it to us?

Edited August 20, 2007 by jethro