Ice meteors, climate, sceptics

In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.
snip
[...]

So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt, then we need to find out
(i) which of their creations are supernatural, (ii) which creations are
part of their rituals, and though may be intended to portray the
supernatural, are not actually created supernaturally. Then we have to
decide whether (i) or (ii) or both are causes for burning.

Or are some of them (iii) something not understood, like ball lightning.
Then do we burn witches whom we think caused it, a sort of thing which has
happened. Last evening we had a TV program about schools in the 1950s and
punishments and admonishments were handed out on misunderstandings, it
seemed.

Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.

Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.
snip
[...]
So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

OK, so I was wrong about this being beyond your most wild conjectures.

Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
system.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
nothing to burn. Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
DUCK!)

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,

*We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

snip

Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'

Again with the conjecture. Thanks very much for attempting to voice
what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
demonstrating your own biases in the matter.


that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a

Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
were in place.


reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,

I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
rather than "hoax", is a better description.

and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.

Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
to town don't you?

When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
the scientific literature", and what the HELL does it have to do with
the discussion in the first place?

--
Eric Hocking

In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.
snip
[...]
So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

OK, so I was wrong about this being beyond your most wild conjectures.

Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
system.

To be an atheist has to involve a belief that some people are under
control of belief.


I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
nothing to burn.

Though sceptics seem to get very emotionally involved in trying to
persuade about that.

Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
DUCK!)

Or baptism by immersion?


If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,

*We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

i.e. that what is not understood should be denied,

snip

Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'

Again with the conjecture.

So you are not trying to give that idea of crop cirlces all being hoaxes?

Thanks very much for attempting to voice
what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
demonstrating your own biases in the matter.

Or trying to get yours explicitly stated.

that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a

Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
were in place.

Unless farmers give permission for the crop circle to be made then the
makers are being naughty and are not supposed to be there doing it. So
if hoaxers are doing it they are doing when restrictions of another sort
are in place.

reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,

I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
rather than "hoax", is a better description.

Yes, maybe religious symbols following the circle tradition which may have
had roots as I quoted.

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html

I wonder if kansan2125 is looking into the dates.

and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.

Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
to town don't you?

When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
the scientific literature",
You wrote:

Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
****
I wrote:

The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
fairiefungin a potent toxin.

You wrote:

Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
****


and what the HELL does it have to do with
the discussion in the first place?

Things not understood later become understood.

Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
snip
Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
system.

To be an atheist has to involve a belief that some people are under
control of belief.

Brian? Brian? Try reading my post again.
"You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief) system."
The above is only YOUR interpretation of what an atheist is, and, as
usual, it is incorrect.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
nothing to burn.

Though sceptics seem to get very emotionally involved in trying to
persuade about that.

Incorrect, yet again. I made a statement - no emotion involved, not
attempts at persuasion, just a statement.

Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
DUCK!)

Or baptism by immersion?

Or lack of humour or realisation that a MOVIE might have been hinted
at.

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,
*We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

i.e. that what is not understood should be denied,

Wrong again. What do you think science, and for that matter
scepticism, is all about. Attempting to understand the mysteries of
the universe. No denial there, but short shrift is usually given to
fantasy and fairy tales.

snip
Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
Again with the conjecture.

So you are not trying to give that idea of crop cirlces all being hoaxes?

I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

Thanks very much for attempting to voice
what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
demonstrating your own biases in the matter.

Or trying to get yours explicitly stated.

YOU are not in a position to "explicitly state" my views or feelings.
You don't know me and until 2 weeks ago had never heard of me.

Lastly, my feelings on the matter are as irrelevant as fairy rings are
to the discussion. Try playing the ball instead of the man.

that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
were in place.

Unless farmers give permission for the crop circle to be made then the
makers are being naughty and are not supposed to be there doing it.

"Being naughty"?! How exquisitely coy.
No, you're right, they're very naughty little boys, and when caught
face a fine for property damage.

[So] if hoaxers are doing it they are doing when restrictions of another sort
are in place.

As I said, I'm not here to analyse "hoaxers'" motives.
There's a huge difference between a £100 fine and a slap on the wrist
and a £5,000 fine, a conviction, and the possibility of spreading a
disease that can wipe out your neighbour's livelihood. Then again,
the farmer's might be promoting it so that they can get more money
from the Countryside Stewardship Scheme - oh, no, we've already
unclenched that straw, haven't we.

Why don't you try a little perspective here?

reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
rather than "hoax", is a better description.

Yes, maybe religious symbols following the circle tradition which may have
had roots as I quoted.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
I wonder if kansan2125 is looking into the dates.

Nothing but speculation from you, is there? How about some of your
own original thoughts rather than just regurgitating other peoples
views. Then back them with data.

and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.
Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
to town don't you?
When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
the scientific literature",
You wrote:
Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
****
I wrote:
The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
fairiefungin a potent toxin.
You wrote:
Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
****

Ayup - nothing there about removing the term from scientific
literature. Just a comment that scientific literature is open to all
sorts of junk science.

No literary censorship there my dear boy, only criticism of poor
science.

and what the HELL does it have to do with
the discussion in the first place?

Things not understood later become understood.

Truly profound. Hang fire while I write that down...

Nah, why bother - what's not understood about fairy rings Brian? I
even quoted a refernce page for you that explains them.

Scientifically.

That used the term "fairy ring"

--
Eric Hocking

Eric Hocking wrote:

[...]
I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly...2/07/rv00.html

gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
govt info maybe you know of a better source.


And the crop circles I have taken from
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/ar...tribution.html


Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
Apr circs 9 3 0 1

FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0

This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

May being when it was finished there?
But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
stop hoaxers,

r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.

And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?

Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather

less than from above

r(flows-circles) = -0.49.


Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
removing affects of the factors?

When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
*positively* related to circles.

r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29

and for completeness

r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
indicating circles not causative,

r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
change indicating FMD not really causative.

With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
chance.

Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
Eric Hocking wrote:

[...]
I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
it to be so. The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
show anything of the sort.

Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
Meteorological Bureau?

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/

Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
as the data is tabulated.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly...2/07/rv00.html

gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
govt info maybe you know of a better source.

You really do read a lot into other people's posts don't you? I
didn't say I "work with govt info" - other than the references I've
provided in this thread.

And the crop circles I have taken from
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/ar...tribution.html

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
especially wrt crops?) straight to *proving* a correlation between
river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
this before attempting to force the numbers.

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
Apr circs 9 3 0 1

FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0
"
This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
abstraction from river systems?

Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

May being when it was finished there?

This "correlation" implies what? River flow affects government
decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?

But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
stop hoaxers,

You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
any reflection on the weather pattern trends.

r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
less than from above
r(flows-circles) = -0.49.

Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
removing affects of the factors?

When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
*positively* related to circles.

r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29
and for completeness
r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
indicating circles not causative,
r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
change indicating FMD not really causative.
With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
chance.

And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
illogical connections. You need first to show that there is a logical
connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).

How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?

--
Eric Hocking

Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
Eric Hocking wrote:

[...]
I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
it to be so.

They may be a better indication than weather of what the ground is like. They
do not increase flow until the ground is saturated. (Though, not appropriate
to UK in my knowledge, fast run off can occur off baked land.)

The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
show anything of the sort.

Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
Meteorological Bureau?

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/

Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
as the data is tabulated.

It would be complex factoring in evapotranspiration. Since there are only 4
years it is not really worth it.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly...2/07/rv00.html

gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
govt info maybe you know of a better source.

You really do read a lot into other people's posts don't you? I
didn't say I "work with govt info" - other than the references I've
provided in this thread.

And the crop circles I have taken from
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/ar...tribution.html

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
especially wrt crops?)

Extra flows indicate the ground cannot hold the water, therefore there has
been less sunshine and temperature.

straight to *proving* a correlation between
river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
this before attempting to force the numbers.

How am I `forcing' the numbers?

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
Apr circs 9 3 0 1

FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0
"
This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
abstraction from river systems?

It is only very rough. Besides seasonal effects should be similar from year
to year and factor out.


Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

May being when it was finished there?

This "correlation" implies what?


That for some reason Itchen river flow was high at the same time FMD was
present.

River flow affects government
decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?

Presumably the restricitions were lifted when it was thought there was less
risk. I doubt there would have been any talk of rivers transporting FMD. When
the land dried a bit stock could get out into the fields and have a bit less
close contact and so less chance for transmission of FMD.


But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
stop hoaxers,

You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
any reflection on the weather pattern trends.

Next you will be asking me to prove that day is going to be lighter than
night.

r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
less than from above
r(flows-circles) = -0.49.

Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
removing affects of the factors?

When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
*positively* related to circles.

r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29

which indicates flows are connected to cause.

and for completeness
r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
indicating circles not causative,
r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
change indicating FMD not really causative.
With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
chance.

And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
illogical connections.


Here is the formula for you to have some fun:

r(po.y)= [r(po)-r(py).r(oy)]/sqr.root[1-{r(py)}^2].sqr.root[1-{r(oy)}^2]

(Bruning & Kintz).

where r(po.y) is the partial correlation between p and o, partialling out y.

r(po) is the non-partial correlation between p and o, &c for p & y, o & y.


When the partial correlation tends to zero that means the partialled out
variable is causal and the non-partial correlation is spurious.

When the partial correlation is no different from the non-partial, that means
the partailled out variable is not causal.


You need first to show that there is a logical
connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).

How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?

The first crop circle for 2001 was in Hampshire at latitude 50 deg 58.6 min
north, longitude 1 deg 5.9 mins west. That is only 10 or 20 miles from the
Itchen river (which has its mouth near Southampton). It is not a big reiver
and seems to have its source on the same side of South Downs.