Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[Bret Cahill]

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+JoNova+(JoNova)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher


Bret Cahill

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
immediately: There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
made in the paper make sense.

Rune

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
<openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.


...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized. I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

Trepanation has been successfully performed for many hundreds of
years.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[fungus]

On Dec 12, 10:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

....it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 12 Des, 11:56, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

Which is why it is ridiculous to attach so much
meaning to *one* factor. There was someone who
claimed competence on the issue, who went on
Norwegian National TV a couple of weeks ago, and
said that the by-products associated with burning
coal (cases, soot, particles) counteract the
heating effects of CO2 to such a degree that
coal in fact has a smaller impact on 'man made'
heating than burning natural gas.

Assming this guy's numbers are right, this only
shows how ridiculous the claims about CO2 are:
Everything else has at least as large impact,
in one direction or the other. Which means
CO2 is just one of a zillion causes for variation,
which in turn means it is not particularly
important.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere

Stay off the baked beans, then.

A few das ago I read about the background for the
Scandinavian legend of 'Fimbulvinter', a 3-year
winter that according to the Norse mythology preceeds
'Ragnarokk', the end of times. It turns out that
there is a climate event that matches the legend's
cold summers, around 535-537 AD. The event as such
is recorded all over the world, in Greenland ice
cores, in written annals of China, and so on.
But no hypotheses as to what caused the event,
were presented. And of ocurse, there are the
Santorini, Krakatoa, Pinatubo, St Helens etc
volcanic events that are *not* man-made, but which
change the atmosphere at least as much as
repercussions from fast food.

Again,there is so much else going on that it is
ridiculous to attach meaning to *one* detail at
the expense of all the others.

and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

Well, I'm rather sceptical to people who fine-tune
fractions of a percent of CO2 contents, but fail to
match the main trends of the major climate gas, H20.

Read Svensmark's 'The Chilling Stars' to get an idea
of what kinds of mechanisms to look for: Solar radiation
governs cloud formations, which in turn reflects
heat away from Earth. Variations of solar activity
correlates with variations in climate.

Once it has been established that the sun, which
drives the whole system, also drive the climate
variations, the whole CO2 issue becomes ridiculous.

Rune

 

[brent]

On Dec 11, 11:52 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

Bret Cahill

I call people who want to curtail the use of fossil fuel - "Pro
slavery people".

It is the extensive use of coal and later oil that put an end to
slavery in the Western world. Take away fossil fuel and we go right
back to slavery. Wind Power, Solar power , those are thing advocated
by people who wish to bring back human slavery.

 

[1/3 of land cooling]

On Dec 12, 11:56 pm, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

..> Funny how nobody performs brain surgery at home
..> but when it comes to climate, they're ALL experts.

If surgeons in hospitals told lies, and stuffed things up as badly as
climate "scientists" have, then people WOULD do brain surgery at home.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org
(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
openglMYSOCKS@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.


...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized. I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. If
the termperature is really rising (which is almost
universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down? To say that we don't understand every
little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
the gas. You might want to down-shift. You might even want
to try the brakes. You focus your best judgement on how to
slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
made the road so steep.

When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
not the arson investigators.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

 

[fungus]

On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

 

[fungus]

On Dec 12, 1:21 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:

.. told lies, and stuffed things up as badly as climate "scientists"

Citation needed.

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 12 Des, 14:00, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

 I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

No, it isn't.

The textbook on data analysis by Box, Hunter & Hunter
quotes an example of the relation between the number
of storks in an area, and the human population.

The relation shown is as perfect as can be expected
by measured data, and point strongly in the direction
that the number of storks influence the birth rate,
as per a popular 'myth'.

Having *data* that indicate some co-variance between
two factors, does *not* imply that there is a cause-
effect relation between them.

Rune

 

[Blue]

On 12/12/2011 13:32, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. If
the termperature is really rising

Topped out in 2006 according to the top graph.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-predictions-web.gif

(which is almost

universally agreed by the actual climate experts,

It's called wages.

if not by

the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down?

Slow what down, plumes from the magnetic core?
Solar cycles?

The trouble with fright films is that they've left everyone fearing
a bit of natural warmth, forgeting that man's very explosion on
the seen was due to the end of the last ice age.

Of course the hockey stick was designed to scare people, the gulibe
people. You'd think there was some straight line forever in the past
and then pow, according to their scare. But take a closer look at
the hockey stick, it's cut of point. No ice ages to tackle, no
recent competing warm periods, all they had to kill was the little
ice age and sell their story.

Now they got gullible types jumping on their chair scratching their
heads everytime they hear the words warm. And they're at a total
loss as to explain the end of every ice age and every warm spike
inbetween.

To say that we don't understand every

little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

Do you run for the hills every time you put your heating on?

 

[Uncle Ben]

On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org





(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized.   I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this.  If
the termperature is really rising (which is almost
universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down?   To say that we don't understand every
little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
the gas.  You might want to down-shift.  You might even want
to try the brakes.  You focus your best judgement on how to
slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
made the road so steep.

When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
not the arson investigators.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
             www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
          Science with your sound card!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Similarly, if one is worried about accidental fires, one buys fire
insurance, true, unless the cost of the insurance is greater than the
cost of your house.

Uncle Ben

 

[brent]

On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org









(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized.   I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this.  If
the termperature is really rising (which is almost
universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down?   To say that we don't understand every
little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
the gas.  You might want to down-shift.  You might even want
to try the brakes.  You focus your best judgement on how to
slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
made the road so steep.

When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
not the arson investigators.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
             www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
          Science with your sound card!

"GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY
TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CAN NOT CHANGE,
THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN,
AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE"

I think you lack the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Dawlish]

On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
immediately: There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
made in the paper make sense.

Rune

So what are these "natural phenomena"? Do they sit outside the laws of
physics? Do tell us what they are and how they have been responsible
for the current steep rise in global temperatures. We'd love to know.
In fact, I've been trying to coax the exact nature of these "natural
phenomena" out of climate deniers for years.

Their links to the current warming always seem to escape the deniers
at the crucial moment, though..........

 

[fungus]

On Dec 12, 2:46 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

So what are these "natural phenomena"?

Don't hold your breath...

 

[fungus]

On Dec 12, 3:32 pm, Blue <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down?

Slow what down, plumes from the magnetic core?
Solar cycles?

Nope, he's referring to the amount of solar radiation
being trapped by the atmosphere due to rising CO2.

It's called "The Greenhouse Effect".

It's a theory so simple and so easily repeatable that
even Mythbusters have managed it.

 

[brent]

On Dec 12, 8:46 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:









On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh....

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
immediately: There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
made in the paper make sense.

Rune

So what are these "natural phenomena"? Do they sit outside the laws of
physics? Do tell us what they are and how they have been responsible
for the current steep rise in global temperatures. We'd love to know.
In fact, I've been trying to coax the exact nature of these "natural
phenomena" out of climate deniers for years.

Their links to the current warming always seem to escape the deniers
at the crucial moment, though..........

The climate deniers say that Greenland was a farm-able island 1000
years ago. I am not a climate denier. You are a "Lesson of
Greenland" denier.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 8:35 AM, brent wrote:

On Dec 12, 8:21 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:10:52 GMT, eric.jacob...@ieee.org









(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:56:46 -0800 (PST), fungus
openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:37=A0am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic.

...it's just that nobody knows what these 'natural
phenomena' are, how they work, or anything
at all about them.

OTOH we KNOW that atmospheric composition
changes climate. We also know that man is busy
changing the composition of the atmosphere and
what the effects of the change will be (ie. more
sunlight will be trapped).

More things than people change the composition of the atmosphere, and
some of those natural cycles are known or have at least been
previously recognized. I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes, especially when many of the natural contributors have,
and have over history had, much larger influences.

I am always surprised when I hear sentiments like this. If
the termperature is really rising (which is almost
universally agreed by the actual climate experts, if not by
the oil industry), then doesn't it make sense to do what we
can to slow it down? To say that we don't understand every
little detail, therefore we should do nothing, seems more
than a little strange.

When your car is careening down hill, you take your foot off
the gas. You might want to down-shift. You might even want
to try the brakes. You focus your best judgement on how to
slow the car, not on who chose the route, or what engineer
made the road so steep.

When your house is on fire, you call the fire department,
not the arson investigators.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

"GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY
TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CAN NOT CHANGE,
THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN,
AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE"

I think you lack the wisdom to know the difference.

Perhaps you lack the courage to change what you can.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Clay]

On Dec 12, 4:37 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 12 Des, 05:52, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The hard part is to let go of the popular notion
that the past couple of decades' raise in temperature
is man-made. Once - if? - one lets go of that premise,
the conclusion of the paper cited above follows
immediately: There are natural phenomena that
govern climate, at least major parts of which could
well be suspected to be cyclic. So the predictions
made in the paper make sense.

Rune

Certainly we have the predictability of the Milankovitch cycles and
their correlation with past ice ages and dust concentrations in ice
cores. Not as clear are the phenomina of Maunder minima - will there
be more than one? likely! Solar astronomers just this year have
predicted a reduced solar output (lack of sunspots) for the next
sunspot cycle or two. These predictions come from three different
(thought to be unrelated) solar theories! One of the things the Kepler
space telescope has discovered is stars are more variable in their
output than previously thought. This has hindered the search for
other Earths. The search is effected by looking for very small
periodic variations in brighness of a stellar host when eclipsed by a
planet.

If we are worried about releasing too much CO2, then we should have
fewer babies and cut our population size thereby reducing our need for
resources.

Clay