Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 6:22 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

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.

When things are tending out of control, one does what little one can. If
the patient has a fever that in itself can be lethal, reducing its
severity can save his life, even if the underlying infection is not
controlled. The earth is getting a fever. There are now mosquitoes in La
Paz, which was built high in the Andes precisely to avoid malaria.
Dengue fever is advancing northward, already reaching the southern US. A
little cooling, even if all sources of warming are not addressed, would
be a good thing.

...

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

Once it has been established that foot brakes, which slow the car
efficiently, the whole notion of a hand brake becomes ridiculous?

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

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 8:01 AM, fungus wrote:

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.

Not so. To a True Believer, no evidence of any kind is needed.

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

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 10:44 AM, Clay wrote:

...

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.

Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

Most would go with the 2 higher frequencies. It's the 1300 year cycle
that doesn't have much credibility. The whole thing is relying on
less than two events.

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-skepti...

 

[fatalist]

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

Use of Fourier analysis.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

A lot of other things can be done as well. PV solar cost has dropped
so fast no one was prepared for that game changer. In fact, very few
can fully appreciate that enormous event _now_.

More breakthroughs are guaranteed.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Assume the tree ring data is good.

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

Bret Cahill

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.


Bret Cahill

 

[fatalist]

On Dec 12, 11:49 am, 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

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

As someone once said: "Paper won't blush"

 

[Bret Cahill]

Assume the tree ring data is good.

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

Bret Cahill

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else. Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.


Bret Cahill

 

[fatalist]

On Dec 12, 12:47 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

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.

Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money ...)

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 1:21 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

...

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Fossil hydrogen? Where? On Jupiter?

...

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

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/12/2011 1:32 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

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.

Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
with science and technology. It'll be interesting to see how long our
luck holds up.

Malthus would have felt delighted, not cheated. We need to avoid
assuming that we can continue to move the limits as we have in the past.
Just as with semiconductor geometries, the end point might not be near,
but it is out there somewhere.

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

Another persistent argument is that "it was warmer before" or
"Antartica was ice free before." You tell them that a billion people
interested in their own survival weren't living 5' above mean high
tide back then but that never seems to register.

It's like they somehow think that going back to 30 million old sea
levels will "naturally" take human population levels back to what they
were 30 million years ago.

They are correct that extinctions may be considered "natural" but
other events may be considered natural as well, pandemics, famine,
etc., and you don't see them arguing against modern agriculture or
health care, at least not private health insurance.

At first I thought that argument was astro turfed, that most deniers
weren't sincere and were just trying to obfuscate. That may be
optimistic.

Most of the deniers are just really stupid, sub 80 IQ, etc.

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 -

 

[Bret Cahill]

Assume the tree ring data is good.

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

Bret Cahill

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.

Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
That could be changing. China is ready to go to war for the oil in
the S. China Sea.

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money  ...)

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Solar power is now dirt cheap. They just need to convert to solar.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
with science and technology. It'll be interesting to see how long our
luck holds up.


Bret Cahill


"May you live in interesting times."

-- Chinese curse

 

[fatalist]

On Dec 12, 1:21 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

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.

Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
That could be changing.  China is ready to go to war for the oil in
the S. China Sea.

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money  ...)

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Solar power is now dirt cheap.  They just need to convert to solar.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
CO2 including

The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
water vapor

Converting steel industry to solar ??? Never heard of it

 

[Bret Cahill]

Assume the tree ring data is good.

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

Bret Cahill

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency..

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science..

Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
That could be changing.  China is ready to go to war for the oil in
the S. China Sea.

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money  ...)

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Solar power is now dirt cheap.  They just need to convert to solar.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
CO2 including

The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
water vapor

But it's lowering O2 levels.

Play around with an O2 meter sometime. Hold your breath until you
start to gag and get a reading. It's nearly impossible to go below
14%.

Converting steel industry to solar ???

Once a country has become sustainable it's not a big contributor.


Bret Cahill

 

[fatalist]

On Dec 12, 1:32 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

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.

Amen to that! Almost all the technical problems mankind now experiences
are caused or exacerbated by overpopulation. Resource exhaustion and
waste disposal pretty well sums it up.

Still it's amazing how much we've been able to cheat Malthus so far
with science and technology.  It'll be interesting to see how long our
luck holds up.

Bret Cahill

"May you live in interesting times."

-- Chinese curse

"We" ???

Population density is extremely uneven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

 

[fatalist]

On Dec 12, 1:54 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

Use of Fourier analysis.

Most would go with the two higher frequencies.  The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.

Bret Cahill

This is all bs

They claimed that their tree ring data reflected some of the recent
events documented in other places but then they include the un
collaborated 1/1300 year frequency like it means something.

Is it noise or signal?

They haven't even explained how they arrived at decomposition in Fig.
4

Everything is filtered except the three lowest frequencies.

The problem with high pass filtering to pre dynastic China periods is
you must wait 1300 years to determine if the lowest frequency is
noise.

That is not acceptable when it's clear that today's warming is /decade
and that CO2 is the major cause.

This may be more of a study to see what deniers will latch onto than
anything else.  Most Chinese scientists know this is junk science.

Bret Cahill

China still burns lots of coal

In the past Chinese climate scientists were independent of Beijing.
That could be changing.  China is ready to go to war for the oil in
the S. China Sea.

Burning coal is very very bad (and not just for CO2)

They are about to be joined by Ukraine (currently on the path to stone
ages converting industries from natural gas to coal and already denied
Kyoto's money  ...)

When it comes to preserving 02 levels by not burning fossil hydrogen,
natural gas becomes the worst offender.

Solar power is now dirt cheap.  They just need to convert to solar.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't have the figures but am pretty sure that burning natural gas
for heat is a LOT better than burning coal, from many perspectives,
CO2 including

The now standard residential high-efficiency natural gas furnace is
95% efficient and leaves almost no residue other than CO2, some CO and
water vapor

But it's lowering O2 levels.

Play around with an O2 meter sometime.  Hold your breath until you
start to gag and get a reading.  It's nearly impossible to go below
14%.

Converting steel industry to solar ???

Once a country has become sustainable it's not a big contributor.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lowering O2 level in atmosphere is not a problem (for a foreseable
future)

Increasing CO2 level beyond 0.04% by volume is a major deal

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

fungus wrote:

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.

Just like they managed to shoot a cannon ball through a house and
hit a mini van with it, the other day.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.