tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6827949553343520087..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Rotten to the CoreEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89520417381839286212019-06-08T13:38:55.445-04:002019-06-08T13:38:55.445-04:00Great blog,
The information about the measurement...Great blog,<br /><br />The information about the measurement flaws and fourier flaws at Ludecke, H.J, Hempelmann, A., Weiss, C.O. from 1750 to 1850 are great.<br /><br />The Fourier analysis should be repeated without the technical flaws in my opinion although I do not know what all the technical flaws are.<br /><br />Dr. D.E. Koelle also predicts natural cycles. On his website he is doing quite the same as the paper as Ludecke, H.J, Hempelmann, A., Weiss, C.O. In this link: http://www.kaltesonne.de/klima-zyklen-und-ihre-extrapolation-in-die-zukunft/ he is making extrapolations about the temperature on Earth. I wonder how accurate his predictons are about the temperature and the natural cycles in his graphics? Maybe somebody can comment on that.<br /><br />As far as I know the amplitudes of the natural cycles are: the 65 year AMO/PDO is approximately 0.15 degrees Celsius, the 200 year de Vries/Suess cycle approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius and the 1000 year Eddy about 0.4 degrees Celsius. The source of this information are 25 NASA scientist. Interet link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw Can somebody tell confirm the amplitudes of these values and how are they are obtain?<br /><br />As far as I know more natural cycles do occur here on Earth. These are: ~130 million years (Svensmark), ~100,000 years (Milanković), ~2,300 years (Halstat), ~1,000 years (Eddy), ~200 years (de Vries/Suess), ~ 90 years (Gleisberg), and ~ 65 years (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)/Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)). As far as I know all natural cyclus occur at the same time. I wonder if somebody knows what the amplitude of these cycles in degrees Celsius are? Are there some publication about this somewhere?<br /><br />I found out that adiabatic autocompression is responsible for the so called 33 degrees Celsius on the surface temperature on Earth and not the greenhouse effect. It all can be calculated with the ideal gas law for planetary bodies with a thick atmospher greater then 0.1 bar. At 0.1 bar at about 19542.178 m we can calculate with the ideal gas law approximately 220 Kelvin and at 0.5 bar at about 5960.4234 m we can can calculate 255 Kelvin. It seems to me the greenhouse effect or feedback factor in is invalid. I would like to hear the opinion about others about that here? <br /><br />In the context of the ideal gas law CO2 and CH4 is no different then any other gas and only in a real greenhouse with glass heat can be trapped. The temperature rise is due to a pressure rise which is caused by gravity. Please comment.<br /><br />Werner de Vries<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15664119334829243009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55759485781950799772018-06-21T16:20:54.838-04:002018-06-21T16:20:54.838-04:00Frank,
As a first point Fourier analysis eliminat...Frank,<br /><br />As a first point Fourier analysis eliminates trends. Moreover you have to be very careful about filtering effects. There is a bunch of commentary on such things wrt Luedekke and links to more at<br /><br />https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/05/climate-of-past-fails-fourier-test.html<br /><br />You might take a look and see how much of it applies to what you did first.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10777920046576220382018-06-21T00:20:45.993-04:002018-06-21T00:20:45.993-04:00I am not qualified to comment on European temperat...I am not qualified to comment on European temperature data series.<br /><br />I applied the DFT to 110 years of rainfall data for Cambodia and got similar results to those of Lüdecke, Hempelmann, and Weissof for periods of 60 years and below. I agree the CRU series is too short to include the peak at or about 60 years<br /><br />I was prompted to use Fourier analysis because rainfall in Cambodia appears to be quasi-periodic. And references appear in the literature to teleconnections among oceanic oscillations of different quasi-periodicity, specifically the PDO and ENSO.<br /><br />I applied Fourier analysis mainly from curiosity and then stumbled upon multiple critiques of this paper. Thanks to the critics, I am more aware of the pitfalls in both applying DFT and interpreeing the results. <br /><br />I have spent more time studying the critiques of the paper than the paper itself, and have come to wonder if the main thrust of the critics is to deprecate the use Fourier analysis for climatology.<br /><br />One thing I have noticed in the critiques is a focus on technique in applying the DFT to the European datasets. By contrast, I have found virtually no discussion of the physical phenomena except by the authors.<br /><br />Those of us who approach DFT from Earth science and oceanography ask the question: Do oceanic oscillations dominate natural climate variability?<br /><br />Whether or not Fourier analysis could usefully be applied to a system of oscillations with yearly periods of 60, 30, 15, 7.5 and fewer years (QBO) seems to me to be a technical issue. Perhaps the DFT technique is not suitable for physical systems that generate harmonics.<br /><br />As for prediction, I thought that making predictions was a way of testing a theory. At least that was what Albert Einstein thought. Is there some other way?<br /><br />I will continue working with rainfall data for Asia and the Pacific and have downloaded all the critiques of this paper to ensure I follow best practice in applying the DFT.Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55426713531369215072013-05-06T08:12:43.302-04:002013-05-06T08:12:43.302-04:00I would not find a 65 year component in this data ...I would not find a 65 year component in this data at all unusual.<br /><br />Consider that 1) The sun has an 11 year cycle. 2) The ENSO is roughly about 6 years, although highly variable.<br /><br />So, if we were to expect those two cycle to produce an interference pattern that would occur over about 65 years or so.<br /><br />Finding evidence of interference between two well known patterns is nothing new. It might be worthy of a middle school science fair project, but nothing to undermine the bedrock of climate science.<br /><br />Nothing to see here folks, move along.<br /><br />BBHYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42999669233917668852013-02-25T23:00:33.110-05:002013-02-25T23:00:33.110-05:00Depending on the conclusion, curve fitting might s...Depending on the conclusion, curve fitting might seem less appealing to contrarians:<br /><br />> [I]t’s possible to analyze multidecadal HadCRUT3 (defined as F3(HadCRUT3)) as a sum of two naturally arising functions, SAW and AGW, to within millikelvins, where SAW has 6 parameters and AGW has 3 that I’m allowing myself to tune to improve the fit. 9 is not all that many compared to GCMs. I venture that it’s very hard to find any other 9-parameter analytic formula with as good a fit.<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-274617willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8438224521866734082013-02-25T21:04:30.257-05:002013-02-25T21:04:30.257-05:00The paper is even stupider than you think.
Making ...The paper is even stupider than you think.<br />Making a decent fit using a small number of Fourier components would possibly be significant.<br />Statements about how it should be easy to create a good fit to an arbitrary large sample sequence using a few Fourier components are wrong.<br />The reason the paper is nearly an arithmetic tautology is that after applying the moving average filter, there just aren't that many significant Fourier components left. <br /><br />The algorithm they used was:<br />1) Take a set of samples.<br />2) Apply a low pass filter (15 year moving average) to the samples which suppresses all but a small number of lower frequencies in the Fourier transform.<br />3) Take the Fourier transform. <br />4) Take the first few Fourier transform components and reconstruct the samples (take the inverse transform).<br />Since the higher frequency components have been suppressed, the lower frequency components approximate the filtered samples.<br /><br />There are 254 samples in the paper with 1 sample per year. The Fourier component frequencies are:<br />0/254 cycles per year (the DC component, i.e. the average of the samples)<br />1/254 cycles per year<br />2/254 ... 127/254 cycles per year<br /><br />A moving average filter of length L applied to a sine wave of frequency f will result in a gain of:<br />f = 0/254, gain = 1.0<br />f = 1/254, gain = 0.99<br />f = 2/254, gain = 0.98<br />...<br />f = 7/254, gain = 0.74<br />f = 8/256, gain = 0.67<br />...<br />f = 10/254, gain = 0.53<br />...<br />f = 15/254, gain = 0.13<br />...<br />f = 20/254, gain = 0.07<br />and so on.<br /><br />The formula is<br />gain = sin(pi*f*L)/(L*sin(pi*f))<br /><br />The paper used the first 7 components. Big surprise that they approximate the filtered samples.E Shumardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10034601266216588899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50986940668533354982013-02-25T15:56:54.942-05:002013-02-25T15:56:54.942-05:00And Tamino weighs in:
http://tamino.wordpress.com...And Tamino weighs in:<br /><br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ludeckerous/<br /><br />As I figured, he is not impressed.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2753868793491046352013-02-25T14:34:03.266-05:002013-02-25T14:34:03.266-05:00> the BEST reconstruction appears to
> handl...> the BEST reconstruction appears to<br />> handle this problem. ...<br />> a combination of the BEST method<br />> and metadata adjustments may be <br />> superior to either method alone. <br /><br />May I suggest some climate blogger consider inviting Robert Rohde to do or share a guestblog spot? I've been a fan since I first found Globalwarmingart (I don't know if he started Globawarmingart or his PhD work first).Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33514656366895266282013-02-25T13:59:34.182-05:002013-02-25T13:59:34.182-05:00BBD, and of course Willard Tony never updated to p...BBD, and of course Willard Tony never updated to point out that the paper was not published in the end.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57971325309701919412013-02-25T11:59:23.504-05:002013-02-25T11:59:23.504-05:00It's not the first time strange things have cr...It's not the first time strange things have cropped up in CPD. Remember Asten <i>Estimate of climate sensitivity from carbonate microfossils dated near the Eocene-Oligocene global cooling</i> last year? <br /><br />Willard Tony somehow <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%C2%B1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/" rel="nofollow">picked up on that</a><br /><br />Although on that occasion the criticism <a href="http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012-discussion.html" rel="nofollow">was justifiably harsh</a>, and the editor wasn't buying in the end (see summary by Yves Godderis, 03 Jan 2013).BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39565349447615040042013-02-25T06:48:52.904-05:002013-02-25T06:48:52.904-05:00Thanks Victor. Should have used the words I'm ...Thanks Victor. Should have used the words I'm familiar with ;-). Sorry for that John!KarSteNhttp://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/khaustein.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3339178167978475312013-02-25T05:26:14.006-05:002013-02-25T05:26:14.006-05:00Eduardo soweit zufrieden mit dem Reviewprozess und...<a href="http://scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2013/02/22/artikel-von-eike-pressesprecher-ludecke-et-al-veroffentlicht-in-climate-of-the-past/#comment-47279" rel="nofollow">Eduardo soweit zufrieden mit dem Reviewprozess und dem Resultat ist.</a><br /><br />Which means translated something like: Eduardo is satisfied with the review process and the results. <br /><br />I am not. This paper should never have been published. As many of the flaws were mentioned in the review, I feel that it is also possible to say that this paper would never have been published had it been submitted by a scientist.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18579874143436831862013-02-25T00:43:12.514-05:002013-02-25T00:43:12.514-05:00Eli:
Good due diligence always gladdens my heart.
...Eli:<br />Good due diligence always gladdens my heart.<br /><br />KarSteN:<br /><br />Hmm, did you mean "is contented"?<br /><br />(I first read this as Zorita had contended with the peer review process...)John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40742366918085032592013-02-24T21:48:37.072-05:002013-02-24T21:48:37.072-05:00As one of those who submitted a comments (arguing ...As one of those who submitted a comments (arguing exclusively on physical grounds, as I am not savvy enough to judge the stats involved), I thought it should be sufficient to indicate that there might be a serious problem with the selection of the 6 sites. Not to mention that there are also well known reasons for the "wiggles". I didn't exactly bother to dive into the question as to why there is such a discrepancy between BEST and their choice. It was clear to all of us, that there is absolutely no merit in this paper. Not even a tiny notion of sth worthwhile being published. Makarieva, Beenstock, Luedecke ... things doesn't seem to bode well for open review. It was certainly my last time I made this effort.<br /><br />Like you, Eli, I also keep my mouth shut as to what role Eduardo Zorita might have played in this amusing episode. As Georg Hoffmann has noted: "He is contended with the way the peer review process has worked in this case". Quite a pity that I so utterly disagree with him on that. Thanks to your appreciated diligence, the fact that he should have been aware of the early warming bias makes things look even more "strange". But what do we know ...KarSteNhttp://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/khaustein.htmlnoreply@blogger.com