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
Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Problem
Started by ●December 12, 2011
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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 atmosphereStay 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
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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 CahillI 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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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 changesI'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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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.
Reply by ●December 12, 20112011-12-12
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!
