Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by angech

0
0

I saw a video on atomic bomb testing which implied that the vast majority of such testing took place in the USA. Out of nearly 2000 tests world wide 80 percent?? would have been underground in USA and the largest up near the arctic in the Alaskan islands It was massive.
Thousands of Hiroshima bombs in one.
The Russians exploded an even larger bomb in the arctic. Coincidentally this was at a time of “global warming and arctic sea ice decrease”
Is there a correlation between all that testing and the Arctic melt.
That Alaskan island elevated 20 feet and registered 6 on a Richter scale
The southern Hemisphere on the other hand has had much fewer tests,
so perhaps the ice there is just normal?


Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

Waggy, I will read it if it tells what was done, why it was fraudulent, and who did it, and you can provide a link for me to click.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Tom C

0
0

I just had a shudder when it dawned on me that Joshua and Rabbett might be the same person. He is named Josh, after all. Has anyone seen them in the same room together?

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Bart R

0
0

phatboy | February 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm |

Infinite regress. We already went over the math on a prior thread. If you can’t be bothered to look up what we said to each other then, why should I put in the same effort again to show you the same thing for a third time?

Do you enjoy wasting people’s time repeating the same demands for things already provided over and over again?

Are you secretly Steve McIntyre?

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by manacker

0
0

DayHay

That those drafting legislation from such climate studies, which are based on model studies rather than hard empirical scientific data, shall be held directly accountable for any negative impacts such legislation causes to the overall welfare of the voting citizenry, whether these impacts are intended or the result of unintended or unforeseen consequences resulting from said legislation.

Max

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by sunshinehours1

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by manacker

0
0
Peter Lang <blockquote>Ready! … Fire! … AimI</blockquote> Followed by <em>Ouch!</em> (As the shot went into the right foot.) [Our hostess' "unintended negative consequences"] Max

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by manacker

0
0

tony b

Thanks for correction

Max


Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

0
0

In addition to Tambora of course, there are two very significant volcanic events that are actually the two largest in the past 1,000 years. They took place in 1257 and 1453. These each dwarf anything that has taken place since. The 1257 eruption took place in the midst of about 50 years of much increased volcanic activity. We know that prior to the 1257 volcano, the MWP was a period of both higher solar activity and lower volcanic activity. These two forcings operate differently on both regional and global scales—both cause warming, but the solar activity causes more regional warming (mainly from jet stream shifts) in the NH than lower volcanic activity, which causes higher rates of global warming.

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Curious George

0
0

For a retirement, I nominate the idea that a scientific problem should be resolved by a popular vote.

Science and democracy are both fine, they just don’t mix.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Mi Cro

0
0
<blockquote>Steven Mosher | February 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm | on my view, “natural variation” remains a logically possible explanation for all phenomena. But its the emptiest explanation of all. It explains nothing.</blockquote> I agree, but we know as little as we do of natural variation because of the manic focus on Co2.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by blueice2hotsea

0
0

Empty cans do not slosh.

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steve Garcia

0
0

AH! The most important “idea” in science that needs a prompt burial is the idea that computer models are not just analogs for reality, but that model runs are themselves reality.

It is amazing how many climate papers (and others) present model output as actual reality. To the point that when reality doesn’t match the output, the modelers actually think something must be wrong with their evidence from reality. (Tin foil hats, anyone?)

It just boggles the mind. Evidently no one these days has ever heard of “garbage in garbage out.”

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH

0
0

Chris Quayle | February 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

“Sorry to press you, but why haven’t you done a spectral analysis on the data ?. If you are looking for signals, it’s arguably the best method.”

Actually given the amount of noise in the signal it is not. The known problem with FTs and the like is that, if you have a large amount of ‘noise’, then then any signal peak will be spread out all over the place. This is especially true if you are at the lower frequency end of the available spectrum.

Then there is the problem with ‘half cycle’ data where you may have a positive half of one cycle mixed in with a negative half of another. So you could have 50-60-70 in a 1:1:1 random mix as nature often does in forced, chaotically ordered, systems (i.e. not nicely tuned strings – aka sine waves). Plays havoc with using FTs to sort out what is happening, even more so on short data.

Given that we have such a relatively short data series then the only reliable way to ‘see’ such signals is to use the very basic of tools.

The advantage of low pass/band splitter circuits of this nature is that they are completely ‘flat’ in their response curve (well as they are Gaussian they are anyway).

So you get two bins, one of which you can discard (the stop or high frequency) band. The lower will the display ANY frequency higher than that. So the 15 year pass band shows something in the 50-70 area. So the next analysis point is above that and we are al=ready at the end of the available data.

I should really label the traces as ‘greater than 15 years’ and ‘greater than 75′ to make that clearer I suppose.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Wagathon

0
0

… nor do they oscillate without a motive.


Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH

0
0

phatboy | February 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
Chris Quayle:

I program C and asm (for embedded work) and may not easily understand the R enough to analyse and verify it.

Me as well.
I’ve dabbled with R a bit, but never really got into it, and soon forgot when I put it down.
Perhaps someone should offer an online course: “R for programmers” ;-)

Well you could start here.

R for Beginners – The Comprehensive R Archive Network
cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Paradis-rdebuts_en.pdf‎

I was a total beginner in R myself until a few days ago. Just another language to pick up and learn. :-)

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Mi Cro

0
0

Actually given the amount of noise in the signal it is not.

After thinking about Steven’s natural vs other comment above, and how weather actually works, is there really that much noise? Think about it, weather is driven by air masses, fronts, etc. Sure it’s non-linear and chaotic, but we can plot out weather, we can forecast air, snow, temperatures in advance. I think noise is more what we don’t yet understand than say electronic noise in circuits.

And as an engineer, if I too saw that type of system (as I do), I would arrange some low pass filters to split the outcomes into manageable sections and deal with them one by one :-)

Maybe, but I think it’s just as important to break the world into small enough pieces so we can find some gears and see which gears follow them. And remember in electronics you don’t see current while measuring voltage, the Climate is full of pressures and flows.

And I think some of those causes tie back to the astrology listed as a science we need to forget. Any effect large enough to move the Sun, deserves at least a little respect.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

The periods I gave are heterodyne mixes of other frequencies. The 18.6 is the heterodyne difference of the draconic and sidereal month and the 8.85 is the diff for the anomalistic and sidereal month. Naturally the phases line up precisely with the lunar tidal cycles.

These are real effects but they are also real small and one needs sophisticated approaches to pull them out of the climate signal. Watch this space for more.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by blueice2hotsea

0
0

yes, metronomes are the motive influence.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH

0
0

Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 4:27 pm |

“After thinking about Steven’s natural vs other comment above, and how weather actually works, is there really that much noise?”

Quite a bit really. Firstly there is the added ‘noise’ from using a sub-sampled continuous MA such as Month! That ‘leaks’ the weather into the signal straight away. Then there is the weather itself. If you have ‘half’ a high or low at the Month sampling point you see half in two months. A few days of movement and it will be in one or the other. And then there is jitter. Firstly at Month 28,30,31 and at Year 365,366. All plays havoc with what we have.

Really this all should be a continuous high frequency sampled data stream such as hourly and never down sampled from there! Then we really would have a high quality signal to deal with.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images