Fourier analysis stock market

Think it has been debunked? The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX. Post note below, with a couple of extra caveats…. With only six cycles they can closely recreate the year central European thermometer record.

The three German scientists used Fourier analysis to pick out the dominant cycles of one of the longest temperature records we have. The dominant cycle appears to be about years. Data is of course, always the biggest problem.

To show that the results apply to other parts of the world, they look at the German Alfred Wegener Institut AWIAntarctica series. Ominously, the temperatures of the dominant cycle in Europe at least peaked circa and if the six-driving-cycles do represent the climate then things are going to get cooler, quickly. If these are accurate, it can be used to rule out significant effects from man-made forces and ultimately to predict what will happen next.

Celcius thermometer made by Pierre Casati, Lyon circa I n a recent paper [1] we Fourier-analyzed Central-European temperature records dating back to Contrary to expectations the Fourier spectra consist of spectral lines only, indicating that the climate is dominated by periodic processes Fig. Nonperiodic processes appear absent or at least weak. In order to test for nonperiodic processes, the 6 strongest Fourier components were used to reconstruct a temperature history. DFT of the average from 6 central European instrumental time series.

Reconstruction with the 6 strongest Fourier components red. Figure 2 shows the reconstruction together with the Central-European temperature record smoothed over 15 years boxcar.

The remarkable agreement suggests the absence of any warming due to CO2 which would be nonperiodic or other nonperiodic phenomena related to human population growth or industrial activity. For clarity we note that the reconstruction is not to be confused with a parameter fit. All Fourier components are fixed by the Fourier transform in amplitude and phase, so that the reconstruction involves no free fitted parameters.

However one has to caution for artefacts. An obvious one is the limited length of the records. The dominant year period peak in the spectrum results from only one period in the data.

This is clearly insufficient to prove periodic dynamics. Therefore, longer temperature records have to be analyzed. We chose the temperature history derived from a stalagmite in the Austrian Spannagel cave, which extends back by years.

The wavelet analysis Fig. We ascertained also that a minimum of this year cycle coincides with the minimum of the central European temperature record. Thus the overall temperature development since is part of periodic temperature dynamics prevailing already for years.

This applies in particular to the temperature rise sincewhich is officially claimed as proof of global warming due to CO2, but clearly results from the year cycle. This same general fall and rise shows in the high quality Antarctic ice core record in comparison with the central-european temperature records Fig. Antarctic ice core record blue. As a note of caution we mention that a small influence of CO2 could have escaped this analysis.

Such small influence could have been incorporated into the year cycle by the Fourier transform, influencing slightly its frequency and phase. An interesting feature reveals itself on closer examination of the stalagmite spectrum Fig. The lines with a frequency ratio of 0. This is precisely the signature spectrum of a period-doubling route to chaos [2]. Indeed, the wavelet diagram Fig. The conclusion is that the climate, presently dominated by the year cycle, is close to the point at which it will become nonperiodic, i.

We have in the meantime more clearly ascertained the period-doubling and in more detail. This applies in particular to the temperature rise since which is officially claimed as proof of anthroprogenic global warming.

Cooling as indicated in Fig. The future temperatures can be predicted to continue to decrease, based on the Fourier components. Finally we note that our analysis is compatible with the analysis of Harde who reports a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0. Finally we note that our analysis is seamlessly compatible with the analysis of P. The slope increase afterturns out in our analysis as simply the shape of the year sine wave. A comparable small climate sensitivity is also found by the model calculations [3].

Thanks to Filius for reminding me to look at the use of the DFT here. I found out a couple of months after posting this that the DFT assumes all the cycles fit perfectly into the chosen end points a gobsmacking assumption reallyso readers should be aware that the cycle lengths are entirely speculative. There are good reasons I have not cited this paper as demonstrating anything in particular, except that natural cycles could possibly explain the current patterns.

I still think it is a paper worth discussing. I was not aware of the depth of the European historical data. The search needs to start somewhere. Also with the caveat that even the proper fourier analysis will find the cycles that best fit the data but that does not guarantee they are the causal cycles. Past9, p Feigenbaum Universal behavior in nonlinear systems, Physica D, 7, p Harde How much CO2 really contributes to global warming?

Spectroscopic studies and modelling of the influence of H2O, CO2 and CH4 on our climate, Geophysical Research AbstractsVol. The short killer summary: The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot. Tiny Url for this post: Who would have thought you could examine actual real data with a well known mathematical tool that has been around more than years find something useful?

Until the physical processes by which each of these oscillations influence temperature are described this paper amounts to nothing more than a description of an interesting curiousity. Tip of the hat to Bruce of Newcastle who tipped me off to the modelling work of Dan Pangburn who has reputedly gotten close temperature prediction results and has more recently highlighted the growing gap between IPCC CO2 forcing and actual temperatures.

Again, without needing to explain the cause of every cyclic component that falls out of the analysis, his model was able to hindcast the 5-year running mean of global averaged temperature from to when trained only on temperature data taken from to There is surely no better illustration that our climate is still operating on natural cycles, with the man-made remainder being very small. We can let ourselves off the hook in the meantime.

A similar decomposition of data given tacit support to AGW was done by Parker et al in The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. It is associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDOand its Pacific-wide manifestation has been termed the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation IPO. We present model investigations of the relationship between the IPO and ENSO. The third mode is an interhemispheric variation on multidecadal timescales which, in view of climate model experiments, is likely to be at least partly due to natural variations in the thermohaline circulation.

This paper, would in a legitimate scientific environment, put paid to AGW but with AGW where reality is determined by model scenarios not actual data that is not happening.

I think we need to get these scientist some more stalagmites to examine so the can show this year pattern going on back much longer than the last years. MP Joanne Nova any one. Sorry Joanne if your not interested in sinking to the level of a politician. What was I think. Your much to good a person for that, my apology for suggest such thing. I have a county supervisor for my district who proves the point. And though we disagree on some issues I know I can trust her to be honest and fiscally responsible because she has proven it over and over.

She will not sell her principles to anyone and has also proven that in a failed bid for a seat in Congress. So Jo, keep up the good work whether out of or inside of politics. So we get Obama and Oz gets Julia. People have always tended to want to hear what they want to hear. The problem tends to be self correcting because as things get worse, a good dose of reality sets in and people start listening to the honest voices. Let us hope the budding trend in that direction will continue.

Over the years, I have done a fair amount of work for various politicians or rather their support staffsand practically all of them have integrity and are honest and hard working. The problem is that very few of them have professional expertise in their portfolio, or shadow portfolio if they are in opposition. Instead they are reliant on the bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing the party policy, sometimes under duress, although you would never guessand who brief and advise the politicians on a regular basis.

The normal reaction of the bureaucrat is to try and discredit the independent research by using the same techniques that we often see here.

And the worst insult: Gosh, how that one hurts. Now it might strike you as odd, that what I have just described is very similar to the way that the trolls behave on this site. That tells me three things: Jo is doing a lot of things right because they feel the need to counter attack; 2.

A lot of the trolls who come to visit are either bureaucrats or academics who have a lot to loose, should the global warming scam be publicly seen for what it is; and 3. It is in interesting perception that you have that where there are two opinions the opinion of the independent research is generally correct and the beureaucrats are generally incorrect and the bureaucrats have to use undesirable means to discredit the independant research.

Because I can assure you that if you get a third watch you are as likely to get three different times as you are to get two independent ones that say the same time as each other but are different to the 1st watch.

Mattb, the hypocrite — under coal fired lights he types is nonsensical theories on polymer made of petroleum and connecting to circuit boards made of gold, lithium, silver, copper and aluminium.

What great luck for you that you are not living in the third world where the AGW Scam is starving people to death. Indeed, policy makers have suddenly begun to reconsider the biofuel mandate in light of the global food crisis.

In the context you weant Ex-warmist well we all have a lot to loose if it is a scam, and we all have a lot to loose if it is not. It may be a tad idealistic but for me the the state sector should be apolitical.

Democracy is badly served by unelected political crusaders subverting the will of government and by extension, the people. I can imagine that pollies love to get advice that suits their purpose but ideally it should be dispassionate.

In truth, the bureaucrats tend to follow the consensus. But since they all do that, the consensus is defined by the majority of opinion, it is an organic thing. And once a consensus has been reached, it takes on a life of its own, and it occasionally needs somebody independent to point out that there are other alternatives, that the Minister or Member might like to consider.

I do not believe that any Public Services in the British Parliamentary tradition are politicised in any organised sense.

It happens in big corporations as well. People feel more comfortable with people like thamselves. So, Rereke, why are we so excited by this latest piece of modelling?

Has anyone found any success using Fourier Transforms or Fourier Series to predict market movements

On top of that, it seems to be yet another model that removes the trend in order to conclude there is no trend. Is there some reason for you lack of scepticism for this one? The correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise was predicted by physics, and is now observed. You need to retake a few basic logic courses.

The reasoning in AGW is that 1 CO2 strongly influences global temperatures, and 2 increases in CO2 will cause increases global mean temperatures. It does not offer a scientific basis. The prediction is true if an only if the physical properties and responses proposed by climatologists and used to drive the models are properly understood, properly linked, properly signed, and properly weighted.

If any one or all of these factors is misconstructed, the correlation is best considered as conincidence. At present the available evidence is that the planet has been warming since the depth of the LIA, ca.

It has continued to do so since human-releases of CO2 have become measurably significant if they haveca. Despite the best efforts of many very serious people there is no indication in the data that there has been any non-random uptick or unprecedentedly sharp uptick in warming that differentiates the latter 60 years from the prior In fact for roughly a quarter of that 60 year span, there has been no consequential warming at all.

The only certainty we can claim is that there are multiple hypotheses of how the physics of climate operate and that no uncontestable theory of climate has as yet emerged. Fourier Analysis is not a model, in the sense that models try to emulate the behaviour of some object or some phenomena.

It is simply a well proven mathematical technique for extracting underlying cyclic signals from the overall noise. Fourier Analysis will result in a number sometimes a large number of sine functions plus a constant value. Each sine function has its own frequency — the number of times the cycle occurs in a specific time period, and this can also be expressed in terms of wave-length — the time required for each cycle of the sine function to complete.

Wavelength is the reciprocal of frequency. Each frequency interacts other frequencies. Sometimes the frequencies are in phase with each other, so the amplitudes are additive, and sometimes the frequencies are out of phase, in which case they are subtractive. Combined frequencies also interact with other combinations of frequencies in the same additive and subtractive way.

If you tune an old AM radio to a space between stations, you get a hiss which is the sound of lots of weak radio frequencies interacting with each other.

I am not discussing causes, I am only describing the mathematical treatment of the outcomes. When we are looking at climate, overall, we see what appears to be random noise.

What this study has done is to demonstrate that it is possible to apply Fourier analysis to that noise, and thereby show that it is not random. Furthermore, it implies that the cooling trend of the sixties and seventies, and the warming trend of the eighties and nineties, may have been significantly influenced by amplitude trending, and thus the accumulative results of natural cycles.

So this means that any hypothesis that seeks to demonstrate that the cause of global climate change is due to anthropogenic influences, must now exclude that particular area of study, by demonstrating why it is an anomaly.

And that is why I am excited by this approach. It gives us some insights into how anthropogenic climate change can be proven, or disproven, in an empirical way. He would have had a hell of a lot more credibility if he had first identified the cycles he was looking for, then used his analysis to establish them in fact.

And a very, very, simple test would be for him to run the model forwards and backwards years each. Unlike Ludeckes work, which might be wrong, we know the modelers are wrong. Their models are disproven. So then, you admit that the climate models may be discarded, since they have all now been falsified by actual temperature data. So, I will emphasise: We are discussing a mathematical procedure, that just happens to be computerised in order to handle the large number of calculations required.

The procedure we are discussing does not. You apply the math if you are doing it manually or you run a standard computer function in the modern worldand the frequencies emerge from the input data — in this case a series of temperature readings over a reasonable length of time.

From one perspective, you could say that the frequencies choose you. You certainly get surprises, sometimes. In any set of frequencies, with the exception of white or pink noise, which are human artefacts one frequency will be dominant in that it has the highest amplitude. The analysis will find that frequency, and then go on to find the next dominant frequency, et cetera, until the amplitude gets to the point where it can be considered to have no frequency at all.

This is the constant value. That is the way it works, and it is a mechanical process that could be done on a whiteboard by an army of students living on pizza. But I am not even sure if that would be possible, because of the complex harmonic relationships that exist in the real world.

They now need to establish what resonates in the natural world at each of those frequencies. The amplitude of each frequency will be relative to the influence that particular source had, on the original temperature readings. One final thought, because this is not a model, but an analysis of real measurements in the real world, the concept of backcasting is meaningless and irrelevant.

Backcasting is simply a way of establishing a degree of confidence in a particular model. Because the Fourier Analysis is a mathematical process, using empirical measurements, we already have that confidence. As I stated hereFourier analysis of a period of observations is descriptive only — without an understanding of the physical processes producing the data, and how they changethere is no predictive power in that description.

Add to that the limited dataset used central Europe, as opposed to the rather different global temperturesand they are only describing regional data — not global. KR explain the difference between quality and quantity please? Then offer any other comparable quality datasets from any other regions that could be added to and expand this analysis.

Interesting that you first claim that politicans have integrity and want anyone to believe anything you have too say.

Where have you been the past decade? With what is and is not getting done in Washington I have to wonder if anyone of the politicans have any ethics. In the mean time all other bills get the backside shake. At the start f the year a Presidental executive order raises the pay of upper level federal government employees as the rest of the federal government has pay freezes and the sequester thingy hanging over taxpayers as well. Where is the integrity that you are claiming?

I did make the point that my comment only related to governments in the Westminister tradition — Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In no way does my comment relate to the US. In the US, it costs a great deal of money to run for political office.

That money must come from donations. Each donor will, quite rightly, invest in the prospective politician that they believe will provide the best environment within which they can fulfil their personal ambitions. There was quite large study done on some caves at Womma SA cant find reference sorry and it focussed on using the stalagmite ring records to assess rainfall patterns through history.

Some very interesting data from that, which suggest SA has had droughts lasting over years. I do need more coffee. Similar post over at Wattsupwiththat. A group of Russians Viktor Ermakov, Viktor Okhlopkov and Yuri Stozhkov used the same analysis some years ago and linked the temperature via planetary albedo as I recall and the fluctuating arrival of zodiacal dust in turn actuated by the suns activity and planetary interacions from Jupiter and Saturn or Neptune?

As an engineer who works with the reality of vibrations, sea state and tides, the use of Fourier analysis is about as out there as a screwdriver in a toolbox. The notion that you would NOT use Fourier analysis regarding a system to do with a spinning planet with an orbiting moon, orbiting a star in company with a bunch of other planets all with different orbit radii, periods and massthe star having an well understood and measured cycles in its behaviour, the planet having a whole bunch of internal cycles in its oceans and atmosphere etc etc IS SO EFFING DUMB and BIZARRE that I simply cannot comprehend it.

I just love the irony that the Russians will be the ones to help pop the balloon on this. Finally, all that investment in useful idiots in the West paying a dividend!

As an old KGB boy, Putin will be strutting his stuff and laughing his little titties off. Premier Putin is a seriously serious gentleman, and I have never heard a report of him laughing. Although I understand that he did smile once — a frightening experience, by all accounts. The many faces of Mr Putin. This is a potentially useful paper.

If nothing else it opens the door for replication. If it is a valid analysis it should at least poke another hole in the warmest bubble, and inject more uncertainty into the debate. It must be shared across the web for greatest perusal. One must be careful using proxies, however, as a non-correspondence may relate to the coarseness of the proxies rather than the analytical frame. It may, indirectly, also serve to evaluate the proxies themselves. Is it just me, or is there a glaring contradiction in the text!

On the one hand we read that the climate is controlled by the interplay of 6 cycles, then on the other, a 0. That still means a forcing will cause a net warming. And the same processes that mean CO2 cools the stratosphere are the ones that mean it warms the troposphere. A combination of IR absorption-emission combined with kinetic collisions. Try this one, or an unthreaded. Joanne, please check for a Pingback from my site. Jo its saying 0.

Which is wrong since each doubling absorbs half of the remaining energy thus has half the effect of the previous doubling! Of course each doubling has the same effect when you make the school boy error of using absorbance instead of absorption like the IPCC! This is a pretty unconvincing paper. Why do this analysis with local temps and a single proxy? It looks like the proxy was cherry-picked here—why did they go running to Austrian stalagmites of all things? Are you suggesting a particular set of data?

How exactly do we do a reconstruction? Second, is that it is in the same area as many of the temperature records. The Spannagel Cave is located south of Innsbruck near Hintertux, Tux. As Backslider suggested — any better ideas Boris? Might on suggestion of the Central England Temperature record is secondary, with a less extreme climate — and also km by road and ferry from Hintertux.

May I ask, how much better is anything else doing as far as being convincing? Boris, over the last three weeks I have asked Ludecke and others about their choice of thermometer record and proxy.

They had considered many different proxies he pointed at the NOAA database and acknowledge that often proxies conflict. This particular stalagmite record is the best he argues of the NH: But look at Ljunqvist It is also strongly present in the low latitude line see part Ca point I found quite interesting.

Obviously it would be better if there were more sites and they could pin down the length of the cycles. But I felt their approach was very much worth discussing. His criteria is a good match with the SPA12 record of Mangini showing the medieval warming and the little ice agethe original time resolution needs to be good and the Hurst analysis should yield reasonable results. Joanne Nova says, 7. About the Little Ice Age, let me tell you this, Jo: There are no reliable representative for the whole world temperature records.

For any period of time. Yes, I know about their evidence. This is so called climate science. Real science is taking whatever evidence you have, and then incorporating it into the mental model you have already constructed, changing that model if necessary to let it fit.

Different groups of people do not lie in unison on the off chance that somebody in the future might include it a computer model, thereby skewing the results.

When people think of it in those terms, they realise just how pompous your dismissal sounds. If today waspeople of the northern hemisphere would be struggling through a very harsh winter. Writers, painters etc would be chronicalling all this right across the Northern Hemisphere.

Ljudqvist used proxies. There were thousands of samples of lake sediments, pollen grains, stalagmites, and tree-rings. Right now these five cold winters are a blip in a warm period of current stalagmites, pollen grains, lake sed… etc.

Greg, find me some evidence that the world was warm in the little ice age. Because if this is not scientifically proven, which I have reason to believe, then you can not refer to those warmings or ice ages as scientific facts. In science, there is no proof, only disproof. I provided you with proxies, and asked you for evidence.

Can I suggest that adding up the number of my blog posts on the topic will not give you global temperatures circano matter what integer you get. Joanne Nova says May 3, at 2: So, any claim should be considered correct until proven false? Is it what you mean? I am asking, because you statement has a problem with simple logic. So, you contradict yourself. So, you can not demand a proof, but you need to disprove the claim. You really need to give it a second thought. You asked me for evidence, right: Why would you ask me to prove a point I did not make?

My point is that I have never seen the usual claims about global warmings or global coolings provenfor any period of time. Despite my extensive debates with warmists, and some of them seemed to be professional. If you can provide links to a study full texts easily accessible online without payment proving that, then please, go ahead.

Or do you expect people just to believe? Well, then please, share this knowledge with the community. Please, do not forget to present the calculations and the source of local temperatures, all the records, please. Of course, you do not need to do it all yourself, there must be studies where all this has already been done, right? And you studied the studies, the methods etc. Right, so we just abandon all the science that studies past temperatures because they were not taken with a thermometer?

So Greg, please tell us what you believe in regard to AGW, then we shall look at the data that has been used for it, huh? I doubt very much any scientist knows the exact temperature between my butt cheeks although most could hazard a fairly close approximation. Following your logic, we may as well stop talking about climate and temperatures altogether because of that alone. By implication, your argument is that there is no basis for claiming that the twentieth warming is unprecedented.

I cannot accept such extreme skepticism. We must always look at the little evidence that we have and endeavour to confront diverse hypotheses about temperature movements. My beef with the climate alarmists is not with their examining past data, but that they do so in a highly biased and unscientific manner.

Finding evidence, improving our analysis and generally increasing the boundaries of our knowledge about the world is what I find exciting about science. Over the past few years improvements in quality of data collection and analysis have established that there was a medieval warm period and a little ice age. Even the deeply flawed Gergis paper of last year showed this. The biases just suppressed the MWPnot eliminated it like the original Mannian hockey stick graphs. Manicbeancounter May 2, at 3: There is considerable evidence that average global and local temperatures do fluctuate over time.

Even the deeply flawed Gergis paper of last year showed pre-twentieth century temperature fluctuations. There is dispute about how the evidence is interpreted, the quality of that interpretation, the magnitude of those fluctuations and the timing.

My objections to consensus climate science are similar to my moral objections to a prosecution in a criminal that suppresses contrary evidence, intimidates the jury and denies the accused a proper defense. The result will be getting major decisions wrong, as they will be built on inbuilt prejudices. Like with criminal trials, empirically-based science must have people with integrity, who aim at the highest standards of evidence.

The difference is that in criminal law there are laid down standards and rules. Science at the frontiers of knowledge had less rules, so must define its own frameworks for assessing conjectures and data. And lack of boundaries demand much higher standards of integrity in dealing with evidence than police officers. That is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, in respect of the MWP there is a myriad of studies showing a global effect. In respect of the LIA there is an interesting paper showing how a regional climatic effect can have a global impact.

Alternatively, there is cogent evidence the LIA was global. Until now I have heard only unproven claims about all these warmings and coolings and no one I talked to has been able to provide a link to such a study. A single study is sufficient. This is your science? So, there is none, anyway none known to you, will you admit it?

If you have look, a close look at the links i sent you, you wil………never mind let show you. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits. All you needed to do Greg was actually read what i presented to you, but instead you respond with sarcasm which is why i continually call people like you IDIOTS.

Either change your approach or find it difficult to get along. I understand, it is not about warmists losing their case, it is about diplomacy, like calling my an idiot twice in the approved comment above. You asked for one study to show the MWP and LIA were global, i gave you two links. I gave you the links because i thought you were seriously asking a question as in you had a thirst for knowledge on the subject. However this was not your response instead you responded with sarcasm and then had the effrontery to challenge me to admit that no such study exists.

Because of your behavior. Just let people know that there is probably not a single study provingnot just claiming any global warming or cooling. Warmists not being able to provide a valid link to the full text of a study proving that is anyway a strong indication. And let me tell you something.

Not a single one. Here there are already two on this thread. This post is here for the whole world to see. To my knowledge, there is not a single study provingnot just claiming any global warming or global cooling or global unchanged concerning the past, the present and, right, the future, probably.

I raised this issue in debates and no one was able to prove that or present a link to such a study. It was sad and funny at the same time to watch, how people were trying to save their phony case.

So, I guess, I am familiar with many tricks. You can employ whatever tactic you want, I do not care. Eventually, it will be clear to everyone that you do not have a case.

To my knowledge, there is not a single study proving, not just claiming any global warming or global cooling or global unchanged concerning the past, the present and, right, the future, probably.

SO I take it that you do not believe in climate change in any shape or form, is that correct? There was never any studies ever made that showed ice ages and warm periods.

I asked you earlier, however you were rude enough to ignore my question. This time I am not letting you off so lightly:. Granted it was not all contained in one study but by a multitude of studies, regardless you asked for some evidence and i gave you some. This is no trick, this is no tactic, this is simply evidence, evidence which you requested.

Read all the studies and you will see time and time again it can be shown that major colling and major warming occur in unison between the two hemispheres. You listed studies without a single link http: No, the readers on this blog can not read and discuss them. I can not believe you do not understand that.

Cohenite provided many instead of just 1I clicked on one http: Even if I bought it, the readers would surely not. No you did not, I repeat: Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters The number and magnitude of large explosive volcanic eruptions between and A. Quantitative evidence from a new South Pole ice core. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C EDC96 ice core.

Journal of Geophysical Research Overview of areal changes of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula over the past 50 years. The Cryosphere Discussions 3: Geophysical Research Letters A late medieval warm period in the Southern Ocean as a delayed response to external forcing. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands.

New relative sea-level curves for the southern Scott Coast, Antarctica: Journal of Quaternary Science Holocene history of the Wilson Piedmont Glacier along the southern Scott Coast, Antarctica.

Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at cal.

Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula.

GCM simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum surface climate of Greenland and Antarctica. An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula. High-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand differ from the northern signature. Synchronous climate changes in Antarctica and the North Atlantic. Holocene glaciations in the Ema Glacier valley, Monte Sarmiento Massif, Tierra del Fuego. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology A year atmospheric history of methyl chloride from a South Pole ice core: Evidence for climate-controlled variability.

A three-dimensional global model study of atmospheric methyl chloride budget and distributions. Science is not above proving, but disproving… eg.

It appears from all observations and data at hand that there was a medieval warm period: I have asked you this twice already Greg, without reply: What do you think is black scholes option pricing model excel free has happened with the climate?

Backslider says May 3, at 3: Greg House — You are the rudest, most UP YOURSELF person I have ever encountered on this blog. I think that it is pretty clear to everybody here that you are nothing other than a warmist genuine online trading forex currency forex learning who pretends to not believe in anything.

I agree with the poster above. If a doubling of CO2 causes a 1 to 1. Sorry Bill, yes of course, climate sensitivity of 0. I will begin by saying I am a strong believer in natural climate cycles. It is just one of those beliefs shared by almost every bollinger bands formula excel geologist.

Assuming this paper is correct, then perhaps we should consider: The concept of CAGW was always nonsense, while that of some very modest AGW might make some sense, except — despite what the IPCC says — we have no way of accelerated vesting of employee stock options in anticipation of sfas 123r it, as it is java program to implement operations on binary heap by so many potential forcings and feedbacks, which we are simply unable to measure and quantify with any degree of certainty.

Natural climate cycles have always been, and always will be, the great heresy of the Global Warming cult. Because these cycles are very dangerous and should never be acknowledged, as any discussion on them could have the disastrous repercussion of derailing the Global Warming gravy train.

First I wonder if this post will survive since wordpress says I have an invalid email. Any curve can be fourier transformed, and the result will mimick the original, except for some alience caused by the curve not being continous and repeating.

The transform gives the spectrum lines, so no wonder you only have these lines. The most amazing is really what they can deduce from the mathematical treatment, it is not far behind Sherlock Holmes. I wonder some times about how much knowledge they have of all the advanced tools they use.

There could be something hidden here, but the first impression is, that they just dicovered what a tool DFT is. Fourier invented the transform because he had data he suspected had a periodic nature. And the transform does indeed show the periodic nature of any data quite well.

So this analysis looks like a valuable reality check to me. If the Fourier Transform has been misused someone will be only too glad to point that out.

Among other things about it, it will turn even random numbers into whatever it can. The authors appear to be doing OK in that regard. Roy Hogue says, 9. Thanks, I have read it.

They say it is OK what they have done, in a nutshell. Whatever the utility of this paper — and its conclusions much be viewed as extremely tentative — the authors make bold predictions make their interactive brokers canada options commission falsifiable.

That is average temperatures should start falling in the next decade. It is certainly more bold than the climate models, with the lame excuses and readjustments when temperatures fail to move in the predicted direction. However, there is a cop-out. How long could a lack of fall be blamed on the arrival of climate chaos before the authors would accept the falsification of their analysis?

Given that the predicted fall is already happening and rapidly accelerating, one would expect less than a decade. Another check that could be made is against the Central England Temperature record, which is not only relatively close to Central Europe, but goes back a further century.

This should show the previous cycle peak in the middle of the eighteenth century. Being always a quite sceptical boa stock trading account numbers, I note that the twentieth century temperature change was nearly three times that of global average surface temperatures.

I know that the warming was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the Arctic areas, and that land-based warming was greater than the oceans, but nearly 2. Now i have been to this place its not supposed to snow in places like this, some idiots may blame AGW but lets not forget you only get snow and hail when it is C-O-L-D. Crakar, I cannot but agree with you on that point.

These cycles may only be observed under the current narrow band of interglacial temps. The approach of chaos may in fact be the gradual years of cooling leading to us plunging into the next Ice age. Seriously; carefully recorded and reliable data, trusted method of analysis, unequivocal results. If any warming at all results from co2, it would appear to me that we humans got forex binary one touch options slight break from what might be uncomfortable cooling.

We have maybe a hundred years to figure out a better solution than what has been proposed. They have identified six cylic patterns that collectively replicate century and decadal scale variation quite well. Until you can explain in no uncertain terms how those cycles are driven, you really have no theory at all. While this article does not contradict the aims of the journal, it is nevertheless testament to a changing cultural landscape, given that the authors conclude: Meanwhile, somewhere far, far away, indeed on the other side of the planet in a dystopian green paradise, the Minister of Climate NZ has ordained that cooling is unthinkable.

You made me wonder how wealth fx forex trading this current bit of analysis would have been.

Well maybe not doomed, but in comparison to a couple of degrees of warming, we are really going to have something to whine about with a few degreees of binary options in a number of traders choice indicator. CAGW aficionados will never concede the error of their obsession.

Fourier provided us with an extremely helpful analysis tool. Some tools are more useful than others, but a tool in the right hands can do amazing things, while some others are just Tools. Actually, in the wrong hands a tool is just dead weight and we might as well acknowledge it. Garbage in, garbage out. So as has been pointed out, make sure your input data means something in the first place. I still think this is a useful analysis. That was do you really make money selling amway we were told when I first learnt about Fourier Analysis.

I had forgotten that, can you bet real money on pokerstars.net you for the reminder.

It has no predictive value. KR, it is a shame that you have not submitted your own paper for peer review on this method and the exact proxies. I hope you do soon. If I should run out of breath, perhaps you could comment on why you believe these authors are unable to see what you believe to be obvious? Their cycles have the same causal significance as would the coefficients of a N-th order polynomial fit to the data; descriptive of the behavior in that observation period, completely divorced from causality.

And I believe that is entirely clear to those in the field. My very personal opinion:. Looking at the three authors of this paper, Prof. Carl Otto Weiss is on the EIKE advisory boardand Dr. Alexander Hempelmann has been an EIKE guest debater on at least one occasion. EIKE is a climate contrarian organization, with links to and people in common with the well-funded conservative lobbying group CFACTbased in the US. EIKE is in essence a lobbying organization with undisclosed funding, not a science group.

I personal opinion here! But you really have to take their work with a grain if not a block of salt, as they are also invested in lobbying for their interests. Their results are therefore inherently and inescapably biased, and you have to consider that when evaluating their conclusions.

As long as you are pointing out the conspiratorial connection with the above groups, you might apply the same scrutiny to your own resource: I even seem to recall you having clearly said you avoid the political argument with regard to AGW. I suggest then, that you find a different resource than Sourcewatch because you are getting information that is extremely left biased and deeply Green activist. Although you did ask …. It is a simple descriptive curve-fitting exercise, and not very well done at that see the aperture issue I discussed herealso the very limited data subset they used.

The same could be said about simply fitting a polynomial to the data — a reasonable description of the data analyzed, but lacking causation it will have dummies guide to binary options trading predictive power. Therefore their conclusions regarding causation, such as greenhouse gases, are not supported — nor are their predictions as to future temperatures.

They never examined causation in the first place — the paper is therefore poor science, and its conclusions unsupported. But the math is completely sound. There are good books on the subject if you need them. It daddy yankee don omar money makers up to them to prove their case.

Jo has posted examples of work on solar and other cycles in the past, here and here and here and here for instance. So according to Fig. Here at this site we already know that is crap so what the hell is that all about? The same graph shows that it was pretty warm around as well. Was it Captain Cook driving SUVs around the newly discovered Australia that caused that warming?

No it cant have been warm in the s when Cook arrived at New Zealand the Franz Joseph and Fox glaciers terminals were flowing out to sea! Now they are several km inland!

I have never seen a sceptic on this blog dispute global warming from to What on earth are you on about. Realists — The real world data has not remotely matched the predictions. We believe CO2 is not to blame to the extent the Warmist claim and would really like less effort blaming big industry and more spend actually finding out what is going on. Or else continue to be known as a spammer of false allegations.

I mean really, you are trying to tell us what we believe? As we all know, mathematics can find equations that can fit any piece of data. Let me repeat that. Having found a best fit, the next step is to validate the finding by explaining how it occurred. The warmist peer review and journal publication process relies heavily on the effects of THC.

Market Cycles

Sorry, was referring to the Thermo Haline Circulation, aka global conveyor. There seems to be a year cycle evident in greenland Ice cores and involvement of a deep ocean cycle would explain the year lag of CO2 behind temp.

Of course it may be driven by orbital employee stock options turbotax or something else. My theory is that Ice ages are driven by an acceleration of THC which acts just like a radiator in a car engine. As brine formation during sea ice freezing is critical in driving THC, the triangular shape of the north atlantic would lead to positive feedback as the area of sea ice increases with cooling.

It also supplies the moisture source required to cause continental glaciation. Deglaciation seems to occur after a sustained period of dust accumulation in Ice cores, raising the possibility of albedo reversal if a short melt was triggered.

Orbital factors seem to be triggers, otherwise there would have been Ice ages prior to 2. Just a little theory of mine Cheers. There is nothing startling here, they have taken known temp records and applied a known analysis to the data.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of MATLAB could do this hell even EXCEL has the functionality to do this of course MATLAB has the advantage of you being able to process a higher aount of data. This process simply looks for cycles in the data, do not think this is some holy grail only known yo those who work with climate, we have done flight test where we have used this process to analyze the data, it is nothing new. Surely discovering this will reveal more about the sun than can be discovered by rude invective.

Yes i am curious [SNIP] i must ask what has suddenly perked your interest? Takes an Engineer to make sense of things. Missing the point here Gee Aye. If the function is cyclical, then the cause of the recent rise in temperature is not likely to be anthropogenic CO2.

It could be solar irradiance, solar magnetism, ocean currents, a periodic migration of pixies, or some combination of these or hitherto unknown mechanisms.

I understand this where can i buy a moneypak reload card scientifically finding cycles in an analysis that seeks a best fit is lacking in verification. Finding a cycle by such a method needs support to rule out the cakephp input type submit that it is simply an outcome of the method applied.

The Fourier transform is a tried and trusted mathematical transform 24hr licensed binary options trading examining periodic data.

The study shows a very strong periodic component look at the red graph overlayed on Figure 2. Black grape shake your money maker is virtually no non-periodic component. I agree that there should be more study in this area, maybe we could look work from home typing jobs no fee uk what sort of cycles exist that have these sorts of periodicity.

You have no idea what you are talking about but yet you come in with all the swagger of a drunk John Wayne claiming to be an expert. This is why i call you an idiot every second day, but dont worry i call MattB an idiot every day. In an attempt to try and educate [snip] i will try and explain a situation where FA is a valuable tool. Well you can start by fitting tiny things keeping it simple [snip] inside the fuselage that can measure vibration, the measures will be in a binary format thats numbers [snip].

You then fly the chopper and record the measurements, when you land your data numbers will be in the time domain magnitude and time you can then do a FA to convert the data numbers from the time domain into the frequency domain and you are left with a graph that has magnitude and frequency.

This graph will show spikes along the frequency domain, one spike will represent the vibration of the fuselage the bit you want another spike will represent the vibration induced by the engines, another by the 4 blades etc. You then put the box on and fly again and if you repeat the FA process you can then deduce if the box increases the vibration magnitude and at what frequency.

Now i understand this concept is above and beyond accuracy international ax stock average idiot but really it is not that hard to accept. I appreciate that for the idiots here this is akin to the pope getting a visit from Allah but still its not something that even they could not understand…. I think the problem is, that the fourier transform is a tool that is known, used, and loved by Engineers.

Because it is used by Engineers, and it is mathematical, it is obviously too prosaic to appeal to the more esoteric scientific mind. With an optimized FFT I can do a 16, point transform in milliseconds on a PC. Fourier had to do it manually and would not have lived long enough to complete the job. I think what Gee Aye is looking for is the DC component in the transform. He will then want to know if that has a slope, and if so will claim that as the signature for climate change.

In that case I have some bad news for him. Any good curve fitting algorithm can can do it and have done it and we know that over the recent past there has been warming. We seem to be stuck where the argument is over how to figure out what all le binary options platform 24boption com which data means. I just read my outdoor thermometer every day and the trend I see over the past 3 or 4 years is cooling.

What does that tell me? It says weather is not a constant like g or pi. A longer look at historical evidence says climate is not a constant either. And both of those things have been changing for a lot longer than humans could possibly be responsible for it. I still want to see some empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 can actually do something and is in fact doing it. Cycles such as these shall be found in the harmony of runescape make most money fast non membership spheres and not in the heston option pricing model matlab of our power stations.

This study showing some cycles needs to say no more, it is up to others in a different field to find the why. It is the climastroligists that have been inhibiting real research, the last twelve months have seen the real beginning and acceptance of climate research as it should be. Unfortunately it has had to bypass fortress Forex executive manual trading system but the unwarm snow is starting to raise doubts in high places and many studies are getting past the keeper.

Myself I would prefer warm as I ride a motor cycle, but such is life and the vagarities of the weather gods. This is the glaring contradiction that shows the CAGW clique up, cyclic vs. The alarmist mob claim that linear projections dominate, where we know from all observational data and documented history including historic literature, news reports and scientific reports that climate is cyclic. No power, no business, no manufacturing, no heating, no schools, no hospitals, no water, no sewerage, etc.

It looks participants in forex trading what is leverage margin me to be guilty of massively overstating the conclusions can be drawn from such a Fourier analysis.

When reading this you need to bear in mind that ANY function can be subjected to Fourier analysis and a reasonably forex sheet approximation of it reconstructed from the main Fourier components.

That is completely unsurprising. And that seems euro interest rate swap historical data me to be essentially all they have done.

Yet somehow they leap from this to concluding that there is no linear component and no effect from CO2. So let us suppose for a minute that there WAS a strong linear component to the how to make money from plr articles. What would we then see in the Fourier analysis?

Because you would still be able to do the Fourier analysis and the function would still be very closely approximated by its main Fourier components.

That is true of almost all functions. What the linear trend would do is contribute a strong peak with period close to the length of the record. And what do the brent oil forexpros see when they analyse a temperature record of length years but a main peak with a period of years. Sorry guys but that is pretty much exactly what you would expect to get from a record with a strong linear trend in it.

And yet the authors conclude the exact opposite. I cannot follow their reasoning here. I think their choice of words is a bit odd. This is carbon cap and trade system california strongest peak in their analysis they are talking about, not a minor defect.

So then they analyse a much longer teknik forex sebenar v3 pdf download record. And you know what bothers me most about that is that they get a completely different looking bunch of Fourier peaks. They are side by side! The frequencies are not the same. And what is of greater concern to me is that in the longer temperature record you get new peaks showing up now with even longer periods so that once again the strongest peaks are those with frequencies close to the length of the record.

The Fourier graph rises towards the left. There is a significant peak with period years but obviously there is a huge peak with even longer period.

They only claim a linear signal on the most recent part of the graph. Their favorite graph is a hockey stick not a straight line going back thousands of years. It seems like huge significance is being attached to an insignificant result.

Sorry guys but I find all of this completely unconvincing, especially when they try to jump from their rather limp looking graphs to making claims about the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. That really is going too far. The instance of mindless abuse from das Craker boy is about as predictable as sunrise. Not at all if you behave like an idiot i will call calculate how many days between two dates in excel one nothing mindless about that.

One way to add heft to their conclusions would be if there was a plausible mechanism for the year cycle. Fitting curves is easy. As the great mathematician John von Neumann said: Dr Joan Feynman, Dr. Alexander Ruzmaikin1, and Dr. Yung looked at other data and published a paper in Journal of Geophysical Research: Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River? ABSTRACT We investigate the possibility that solar variability influences North African climate by using annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in — A.

The time series of these records are nonstationary, in that the amplitudes and frequencies of the quasi-periodic variations are time-dependent. We apply the Empirical Mode Decomposition technique especially designed to deal with such time series.

We identify two characteristic timescales in the records that may be linked to solar variability: We show that these timescales are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. We suggest a possible physical link between solar variability and the low-frequency variations of the Nile water level.

This link involves the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Annual Mode and on its North Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean patterns virtual online stock trading india affect the rainfall speculations in stock market the sources of the Nile in eastern equatorial Africa.

Apparently some people here feel as though they are incapable of conducting a debate so they have requested that i do it on their behalf, unfortunately i have no idea what their position is so i cannot debate you based on what they believe so i will attempt to generate a simple discussion so as they can read along with the hope that they interject now and again with a question or at the very least learn something. If we look at Fig 1 for a moment, it is telling us that the data from the 6 data sets strongly indicates that a majority of the data oscillates around a year cycle.

There are other data points but these are orders of magnitude lower. This may indicate other factors affecting the temps over the period or it could be errors in the data itself, but all in all this fig would tend to suggest that the temp is driven in a cyclic valuing a barrier option. This fig represents a longer time frame and the year cycle can be clearly seen in the data and it can be seen in the Antarctic record as well as the CET record.

Once again the FA was used to derive Fig 3 data. This suggests there is a year cycle in the climate, the final quarter wave length of the cycle approx 60 years, thats peak to trough to peak again occurred during the last part of the 20th century.

We are now going back down as the cycle starts again well it can start anywhere of course therefore the authors believe it will get progressive cooler for at least years i suppose.

Now it is the turm of others to debate what i have said and if you have nothing to say that is relavent then say nothing at all you know who i am talking about. Crakar… the point was that Ian has already made a post that disagrees. You cannot get a cycle of years if the data has a strong linear trend but you are too stupid to know this can i call you stupid without being snipped like when i call you an idiot? FA looks at the rate of change from one data point to the other, i have given numerous examples in other comments but i cannot force you to read them let alone comprehend.

I take it that we have all heard, as some stage, the hiss that comes from an amplifier when there is no input signal, but the volume is turned up. That hiss is caused by imperfections in the components of the amplifier. If you record the hiss, and then do a Fourier analysis on it, you find that it consists signal forex percuma a number of sine waves, and a direct current component.

The frequency of the sine waves, and their amplitude, are fca uk forex broker to where that particular part of the hiss is coming from and the components involved. Now we know that nature consists of lots of cycles. In fact, it is cyclic by nature. But any influences caused by mankind are more likely to be random, or linear, but almost certainly not cyclic, within the timeframes we are considering.

Such influences, should they exist, will show up as part of the linear component, and if mankind is causing the other cycles in nature to shift as the wharmists claim then that linear component must have a positive slope i. So the real questions are not about the frequencies found, for they are of secondary importance, but about the linear component, because anthropogenic climate change must either have a linear signature, or a cyclic frequency that is so low as to appear linear.

That is a very good analogy Rereke, in fact if you do a FA on noise you will get small spikes across the frequency spectrum as you say the noise is not cyclical. If you read the article all the way to the end you would have noticed the authors concluded the cyclic components account for most but NOT ALL of the temperature series:. The Fourier transform of the ramp function gives a real component strong on low frequencies, which is compatible with what you said and what the authors said.

You can actually test this with this handy little applet: If the year component is entirely false you would then have to explain how a year period emerges artificially from the wavelet analysis of the two thousand year series.

If you are going to argue that this is also produced by a consistent linear trend then… thanks for proving our point. Your extensive argument for the presence of a linear component could only serve to disprove the Slayer view which is that CO2 has zero greenhouse effect because there is no greenhouse effect.

If there is any part of their inferences and conclusions I would be questioning the most, it would be this part:. Presumably this is not an analysis artifact of the MWP bump? Their own analysis supports a largely periodic climate over the last years! The chaos is the part that sounds like hand-waving. OR — as suggested, to run the analysis on the data minus the last 30 years, and see how well it predicted the last 30 years.

Given the amount of comments you have made on this thread in the last few days, I do wonder how much time you are spending representing your constituents…. It should be relatively simple to do a linear fit to their data sets.

As someone has already pointed out, Excel can do this kind of thing easily as can Matlab. Ian H, I was just about to respond to your quite well put arguments when I noticed Andrew McRae had done an excellent job! Given that scenario, as the authors stated, they would have expected to see the results verify that hypothesis.

We are supposed to be sceptical of all studies. The study is interesting because it identifies possible natural cycles that can explain most of the fx digital option delta warming, and it provides a testable prediction. The goal is to be able to understand and predict climate after all so we have a better chance of survival. Trying to dismiss a theory before its been tested is just stupid.

Not dismissing a theory that failed the test is even worse ie CAGW. The meeting in Brussels will aim to give governments an opportunity to fourier analysis stock market respond to any potential action on the proposal in the European Parliament and see if they can update their positions, according to the official, who asked not to be identified, citing policy. Some members of the Parliament are reflecting on the result of the vote two weeks ago, which prompted a record decline in carbon prices, the official said.

The environment committee is next scheduled to meet on May in Brussels and the gathering could bring some decisions on how to proceed on the future of backloading, the official said. Potential options to change to the original proposal drafted by the European Commission to allay the concerns of those who opposed it could include some restrictions on the frequency of intervention in the carbon market, volumes of permits to be delayed or circumstances under which sales could be postponed, according to the official… http: EU carbon market reform unlikely — report There will be no short term reform of the EU carbon market due to opposition within the EU Parliament, according to analysts from Thomson Reuters Point Carbon.

Following a successful vote the plan would need to be accepted by qualified majority at the European Council where votes are weighted by size. This is a genius post. Who even knows what that is. It must be right. Forget the Little Ice Age, forget the Roman Warm Period. Hardly anyone knows what that is. Some sceptics seem to be showing a surprising lack of scepticism. Wide spectrum of motivations in all of the groups involved in the conversation i think. And its a hot political topic that throws in more variables as to how the conversations evolve and are reported by the various interest groups.

The yap, yap, yap, is definitely part of the medium. Oh great — Crak gives a link to a textbook about Fourier analysis, the existance and usefulness of is not in question, therefore AGW is bunkum.

You see MattB this is why i call you an idiot every day, the mere fact that FA exists has no bearing in your belief in AGW i merely provided the link so as an idiot like your self can understand what all teh adults are talking about. In bold, you stated that you did not know what FA was so i in an attempt to educate an idiot provided a link so you could learn something new and how have you proved me wrong.

You clearly stated that you do not know what FA so i provide a link for YOU to read so as you can learn more about it but now you state you did not say such a thing. I was playing the role of the yapping masses here. If you are too thick for such things so be it I guess.

You would have covered FA during your 4 year degree as a physicist, please share with us your knowledge on this subject and offer an opinion on the veracity bartleet mallory stockbrokers pvt ltd sri lanka the claims made in the study.

My comment does not relate to the mundane application of fourier analysis to a single temp record, nor even to the analysis presented, but to the yapping masses who will think use it to claim AGW is bunkum. They seem to know about this Fourier malarky… how about you ask them. Once again my apologies MattB you only studied for 3 years, maybe i should be conversing with an engineer? My comment does not relate to the mundane application of fourier analysis to a single temp record, nor even to the analysis presented.

You refuse to enter into any formal debate on the paper but rather cast aspersions and then have the gaul to challenge me to debate Ian which as i said is something you are avoiding at all costs.

You even acknowledge that you are being a twat which by the way means one of two things. No need to guess which one you are referring to, so you see Make origami animals money i am simply calling you what you claim to be yourself so i cannot see what your problem is.

Lol Mattb — Fourier analysis is one of the most used mathematical functions in modern physics. Without it, there would be no AC electronic circuits, no computers, no internet, no wifi, no radio communications. Straddle stock trading strategy is the transform of a function from the time domain to the frequency domain.

It is the best way to study the periodicity of data. It is however worthy of further study and research… would you not agree? I know these things can be purchased online. Tim Patterson of the University of Alberta has been saying same thing for years now.

First proposed climate in North America follows 3 or 4 solar cycles, from sea bed samples on west coast. Currently taking lake bed sediment samples up ice road north of Yellowknife, every winter. The other clue that cooling is coming is the urgency of the AGW movement. I wondered why it was so important that a deal be reach in Copenhagen And now every year since it is our last chance. IMHO I think they know where the climate is headed and are trying desperately to get a deal done so they can a gain the power they seek b claim there plans worked c show that a global government can work and create a global a market to boot.

Keep in mind they do not care what is really happening. Both species are negatively correlated with a 1,year cycle that we associate with the Bond cycle. The herring data is also positively correlated to the gray values for cycle periods of and years, whereas the anchovy are nega-tively correlated to gray values at year periods.

Our findings indicate particularly close relationships between the Gleissberg solar cycle and the cyclicity of both fish species examined here, particularly Pacific Herring populations, and by inference ocean productivity. This relationship holds through most of the 1, years BP record even through a major climate shift at 3, years BP that disrupted most other cycles Figure Our findings compare favorably with the year rate of anchovy fluctuation in Santa Barbara Basin between A.

Because the anchovy populations of the North American CUD are linked, there is an indication that these pelagic fish species may have been fluctuating according to the Gleissberg Cycle through at least the last 4, years.

However, solar forcing need not be the only mechanism involved. The observation that the solar irradiance driven Gleissberg cycle is unaffected by a major climate shift that disrupted several other cycles is in itself suggestive that there are at least two independent climate forcing mechanisms at play….

At least they did look into oceanic cycles and other natural data, however the planet being fundamentally chaotic with some long-term predictable cyclic oscillations cyclic until that changesit would be difficult for any mathematical equation to make solid conclusions, especially considering their short time span of data and influences from Milankovich, Lunar, Solar and exo-planet cycles. This AGW scam is such a disease that it could have infected their study from the beginning.

A study some time ago from NASA thought Solar cycle 24 was going to be as big as 23, but as we know has barely risen above zero in comparison. Changes in the Solar wind including Solar flares and such have influences here that are not well understood. The Earth currently has an axial tilt of about I know your question was geared toward Solar cycles however I decided to include the rest for a more complete view in regards to other readers.

Thanks for the comment, the point i was alluding to was that the sun goes through cycles based on its movement around the barycentre centre of mass. This is primarily driven by the orbit of Jupiter with assistance from Saturn. In fact all the planets play a role but obviously some more than others. The solar cycles are not chaotic they are regular over approx years or so, however years is way too long for the IPCC to look at they are only concerened with what happened yesterday.

Exactly my point Crakar. The IPCC trying to predict the climate well within any known Solar periodicity is a farce because between such periodicities are chaos that influence the climate on a decadal, even multi-decadal level.

Thumbs up to you. Olaf… and yet the IPCC gets lampooned when such a non-predictable chaotic solar cycle causes a drop in temperature that the models did not predict! When in fact they were not predicting because they are chaotic although known. So its the sun now that has caused the non warming? I seem to recall the IPCC stating numerous times that the only affect the sun has on climate is TSI and as TSI hardly changes which it does appear not to then the sun cannot be the cause of this current non warming.

This fact has lead to Travesty coming up with a convoluted, physically impossible theory that all the heat is hiding at the bottom of the Mariana trench. So now we are back to the chaotic sun, its so hard to keep up with the changes made to the settled science these days. So you are saying its the chaotic solar cycles? Whatever happened to the heat going way down into the deep deep oceans?

They appear to be much less specific: Yes they do not state anything specific that could be used at a later date during a Nuremberg type trial i agree, however they do state:. The TAR states that the changes in solar irradiance are not the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown large feedbacks in the climate system. There are about more papers that I have not even discussed yet.

Can you provide any paper showing the model assumptions about relative humidity at hPa are right in the long run? Or a fraud of fabricated data and theory? Try reading the site. I am not trying to argue the evidence, I am trying you understand your position. Are you saying that the scientific research that supports human-induced climate change is actually refuted by these papers?

So that research is actually wrong. Which means that the scientists who continue to argue for human-induced climate change are bad scientists or suffering some collective delusion or committing fraud? And again, why is it so human-induced climate change so impossible?

Why must it be something else? Concerning cold winters in Europe M. Rodewald mentioned in a paper Fn. But was there not naval war from the English Channel to the Gulf of Finland since September ? Why study when you can just complain? Convenient for arm waving and sweeping generalisations. Was that a statement or a question, since the lack of punctuation makes that unclear? Climate science is a relatively new endeavour, relying on physics not well understood, using temperature data sets which are brief, non-contiguous, contaminated by alterations in land use urban and ruralutilise differing methodologies, usually poorly sited, non-transparently adjusted or hypothecated or inferred, cherry-picked in selection and deselection, lacking in spatial uniformity………….

Inverting the argument- the onus of proof is on the proponents, the cost of mitigation is a certain human catastrophe to avoid a possibility, a fleeting chance, a supposition? Indigo you need to look up the scientific method, Modern science is supposed to be a methodology and a scientist is a person who employs the method.

Proof is a maths concept and has no place in science! The scientific method clearly states that no theory can be proven, only disproven! Scientist must remain sceptical of all theories otherwise they become closed off to new evidence. When someone thinks something is proven, they automatically dismiss the views of those who disagree and tend to surround themselves with like minded individuals, aka groupthink! No go out and find a way to test the CAGW theory. You might be interested to know that the earth is loosing more energy OLR as it warms up, the opposite to what GHGs would do!

And bingo — the motivation for belief in CAGW — it provides justification for the examination of the human economic, political and social systems that operate over the globe. In a nutshell, we need to apply the brakes and lose 50 ppm of kemicals to avoid a hollywood hell. Easy; we ask and answer simple questions on our eco-site e. What is the correct form of address to politely request our Indian and Chinese friends to desist from building a new coal-powered station every week?

Comrade, please stop… Q: Sadly yes, my friend. Give us your money. When should we start converting coal-based power plants to fracked gas or nuclear to zap emissions?

ASAP — once planning permisssion has been given. The cycles are there for the viewing. The gas giant outer planets modulate the solar center of mass causing the Sun to move around the solar bary-center SBC causes variation in the sunspot cycle. This should have been picked up years ago but it right under the nose of NASA and such entities they cant or dont want to know. Took Theodor Landscheidt to show it. See Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81—82, 27— Jo, As an amateur mathematician I really do wonder why it has taken so long for the Fourier transform to surface on this topic?

What chance is there of having a real maths guru like a certain Doctor David Evans comment on this paper? I have a question. I posed the question earlier without really expecting anyone could answer. Sorry in hindsight I realised I already knew the answer. Has someone discovered a mutation of alfalfa the grows hair?

Furry Hay… In the USA we call it Foxtail Grass photo. Point taken about the weather system being heavily cyclic, however, word of caution needs to be made. So in the case of the plot shown at the top left of this article, only those peaks with periods shorter than 61 year can be taken seriously.

The strong year signal is just the long-term curvature of the time series which is immediately evident from the accompanying plot below and towards the centre. There is no way of year long six central European time series can be used to infer a period of years.

As for the remaining periods of 61, 47 and 32 years — what you are probably seeing in the 31,62,93, Lunar perigee-syzygy Lunar tidal cycle. Obviously understanding the causes makes all the difference.

I looked at Ljundqvist where I was satisfied that there might be a year ish cycle present in some types of proxy data over longer periods see my reply in 7. I dont understand why this is a problem if we are using FA, FA works by looking at the rate of change. A couple of examples would be that if you had a clock that counted up consistently by 1 linear line the FA would return a graph with the measurement at zero.

If you have a 1 Hz and 2Hz signal superimposed on top of each other with one a greater magnitude than the other the two signals would add and subtract from each other due to phase differences so you would end up with a squiggly line.

The FA would look at the rate of change and deduce that there is a 1 Hz and 2 Hz signal and represent that on the graph as two individual spikes one with a greater magnitude than the other. Therefore i do not believe the period of time makes a difference, obviously the longer the record the better, the only stipulation with FA is that the samples are a factor of two ie 2,4,8,16……. Samples rather than time are important. When I learnt this stuff, a loooong time ago, it was impressed on us that the accuracy was dependent on the number of samples, and that if you needed to calculate frequency, then you needed to accurately clock the sample rate.

Having said that, you can vary the sample rate during the period under observation, to get more or less accuracy, as long as you know what the rate was relative to any point in time. This means that you cannot draw any conclusions regarding the total time period covered by an analysis, because parts of it may have been expanded or compressed. Does that make sense? An important point, Rereke.

And an important weakness in using this stuff — the math will assume your samples are equally spaced in time or some other domainwhether they are or not. Lets say you are sampling data at a rate of 6. But lets say your samples drift at times from to micro seconds and you do a FA on that then you will still get a big signal at 6. Fast Fourier Transforms have been a part of mathematics for a very long time. It is a very useful analysis tool, particularly for making people who are still wet behind the ears to as questions.

Anyone else seeing the same? Just a novice question, where does this information stand in the scientific process? I take it that the hypotheses is now tested so what now? Spooky hey Matt, bit like the number The initial impression was that, that Big Oil funding stream must have come in at last. But only for a moment. The Report this buttons are working after all. It was that subtle grey text that again, that I missed as being a link to something another routine.

The BP-like logo was just the default for blogs without their own. It is a minor technical issue with style templates — I expect we can reset the things in the next day or two from the backups. Awe Jo, Loved the logo. It soon grows on you.

Missing the new look already. The green leafy icon was very nice. Greenpeace has become a byword for barmy, a lair of covert crypto-Communism. We need a rational environmentalism, to supplant these loony lefties who have high jacked it to their cause. Yes Rob, perhaps we should abandon Enviro to the mentalists and keep with the conversation. The language is littered with casualties of political correctness, word that cannot be used any more, for danger of being misunderstood.

There should be a law against such abuse of the language. This earlier video March 15, British Eurosceptic Nigel Farage at the Manning Networking Conference. My vote is with Nigel.

He speaks the truth It therefore makes more sense to evaluate climate change by examining temperature data reflecting zonal boundaries with proxy data taken from within those boundaries, as well as noting boundary changes, Examples of the latter are the moving tree line in the northern hemisphere, areas where wine can be produced Roman Britaingrains grown Viking Greeland etc.

This paper reflects the dating of climate change cycles in this climate zonal but may not reflect the same dating in other areas, especially the southern hemisphere, even though one expects the cycles to be repeated elsewhere. It therefore makes more sense to evaluate climate change by examining temperature data reflecting zonal boundaries with proxy data taken from within those boundaries, as well as noting boundary changes. Global Mean Temperature is a pretty poor proxy for anything in particular.

It just gives a single, simple indicator that everyone can not disagree on, while smoothing out the worst excesses. I guess I always was a bit of a purist, but I would have liked to have seen civilization spelt with an s. As to the logo, I can see those friends of the dirt greenies having their apoplectic head explosions right now, as they point and hum om om om big oil big oil big oil. I have pretty much given up on that sort of thing Tony.

Cracks me up listening to them trying to speak their own language. Sorry Roy, nothing personal. A language purist surely would leap at any opportunity to improve the intermodal consistency of the language, to reduce ambiguity, and to make the language easier to learn. Replacing Ss that are pronounced like Zs with actual Zs, and replacing CHs that sound like Ks with actual Ks certainly accomplishes all these laudable goals.

Of course in my younger days I emulated British traditions too. But this is rigidly shortsighted. Perhaps unwittingly, what the americans are doing is simplifying spelling.

Of course I have my limits. I think we can afford a substitution of cheaper parts in some places but would not go as far as a rebuild.

Russian Academy of Sciences: The just-in-casers and do-gooders are doubting. This has been an interesting discussion — I will have to agree with many of the posters that the paper discussed simply does not support its conclusions. Fourier analysis is descriptive. Any signal can be decomposed, and closely replicated with a subset of high energy frequencies. But that is just a description of that examined portion of the signal — not of the physics that produced it. I could perform a Fourier analysis of the path of a car over time, and closely replicate that path with a few primary frequencies.

And, like the authors of this paper, I could use those frequencies to make predictions of the future path of the car. But without some knowledge of the physics and underlying reasons for that path, such predictions are really useless — the driver might, for example, decide to divert to a good restaurant, or the car might run out of gas, or reach a hill requiring a turn.

None of that information, none of the physics, is contained within the Fourier analysis of the previous car path, much as none of the analysis these authors perform contains the physics or causality behind temperatures. The entire paper is one of description and correlation within the bounds of the observations, not causation, and as such the Fourier analysis has little or no predictive power whatsoever outside those bounds.

We live in strange time indeed. Let alone as an attempt to invalidate said physics. WRT limited data — you can always find a subset of data in a large set that will support your desired conclusions; that is the essence of cherry-picking. Which is why using all of the data is preferable, such as all available temperature readings, multiple proxies such as speleothems, boreholes, corals, alkenones, foraminifera, etc, will give a far more accurate picture than, say, just the CET record or as in this case a single stalagmite and a half dozen nearby Central European records.

The alarmists are good at it as well. You and a long list of others are doing nothing but abusing the hospitality and patience of your hostess. In your shoes I would go home until I could make a good sound argument for my case.

Finger pointing contributes nothing useful. For once I agree with you KR. This is clearly your best comment on this blog. There is hope for you after all. Secondly, your car analogy is ridiculously flawed. Sure, you COULD do a Fourier analysis on the path of a car and try to use it to predict its future path. Then you totally ignore the fact that you yourself are throwing in the element of human decision making, thereby using it to claim that there is some sort of flaw with the Fourier Analysis itself.

The CLIMATE is not going to randomly decide to pop in for a coffee someplace. It is far more likely that it is going to continue behaving in a somewhat predictable cyclic manner, at least between now and the onset of the next major glacial period.

As such, using Fourier Analysis to attempt to predict the future path of a car would be rather silly, since the driver of the car might well pop in for a coffee someplace, but using Fourier Analysis to predict the future behavior of the climate MIGHT NOT be silly, because the climate can reasonably be expected to behave in the same cyclic manner which it has been behaving in for the past years or so.

The BIG CAVEAT here, is that it should be seen as very important to characterize WHAT ARE THE SIX MAJOR CYCLES that seem to be the major drivers of the climate, how do they all interact, and how predictable are they really?

If it turns out that the six major cycles can be well characterized, their interactions can be well described, and they can be reasonably predicted, then this analysis MIGHT be very useful in projecting future climate. On the other hand, if they cannot be well characterized and their interactions cannot be well described, then this MIGHT be a load of hogwash.

If it turns out to be a fairly accurate predictive tool, then we should certainly want to use it as a jumping-off point for a LOT of further study! PeterB - Nothing wrong with using Fourier spectral analysis. Spectral analysis contains nothing about causation. As was pointed out above by Ian Hthat long cycle could be in fact a mis-identification of a trend, not a cycle. Again, to understand the behavior of your signal you need to know why it changes.

The point I made about the car is quite valid — it includes the possibilities of limits size of the cars gas tankforcing changes hill diverting the roadand even anthropogenic influences the restaurant decision. Such changes could be from the sun Maunder Minimumaerosols Pinatuboor even human influences added greenhouse gases. They had to use a total of 6 cyclic phenomena to accurately do a Fourier Analysis on the proxy data here…. Is solar activity cyclic including the fact that there are various maxima Roman Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, Modern Optimumand various minima Sporrer, Maunder, Dalton?

Is that ONE of the six cycles?

MetaStock - Wikipedia

We need to figure that out. Is volcanic activity cyclic, with periods of low activity followed by periods of relatively high activity? We need to figure that out too. Yellowstone exploding WOULD be the climate equivalent of the system popping off someplace for coffee unexpectedly.

Obviously one would argue most likely correctly that human influences are non-cyclic; however, the analysis shows that the non-cyclic components appear to be fairly trivial. So, my point is, we need to identify what the 6 cyclic components ARE, then analyze how they behave individually and how they interact with each other, and if we can do so, we MIGHT get a much better understanding of climate. So, in my opinion, this paper has SOME merit as a good starting point.

As to whether it has any predictive power whatsoever, only time will tell, but if the six variables continue to behave in a cyclic manner, are not overwhelmed by some other unexpected or non-cyclic variable, and the six variables continue to interact with each other in a reasonably well-behaved manner, then this analysis MIGHT have some predictive power. All in all, it is very interesting, but it is only a crude beginning point, certainly not a well-finished end point by any means.

I agree partially with this. Certainly, Fourier Analysis is just one more example of curve fitting. You are just fitting a set of sine waves rather than a straight line or a parabola, for instance. Being able to replicate any signal with just a small number of frequencies is not always the case, though. The sharper an impulse the harder that is, for example. However, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, we live in a cyclic universe: Fourier Analysis might be able to indicate where we should look for some answers.

Day and night are well understood as are the seasons. I would be surprised if they were the only cyclic events to affect the weather and climate. Why not find the rest so that they can be eliminated from the enquiry.

I guarantee that if I were to analyze the path of a car I could closely describe it — and replicate it — with a subset of frequencies from a Fourier analysis of that path.

The same holds true for any 1-D or 2-D, or N-D, for that matter signal. That subset is a description of the path, not a causal analysis. Much as the Fourier analysis of temperatures in the opening post is a description of temperatures.

They are assuming their conclusions. I do not get that from it at all. My interpretation is that they have identified distinct cycles which other studies show to be there. I do not see any attempt to elaborate on the cause of those cycles.

And why their speculations as to causation in particular that of CO2 are unsupported. I would in particular point you to section 3. His curve-fits match the data within the fitting period — and they diverge outside of that because they are not based on the physical processes involved. They are simply saying that the cycles do not show anything remarkable for the period that CO2 has supposedly been that bad buddy…… that the warming we have seen is not remarkable since when was 0.

The earth could be compared to a lime squeezed into a gin and tonic, there is only so much juice. I particularly like nuclear from thorium myself because of the the availability, safety and waste benefits. But when the CAGW battle is finally won, it is likely oil, gas and especially methane hydrate will be in the mix as a long term bridge to the technology and cost efficient goal of renewable energy? There is an excellent well researched article here on methane hydrates if you are interested: The article is quite long and goes through a lot of the history of research and development of oil and gas and methane hydrates.

But I can summarise the paper in the following way. But the fact is improved technology is not only finding more oil and increasing the ability to extract it, but is also creating a huge shift to natural gas.

Has anyone ever done Fourier Analysis on the stock market? - Straight Dope Message Board

Gas fracking is predicted to make the US and other countries energy self sufficient by At the same time allowing a transition from less energy and less pollution efficient coal and oil. The Japanese research program which started back in is expected to be in commercial production in a decade and is part of their attempt to become less reliant on overseas energy.

That is enough to send a shiver down the back of every pro renewable energy campaigner. In addition, green house gas abatement would have to be greater than the emissions from the use of methane hydrates, fully accounting for all manufacturing, start up and maintenance emissions.

I just loved the following few lines of text:. Modern electrical grids are in some ways like busy airports, with sweaty controllers staring at monitors, feverishly adjusting power outputs from big plants to the capricious swirls of human demand for air-conditioning, baseboard heating, and microwave popcorn. As more and more energy comes from sun, wind, tides, and other variable sources, the problem of balancing fluctuating supply and fluctuating demand will worsen.

When renewables supply 20 to 30 percent of all electricity, many utility-energy engineers predict, the system will no longer be able to balance supply and demand. Brownouts will ripple across the landscape; control centers will call up big companies and beg them to turn off the lights; managers of ultrasensitive modern control centers will watch in horror as voltage drops lead to factory shutdowns.

Germany, a leader in renewable-energy use, is already facing this situation. To ask utilities to take in large amounts of solar power—electricity generated by hundreds or thousands of small installations, many on neighborhood roofs and lawns, whose output is affected by clouds—is like asking a shipping firm to replace its huge, professionally staffed container ships with squadrons of canoes paddled by random adolescents.

Some of the capacity problems are caused by the PV coming on line around midday. This has prevented pumped storage operators selling into the high price time. Since they depend on the difference between cheap night time power for storage and high daytime prices, they are shutting down.

Thus even less flexibility in the system. It was slated to be shut down, but it had to stay available to prevent blackouts. Apostrophes because they are quite happy to sell coal fired Poland or nuclear Czech to Germany when they need it for a suitable price. But there are signs that the move to wind has stalled. The money supply has dried up. This post is remarkably unimpressive. That you can model some data with 6 terms in a Fourier series is hardly surprising. As John von Neumann is supposed to have said:.

If anyone is interested, why not leave out the last 30 years of data? Now redo the Fourier analysis. Use the results to predict the last 30 years of the year temperature record. Fair call — I was waiting for that one TBH. Look my greenie pursuits over the years have taken me far from being anything that resembles a physicist, or the type of person who could quickly whip this sort of thing up. There are many here who could do it much faster than I.

Note at no stage am I claiming that the actual application of fourier analysis in the study is in any way flawed. I understand, and I would also be interested in seeing what happened if you did the analysis in different segments. If the analysis has any validity, it should work for the whole range of the data, regardless of how you slice it up…. Of course, that is, if the data set is big enough. If you try to do the analysis on too small of a subset of the data, I would have no expectation whatsoever that it would look anything like the analysis of the complete data set, but as long as you used a statistically valid subset of the data, I would expect the analysis to be significantly similar assuming it was a valid analysis.

I understand perfectly that there are others who would be more suited to performing such an analysis — my point; however, is that your post was essentially completely idle speculation with no mathematical backing, so although it was perhaps an interesting question, it did nothing whatsoever to call into question the results of this study, since it was merely idle speculation.

No, actually what is unsurprising is that you NEED a minimum of 6 terms to accurately describe natural climate change. Decomposing a signal into its equivalent sine and cosine functions is a straightforward process.

This is an excercise which shows that the record we have is subject to such an analysis. Each individual researcher will have to decide if the increased time and cost is worth a small increase in accuracy.

The record is too short to do that. It makes sense to increase the length of the record to find longer periodicites, if they exist. On more than one occasion I have asked you, Dr. I have yet to see it. You must have missed this bit in the text. Lets say we have some data, now dont get hung up on where the data comes from its just data and lets say we have samples of data and the data is consistent over time eg sample 1 is 10, sample 2 is 10 and so on. If we do a FA on this data and you can do this in Excel and then create a X-Y plot we will have magnitude on the left and frequency not time running across the bottom with me so far?

On the frequency scale we will have a big spike at zero and a flatline after that, this is because the rate of change in our sampled data is zero or the frequency change in our data is zero still with me? Ok now lets do something tricky and modulate the sampled data with a 1Khz sine wave dont know what modulation means?

Ok we are going to change our data values to this. The next sample will be 9 like this:. Now lets apply this new found knowledge to the temp records, the study shows that teh FA has produced various peaks representing cycles over years and one of the most prominent cycles is years therefore we could say the temp data is being modulated just like our 1Khz over a year period.

In other words something is influencing the temperature data and it is not of a linear nature, this is not curve fitting JB this is mathematics. Obviously the greater the sample rate, etc the greater the trust we have in the results.

Craks, you understand the basics of Fourier analysis. But it is, in this case, just curve fitting. If the authors of this paper were interested in getting at the truth rather than pushing their particular barrow, they would have tried what I suggested above, and also what I suggested in my earlier comment. It goes under the general heading of not kidding yourself.

Whilst i appluad you for attempting to critique the paper in question the scenarios persented acceptable as they are do not lessen the value of the paper. FA is FA if i change the characteristics of the data then i will get a different result yes that is correct, the variation in the data is what gives us the year cycle, there now other ways to do the FA, the result is the result.

If you want you could question the data, as i have said previously the data sampled must be a factor of two so the minimum sample number would have to bebasically 1 sample per year however this could man made induce errors through measurement etc possibly so samples would give us a 6 month resolution 3 month etc so the greater the sample the better of course. I am not sure how many samples they have used in either case or year regardless if the FA produces a dominant cycle of years then that is the cycle the higher number of samples would give us more confidence i suppose.

Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. Robert Felix may be on to something. A Fourier analysis finds the cyclic tendency in a data set.

It does not find trend lines because the frequency of a trend line of any slope is zero. The interesting result is that simply by using the major cycles found in the data, the data can be rather closely reproduced.