Comments on: EMD Estimates of Natural Variation http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-939 davids99us Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:03:09 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-939 Sorry you have to go, I would like for someone to prove that it is wrong to conclude that EMD shows natural variation exceeds the trend over the 1975-2000 period - which you have not done.The assumption that the residue is a all due to trend and not part of another cycle is designed to help AGW out maximally. As I said before, the residue could in fact be part of a longer cycle, but by assuming the trend is all due to AGW, it shows the maximum contribution that AGW could be making. And according to EMD, it is less than the contribution due to natural variation -- therefore IPCC lies. Sorry you have to go, I would like for someone to prove that it is wrong to conclude that EMD shows natural variation exceeds the trend over the 1975-2000 period – which you have not done.The assumption that the residue is a all due to trend and not part of another cycle is designed to help AGW out maximally. As I said before, the residue could in fact be part of a longer cycle, but by assuming the trend is all due to AGW, it shows the maximum contribution that AGW could be making. And according to EMD, it is less than the contribution due to natural variation — therefore IPCC lies.

]]> By: isnowball http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-938 isnowball Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:47:24 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-938 I have other fish to fry . Check your assumptions. I have other fish to fry . Check your assumptions.

]]> By: isnowball http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-941 isnowball Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:46:57 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-941 Since the signal is non-stationary, you only have a small piece of a non-linear signal of the signal to work with - hence you're setting yourself up to be fooled. Since the signal is non-stationary, you only have a small piece of a non-linear signal of the signal to work with – hence you're setting yourself up to be fooled.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-937 davids99us Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:27 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-937 In your rebuttal you might like to respond to this paper in PNAS.(http://rcada.ncu.edu.tw/reference008.pdf) with the identical analysis, except for stating that the relative proportion of NV exceeds the residue trend over the 19975-2000 period."As discussed above, regression, moving mean, and filtering all are problematic in dealing with nonlinear nonstationary data.With these considerations, only the recently developed EMD method (1, 5–8) fits the requirements." In your rebuttal you might like to respond to this paper in PNAS.(http://rcada.ncu.edu.tw/reference008.pdf) with the identical analysis, except for stating that the relative proportion of NV exceeds the residue trend over the 19975-2000 period.”As discussed above, regression, moving mean, and filtering all are problematic in dealing with nonlinear nonstationary data.With these considerations, only the recently developed EMD method (1, 5–8) fits the requirements.”

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-940 davids99us Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:36:28 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-940 So you say, but have yet to say why. So you say, but have yet to say why.

]]> By: isnowball http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-936 isnowball Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:21:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-936 It's clear you don't understand the implications of a non-stationary signal. It's clear you don't understand the implications of a non-stationary signal.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-935 davids99us Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:58:46 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-935 The purpose of the method is to extract out the stationary (ie cyclical) components of different period, leaving what EMD calls the residual. Now the residual could be a trend or could be a long period cycle. The debatable issues are over the nature of the residual, and the end point constraints. As you can see from the graphs, the residual in the period form 1975 to 2000 is almost linear anyway, even though it ultimately does appear cyclical, so makes little difference to the comparison of the amount of natural variation (ie stationary) vs trend over the period. The purpose of the method is to extract out the stationary (ie cyclical) components of different period, leaving what EMD calls the residual. Now the residual could be a trend or could be a long period cycle. The debatable issues are over the nature of the residual, and the end point constraints. As you can see from the graphs, the residual in the period form 1975 to 2000 is almost linear anyway, even though it ultimately does appear cyclical, so makes little difference to the comparison of the amount of natural variation (ie stationary) vs trend over the period.

]]> By: isnowball http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-934 isnowball Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:34:45 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-934 The signal is non-stationary and it's non-linear. When you model a non-linear signal with a linear model, then model has no predictive power, i.e., it's lagging indicator.And when you only look at a signal which is not stationary, i.e., when you're only looking at part of the signal, then you're setting yourself up to be fooled. The signal is non-stationary and it's non-linear. When you model a non-linear signal with a linear model, then model has no predictive power, i.e., it's lagging indicator.And when you only look at a signal which is not stationary, i.e., when you're only looking at part of the signal, then you're setting yourself up to be fooled.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-11966 Anonymous Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:03:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-11966 Sorry you have to go, I would like for someone to prove that it is wrong to conclude that EMD shows natural variation exceeds the trend over the 1975-2000 period - which you have not done. The assumption that the residue is a all due to trend and not part of another cycle is designed to help AGW out maximally. As I said before, the residue could in fact be part of a longer cycle, but by assuming the trend is all due to AGW, it shows the maximum contribution that AGW could be making. And according to EMD, it is less than the contribution due to natural variation -- therefore IPCC lies. Sorry you have to go, I would like for someone to prove that it is wrong to conclude that EMD shows natural variation exceeds the trend over the 1975-2000 period – which you have not done.

The assumption that the residue is a all due to trend and not part of another cycle is designed to help AGW out maximally. As I said before, the residue could in fact be part of a longer cycle, but by assuming the trend is all due to AGW, it shows the maximum contribution that AGW could be making. And according to EMD, it is less than the contribution due to natural variation — therefore IPCC lies.

]]> By: isnowball http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#comment-11965 isnowball Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:47:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3201#comment-11965 I have other fish to fry . Check your assumptions. I have other fish to fry . Check your assumptions.

]]>