Delayed Oscillator Fast Reply
Posted by Jeff Id on November 2, 2009
Back in my college days on a whim, a friend and I made an electronic scale from a quad strain gauge taken from a small yet very high precision printing press. The guage was attached to a 0.20 thick piece of spring stainless. Everything except the electronics was taken from junk of one kind or another including a gorgeous precision analog meter from a device I don’t remember. Anyway, during calibration experiments it could weigh a 0.062″ diameter piece of writing paper with a 20% scale deflection so it was very sensitive. Small breezes in the room caused expected problems on the signal by deflecting the beam so the whole thing was intended to go in a breeze tight box.
By the way, the Quad strain guage configuration is good for thermal and side strain corrections so it was ideal and my friend and I spent a week on it. However after it was finished we found an imperceptibly small gust of wind on the room temperature very low power electronics could cause a 5% deflection. As planned, the whole project went into a wind protecting box to guard from any breeze yet because of room temperature drift, the intended accuracy was impossible. We had balanced the electronics plus and minus to account for temp but you know, even our best guess wasn’t enough. – wrong again.
There is no substitute for confirmation of theory.
Today my venting elicited a response from my post on Briffa’s Yamal. DO, is apparently a climatologist of some kind (he’s not saying but if you google DO you can understand) so his knowledge of the detail of the subject of climatology is far better than my own. He’s been quite honest in his email and other replies which is more than I can say for most of the AGW blogs so I’m happy to link.
DO does not understand how a non-climatologist could be frustrated with the state of dendroclimatology and he reacts strongly against the tone of my posts here. I’m not going to apologize for my tone yet am always happy to learn. To explain our (mine and your) collective angst to DO further, I’m forced again to quote Ryan O – “Guage R & R” every dendro should read up on it.
I don’t want to be overly kind so there are several points he claims were made which are misunderstandings of tAV own points. The temptation would be to call them straw men but I think they are honest misunderstandings and reaction to the Air Vents IMO appropriate tone. For instance –
Finally, what of the claim that combining the mean-detrended series demonstrates that the RCS method is invalid?
The careful readers here know that while my comments are often extreme sounding to those who don’t follow, they are constrained slightly better than that. I don’t recall claiming RCS is invalid, nor has anyone else I recall. What’ Ive claimed is that exponential decay RCS does not allow for increased growth in later years as demonstrated by many series and that process is invalid. There are a few other points made which I’ll work on later.
Beyond that, there isn’t much to do except put my own vents and work Link 1 & 2 for reference and Delayed’s new criticisms in link 3 below. Enjoy.
Here’s tAV which you’ve read before:
Below is DO’s latest. Check it out, leave comments and questions. Unlike RC, Delayed Oscillator has been quite open to questions and minor criticisms. Let me know if you’re not getting through.
Those of us who aren’t dendro’s may not know trees to the same degree but we know signal processing pretty well. We know it from a confirmation of experience – of which I have MANY. Our job’s depend on proper metrology and the eyes closed methods of dendro’s would get us driven into downtown by our coworkers and dropped off in a dark alley.
The reply is appreciated but like so many have said in different ways– Confirmation rules physics. We’ll see if I can replicate and explain the difference between his post and mine.