Talk:Singularity (climate)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.

Proposed deletion[edit]

  • Strong Oppose. Verging on made up? What an extraordinary claim! IIRC from my Met lectures a great deal of research into these was 'made up' by Hubert Lamb (based on years of painstaking analysis of weather station records), though de:Singularität (Meteorologie) suggests an earlier use of the term. The fact that a scientific hypothesis may become discredited by later research is not grounds for deleting an article, only for editing it to clarify this. Atmoz may or may not be correct that this term is no longer in use, but this is not grounds for deletion - what hope for Phlogiston theory? Clearly the article has room for much improvemnt - that is why it is classified as a stub. Pterre (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Singularity is not a good word to describe such phenomenon. It has a very specific meaning in mathematics. (The residue theorem of first-order singularities.) Usage of the word is old-fashioned and pre-dates formal signal analysis ... and climatologists (excl Wunsch) know nothing of modern analysis. It is on par with the C19 word 'secular' in classical physics, meaning real world effects like friction. Repetitive phenomenon are simply called a 'stationary signals' in modern parlance. It should be very narrow-band (low phase jitter) and satisfy any formal test, H0, UMP, etc, for an ergodic signal. Diurnal and seasonal signals, and the seasonal phase lag of the southern hemisphere, are the only climatological signals that do pass the tests. Statements such as 'signals of 10+- 5yrs period' are simply nonsense. Signals such as El Nino and PDO do not even pass weak tests designed to detect period doubling (Devils staircase analysis). They fail H0 and UMP well before achivig the required number of sample cycles. (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


I've hope I've done sufficient to prevent deletion of the stub, but time does not permit further at present. As regards current usage of the term I can't say. I quoted Barry & Chorley as a reference; the text as per my paper copy (3rd Ed 1976) is currently visible (unaltered) in the 5th ed (1987) on Google books. The term singularity still merits a section heading in the 7th Ed (1998) [1] but the text of this section requires a subscription. Pterre (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Use is occasionally made of Climatic Singularities[edit]

An Internet search indicates that there are still weather forecasters, in certain parts of the world, who are influenced by [what they believe are] genuine climatic singularities tied to certain dates. Specific published articles supporting that statement are, however, not easy to find ... although one example is "Wayward Winds" (written by Jack Hattle in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1972 - he was an excellent forecaster, who certainly believed in the reality of weather calendaricities). It is listed at ... i.e., it was part of the Rhodesian "Bundu Series". DLMcN (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)