Right. That's a better way of saying it. The paper doesn't describe
the numerical techniques well enough to critique them. There is some
sort of linear component to the fit, but it doesn't appear to
correspond to the tidal slowing term. Perhaps clues are buried in the
references.
--
On Aug 28, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob
Seaman writes:
The 222 year period is most likely a meaningless artifact of the
data.
Likely lack of DC removal and/or deficient windowing before running
the FFT I suspect they used.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
incompetence.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
