Steve,

I think this is quite an improvement.  I agree with you about the median, 
especially as many of the predictions are not necessarily independent.   I 
haven't reproduced the curves of your new plots, and I don't have a missing 
estimate of DeltaT,  but I have some suggestions:

1. The plot of "Year 2100 Estimates"  has a warning:  "Estimates which are good 
during 20th/21st centuries are generally poor over the long term history".  The 
same is repeated in the text, and this gives the impression that the 
predictions would be invalid over the long term future.    Considering the New 
York Stock Exchange as an example, it makes little sense to judge predictions 
on any scale by how they extrapolate back to the 1817.   Another way to look at 
it is that estimates made with old data would be expected to apply better to 
old data - just like estimates based on recent data would be expect to apply 
better to the near future.  So I suggest you rephrase your comments something 
like this: "Estimates based on recent data are optimized for the future and not 
intended to be extrapolated to the past".  (My own personal opinion is that 
there will be decadal fluctuations, and the long-term slowdown will revert to a 
more rapid deceleration after/if the ice caps stop melting and t
 he centuries-long glacial rebound stops - this is why I show three cases of a 
deceleration rate but use only one value for the LOD as of now.  Estimates for 
sea level rise are 1 meter by 2100, and we have 70 meters to go - but that's 
even harder to predict.)  

2.  With one exception, I suspect the difference between the many predictions 
boils down to just two parameters: the assumed value of LOD at some fiducial 
time, and the value of the parabolic term starting at some fiducial time.    To 
make your plots, you probably have created a table with just these parameters, 
and converted the fiducial time to be 2020 for all curves.   If you provided a 
table of these two parameters, it would eliminate a lot of confusion about the 
differences between predictions.  You could even have entries showing  the time 
of the last datum used for the prediction (or publication date), and also how 
much each of the two parameters would contribute to UTC-UT1 by 2100.  This 
trivial with a spread sheet and will help people who are trying to figure 
things out in-depth.

3.  I believe what appears as a thick red curve on your "Various Estimates" 
figure is the actual data from the IERS,  which appears thick on my screen 
because the vertical bars are compressed.  It's great to accentuate the actual 
data,  so  I suggest you could make this more clear by adding something to the 
legend after "IERS EOP C04" - perhaps you could add in parenthesis: "(the 
observations)"

Good show!

-----Original Message-----
From: LEAPSECS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Allen
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 9:17 PM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: [LEAPSECS] the year 2100

On Wed 2015-01-28T17:05:16 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> So why don't you simply list all the estimates as we find them ?
>
> As far as I can tell, these guesses/estimates are not inferior to the 
> ones you already list ?
>
> Listing them all would be sound science, and maybe the good ol'
> "Trust the median" will eventually help us, given enough estimates ?

I'm not so sure about that median.  I remember that science by vote said the 
spiral nebulae were inside our own galaxy.  Predicting the evolution of Delta T 
remains akin to predicting the weather in the core of the earth, the amount of 
sea level rise, etc.

I now have a framework for presenting the Delta T estimates that I know, and 
for continuing the discussion.  This web page lays them out

http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/year2100.html

If anyone's favorite estimate for Delta T is missing then kindly point out the 
citation for its values.

--
Steve Allen                 <[email protected]>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB   Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99855
1156 High Street            Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Reply via email to