AGW1Gwin — All Gwinnevere
associated posts at RealClimate · See from The RealClimate Exclusions
All Gwinnevere associated posts at
RealClimate — Copied AsIs 2011-07-16 YearMonthDayTime — Additional
highlighting on the actual issue
The expulsion — and open harassing — of Gwinnevere
begins approximately from
Comment 240.
Harassment/derogation
begin from Comment
199.
140
Gwinnevere
says:
IF
accepted:
First:
Thank you for a seemingly serious (and, in many ways, touching) web site. I
have read (nearly) all of the 137 comments in this thread (and perhaps all of
them connects to this post).
To the
point.
— I am
aiming at the comment no95, wayne davidson.
Many
skeptics (Christy, Lindzen) touch the same issue, and many deniers probe its
presence, typically »CO2 raises but no further global warming». The present
scientific community cannot silence these opposing waves, tending to build up
more and more. Voices also appear in public of the type ”politics has infected
science, and we don’t know who to trust anymore”, Kathleen McKinley 13Jun2011
chron.com TexasSparkle, and the like. That is the bad news.
— In
this light, observing the need of comprehensiveness, comment no95, wayne
davidson — also connected to the introductory content of this web page,
”climate
science topics that don’t fit neatly into ongoing discussions”
— this
appeared on my table:
— Not
so fast wayne davidson. Please.
— Our
climate history at the present period 2000-2040, and further, is predicted, as
you can see for yourself in this synoptic compilation made from already well
know sources (NASA, World Industry Fossil Carbon Emission Statistics, Sea
Periods [Joseph D’Aleo (2008), partly unmapped])
http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/AGW1.htm
with
exactly the same affirmative validity as all the NASA/CRU/GISS-recordings in
collection from 1860. Doubt
the dotted — doubt the measured. (Different
versions exists depending on averaging period, this is just what appears from
the most simple component match). The values (dotted) on nowYEAR-base are
calculated
t(NASA)
=
–0.4
+
(1.765)[1–1/(1+[(YEAR–1815)/212.7]^4)]
+
0.0653(0.9[(2cos pi(YEAR–1880)/31.48)+0.5(cos 3pi[YEAR–1880-0.1]/31.48)])
— you
can follow it yourself, day by day and check that it holds
This
»simple AGW-math» explains, by equally matching components (as in 3=1+2, or
other proponents), and apparently except these not at all, that
(the
NASA/CRU/GISS-curve) =
industryFossilCarbonEnergy|TemperatureCurve
+
SeaPeriods
The
central Industry curve features a temperature-energy function responsible for
AGW;
its
integral explains Carbon-Dioxide concentration with a 98% match to measured
values (US SOUTH POLE RESEARCH, Mauna Loa);
its
derivative explains the actual AGW-effect (power in W/M²) corresponding to the
ocean heat content (apparently matching [2005] the already well known values
[ca 0.85 W/M²] from Hansen et al 2005 and others [B. Lin et al 2010, direct
matching curves from model simulation]). Doubt the dotted — doubt the measured.
The
»lull» being aimed at (also from many skeptics), is apparently and hence at
present in a similar period comparable to the one 1935-1975:
— It is
real. It has apparently a direct, obvious, provability record;
IF so
accepted:
—
Relatively small net changes will appear 2000-2040, practically nothing at all.
— 29
more years to go with a »lull». Doubt the dotted — doubt the measured.
— The
deniers community will KILL the established academic community on that one,
even within five years, absolutely (my interpretation), unless shown to be
fraudulent.
(It
means, as far as my view has solidity, that RC, the whole scientific community,
is standing, right now, on the brink of an abyss).
NOTE
that the three well connected integral-derivative functions described above
[Sea, Industry, CO2] also include the Arrhenius’ functional curves
(logarithmic|SeaHeat and exponential|IndustryIntegralCO2) as (very) close
approximations, provided given appropriate offsets. Yes. Indeed. See image of
compiled overview of the 3 AGW + 2 Arrhenius’ mathematical expressions in
http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/PNG/ArrheniusAGW.PNG
The
»simple AGW-math» obviously explains — contains — the entire complex by »easy
to understand mathematics». No modeling needed. Inclusive. Not exclusive.
— This
is just a beginning.
Gwinnevere
148
Meow says:
@Gwinnevere
(140): You can fit any curve arbitrarily well by choosing the appropriate set of interpolating functions. That doesn’t mean that the resulting functions predict how the
system underlying the fitted curve will behave in the future. To do that, you
need to model the system itself. Hence climate models use data (e.g.,
insolation, albedo, emissivity) and physical laws (e.g., magnitude of blackbody
radiation as function of temperature & emissivity, ideal gas law, etc.) to
help us understand the climate system.
BTW, if
curve fitting had the power you ascribe, you could be the richest person in the
world inside of a week by applying that “knowledge” to the securities markets.
149
Meow
says:
@Gwinnevere
(140): You can fit any curve arbitrarily well by choosing the appropriate set of interpolating functions. That doesn’t mean that the resulting functions predict how the
system underlying the fitted curve will behave in the future. To do that, you
need to model the system itself. Hence climate models use data (e.g.,
insolation, albedo, emissivity) and physical laws (e.g., magnitude of blackbody
radiation as function of temperature & emissivity, ideal gas law, etc.) to
help us understand the climate system.
BTW, if
curve fitting had the power you ascribe, you could be the richest person in the
world inside of a week by applying that “knowledge” to the securities markets.
CAPTCHA:
onalves forced
Open gossip
about Gwinnevere begins:
150
Susan
Anderson says:
Thanks
all, as usual, for interesting discussion and sidelights, especially Wayne
Davidson (@133 currently) who always makes me sit up and take notice. Those red
areas (5C) of anomaly in the far north are rather predominant. The poetic
quotes are also good mind food. (much earlier, possibly from another topic)
I also
thank Gavin (reply @137 currently) for stating as clearly as can be the
difficulties attached to exaggeration and overreaction. Though we need to be
assertive and clear about our real world, and separate it from realpolitik,
which is both unreal and real, overdoing it is unwise. Many of us are so
uncompromising that nothing can be done. Not sure compromising works either,
but it’s necessary nonetheless.
Not sure what’s up with gwinnevere, but her
conclusion labels her comment suspect. RC
does not, despite denialati assertions, censor most comments, as long as they
are honest and not repeat offenders who refuse to look at information provided
by knowledgeable people who post here. I don’t think science is more at the
abyss than human habitation on our planet is, quite the reverse. “Disproving” with
specious detail from doubtful disciplines and sources the valid work of
observant and intelligent researchers who have given their lives to the hard
work of understanding and studying phenomena is not part of the solution, it is
part of the problem. It takes time to respond and a great deal of politeness
and patience goes into the effort. If people were to regard blog hosts as
hosts, by whose courtesy they post, some balance might be restored to the
conversation.
ClimateCentral
is doing a fairly good job of summarizing a lot of hot topics and today’s is no
exception, providing perspective, for example, on the dust storm. The PNAS
kerfuffle is well covered here at RC in a new article, thanks grandma.
164
wayne
davidson says:
#140
Gwinnevere, I find your math argument intriguing, but as exciting as this may
be, it seems you don’t understand, Arctic sea ice volume is the result of daily
integrated Arctic weather, on to itself the Earth gives you this result daily,
no computer model seems to catch up with Natures sea ice results yet, consider
the Earth a giant computer model expressing its result by colours as seen from
space. Nothing , absolutely nothing suggests a lull in warming as demonstrated
by the Earth. PLease be more clear, and explain how rapidly recent disappearing
sea ice volume:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1842
matches
a certain temperature lull. Further to the temperature record, either surface
based or Upper Air,
the sun
appears to be expanding vertically, slowly but certainly, refraction is
proportional to air density.
Take my
word, or come back and see me after making a few thousand observations.
. As
far as Christy and Lindzen are concerned, you see them unable , unwilling and
uncaring to explain this, at least you try to debate, even though, you are off
base, not from my opinion, the Earth itself plainly shows you that there is no
lull. If you want to explain that a lull produces less ice, please elaborate.
————–
Thanks
Susan, poetry involves us with the words, and gives a better visualization in
some cases.
180
Gwinnevere
says:
no148-149
Meow:
”
@Gwinnevere
(140): You can fit any curve arbitrarily well by choosing the appropriate set
of interpolating functions. That doesn’t mean that the resulting functions
predict how the system underlying the fitted curve will behave in the future.
”.
— Yes.
I agree, absolutely Meow. But any ”appropriate set of interpolating functions”
does not render an explaining set of derivative-integral functions aligned with
measured quantities: Sea, Industry, CO2. Only one, unique, set will do.
Meaning: Only those components will do, that explain already observed
variations. We are only interested in the observed global warming energy
equivalent, not type »Fred Flintstone» Saturday entertainment cartoons. But please,
excuse me. Perhaps this response crosses the border of the aim of the content
of this web page.
(If you
are eager to discuss mathematical-numeric theory with me, this is not the page
for it. But if you insist, and have the appropriate open discussing place for
it, please say where, and I will answer whatever I can in connection to and
concern of AGW-math).
Gwinnevere
181
Gwinnevere
says:
no150
Susan Anderson :
”Not
sure what’s up with gwinnevere, but her conclusion labels her comment
suspect.”.
—
Perhaps if addressed more in quest, a chance of response might uncover the
proposed obscurities?
”I
don’t think science is more at the abyss than human habitation on our planet
is”.
— The
appeal perhaps would seem different if we fast forward to 2040? I don’t know,
Susanne. I just read the thermometer.
No.
Please (Susan), if there is something you wonder about my presentation (or any
claim in it) on the AGW-subject, please be (more) specific and address me with
a question, and I will respond to whatever I can to satisfy your interest in
»the science of AGW», and as far as of any value. Thank you.
Gwinnevere
182
Gwinnevere
says:
no164
wayne davidson:
”
#140
Gwinnevere, I find your math argument intriguing, but as exciting as this may
be, it seems you don’t understand, Arctic sea ice volume …
”.,
”
Nothing
, absolutely nothing suggests a lull in warming as demonstrated by the Earth.
Please be more clear, and explain how rapidly recent disappearing sea ice
volume [LINK] matches a certain temperature lull.
”.
— Thank
you, wayne davidson.
I will
try to enlighten you — completely:
First
(to clear any doubts): I do not oppose the Arctic temperature measurements you
advise. I support them.
— The
NASA-temperature curve, which we take as the only proof we have of an ongoing
global warming, is seen by the ”intriguing” AGW-math expressions exactly as the
NASA-measure says: land-marine measurements. No higher atmospheric layers are
involved. The — intriguing, as you say, wayne davidson — AGW-mathematics also
calculates this land-marine surface altitude to only a maximum of no more than
h=60 meters above all Earth solid-liquid surface. This result, same as the one
scaling the sea heat content, the industry energy driving curve and its
resulting CO2-concentration, excludes any higher lying atmospheric measures or
aspects.
— The
Arctic sea ice portion you mention, wayne davidson, its connection to the
general, averaged AGW-described results (in the no140-post from Gwinnevere) as
a matching equally describing (dotted) NASA-curve, is INCLUSIVE in the general
curvature. Of course.
— It
does not mean that a local OTHER average is excluded, of course not — but it
surely means that any a local aspect of increase (or decrease), Arctic or other
whatever, is not representative to the entire trend thrown out from denialists
and skeptics — showing the actual »lull»: 2000-2040 IF correctly apprehended
and no flaws present.
— To be
specific, wayne davidson: I do not oppose your claim that Arctic data show what
you say it shows. But if you mean to claim that (for example) Arctic warming
data are to be apprehended as global averaged data, you are, as I see it, in
deep oceanic trouble due to the actual NASA-curve and its derived (dotted)
component equivalents: There will be a flat period up to 2040. That is what the
entire AGW-math shows.
— Another
way to satisfy you, wayne davidson, perhaps would be this:
— The
GLOBAL TREND of the LULL is composed of the natural down going sea period
2000-2040 together with the global warming up going ocean warming
temperature-Energy-curve from AGW math, including warming Arctic regions and
hence proving ice melting in the Arctic as well as elsewhere, by showing an
average global net change of naught, what we may name a lull, a period of quiet
or tranquil.
Gwinnevere
183
dhogaza
says:
Gwinnevere:
But any ”appropriate set of interpolating functions” does not
render an explaining set of derivative-integral functions aligned with measured
quantities: Sea, Industry, CO2. Only one, unique, set will do. Meaning: Only
those components will do, that explain already observed variations.
Curve-fitting
is descriptive, not explanatory.
185
Pete
Dunkelberg says:
Gwinnevere:
“(If
you are eager to discuss mathematical-numeric theory with me, this is not the page
for it. But if you insist, and have the appropriate open discussing place for
it, please say where, and I will answer whatever I can in connection to and
concern of AGW-math).”
189
ccpo
says:
Gwinnevere,
Your writing style is very hard for me to follow, but you seem to be saying, to put it simply, there will be
little or no measurable rise in global temperatures for the next 30 years. Your
argument, if I follow, is based
on current math and
recent trend, I assume partly based on the solar minimum,
perhaps the coal particulate issue
recently raised, etc.
The
problem I find – bearing
in mind I am a math idiot – is that you are relying solely on the math. You do not mention
any observable phenomena that might alter the math. Given the
temperature record is a record of the physical changes and not the other way
around, this seems a bit short-sighted.
While
there has been some discussion of an extended period of low solar activity, it is not a guaranteed. Even if it were, the calculated change
over the next 90 years is perhaps -0.3C, I believe. Since that effect will be
front-loaded to the next 30 years or so then amortized over the rest of the
century, I suppose the shorter-term effect may present as a higher fracrtion,
which i have no ability to calculate. What, 0.5 or 0.6C? (Hopefully someone out
there has some idea.) This would definitely have the potential to keep temps
significantly lower than otherwise.
The
problem we have is climate changes are coming exponentially faster in some
cases. Hansen, et al., believe Greenland melt may be doubling each decade, for
example. The Arctic Sea Ice is on a current trajectory of a roughly (80%) ice
free Arctic within the next five years. Deforestation, natural and man-made
(though all man-made by extension) is continuing apace, changes in oceans
(jellyfish are certainly an unexpected surprise and huge carbon problem) are
on-going, including warm water infiltration into the Arctic, Antarctic and
Greenland areas of sea ice and ice shelves, etc.
To assume that a trend in the math trumps geophysical
changes has got it backwards. Are you
considering these things?
190
wayne
davidson says:
Gwinnevere,
a flaw in your logic otherwise well presented…
“Another
way to satisfy you, wayne davidson, perhaps would be this:
— The
GLOBAL TREND of the LULL is composed of the natural down going sea period
2000-2040 together with the global warming up going ocean warming
temperature-Energy-curve from AGW math, including warming Arctic regions and
hence proving ice melting in the Arctic as well as elsewhere, by showing an
average global net change of naught, what we may name a lull, a period of quiet
or tranquil.”
Everything
is interconnected on Earth, the
seas cant go down in temperature while the Arctic goes up. That
is impossible, namely ENSO proves the case quite readily,
when El-Nino throttles full blast the Arctic becomes much warmer, when La-Nina
cools a great chunk of the Pacific, the Arctic blue skies dominate. One region
may show anomalous behavior systemically related to Omega blocks or some rare
but not uncommon planetary wave feature. Over all heat injected to the world
system is readily shared, the equator being a much larger area has a huge
influence everywhere else, particularly with clouds on the upwards. To your
claim: warmer Arctic colder oceans, this is equally impossible,colder oceans
give off less cloud seeds, when this happens the Arctic goes into a deep freeze
especially during the long night, this deep freeze exceeds well onto June!
However, each major system, Polar, Oceanic and Continental have their own
independent thermal dynamic engines going, the link between them are clouds, no
clouds occur when no moisture and nucleation particles. The only way the Arctic
warms is when the South is loaded with kinetic energy especially from the seas,
or for a brief Arctic summer moment warmer by no clouds when the oceans are
colder, but as you know the Arctic has no sun rays for months and this warming
is dwarfed by the long night filled with auroras and star light.
I leave
it up to Gavin to explain the Nasa bit.
191
Gwinnevere
says:
no183
dhogaza:
Hello
dhogaza;
FAST EXAMPLE
(I am in a little bit of a hurry):
— Place
an object at the edge of your desk.
Giving
it at push, the resulting physics — curvature, naturally evolving process —
shows (describes, explains) a (basic) two component equivalent curvature (as in
3=2+1):
1. a
linear velocity taken by a straight curvature (straight line);
2. a
linear acceleration (as in an ideal free fall in a Galilean force field, same
acceleration everywhere) by another (ideal) straight line of extension;
— If
this is accepted as a more elegant and concrete practical example paralleling
the AGW-equalities under question, would you, dhogaza please, develop more in
detail what is meant by your comment
”Curve-fitting
is descriptive, not explanatory” (because as scientists, we must always specify
a frame of REFERENCE).
— As
far as I know, nobody will be able to make a clear distinction between the
resulting curve describing, and explaining, the two components by equality.
These form an unbreakable unity (what we call an equality — a certified
identity — between sum and parts).
—
However, if »you are the man» to present another view, and the subject is
accepted, please fire off.
Gwinnevere
192
dhogaza
says:
— If this is accepted as a more elegant and concrete practical
example paralleling the AGW-equalities under question
Of course it’s not accepted,
because in your physics based example you’re not fitting an arbitrary curve
to match observations. You’re starting with physics, and use that to predict
the path of the object.
Your “AGW-maths” is curve-fitting, pure and simple, not at all the same thing.
The fact that you don’t see the difference is … telling. Tells us that further discussion is probably a waste of time.
193
David
Miller says:
Gwinnevere
says:
— The
NASA-temperature curve, which we take as the only proof we have of an ongoing
global warming, is seen by the ”intriguing” AGW-math expressions exactly as the
NASA-measure says: land-marine measurements. No higher atmospheric layers are
involved. The — intriguing, as you say, wayne davidson — AGW-mathematics also
calculates this land-marine surface altitude to only a maximum of no more than
h=60 meters above all Earth solid-liquid surface. This result, same as the one
scaling the sea heat content, the industry energy driving curve and its
resulting CO2-concentration, excludes any higher lying atmospheric measures or
aspects.
I’m having a really hard time parsing that paragraph, but the first sentence seems to express a belief that the only
evidence we have of warming temperatures is NASA guesstimates.
Gwin,
that’s just plain wrong. You need to add all the other signs, like:
retreating
sea ice
melting
land glaciers
number
of new record high temperatures vs record lows
migrating
species of plants and animals (poleward or to higher elevations)
Global
warming emerged from the noise several decades ago. Pretending the
only sign of it is NASA’s temperature analysis would be childish.
Perhaps I simply misunderstood your statement.
195
Patrick
027 says:
Re 191
Gwinnevere – okay, place an object at your desk, and push it at a constant rate
(could be a constant force equal to the friction force). Fit a curve to the
evolution of position as a function of time. Now predict what happens. If you
only extrapolate the curve, this implicitly assumes that you continue to push
it at a constant rate. But if
you pushed harder or took your hand off of the object at some time in the future, the motion would be different, and
your prediction would have failed. What if the object
reaches the edge of the desk? What
if it bumps into something affixed to the desk and you
can’t push hard enough to keep it moving? What if somebody
spilled coffee or glue on the desk? What if part of the desk
has grooves on it and the object starts to wobble as it is pushed? What if you
sneeze? What if lightning strikes nearby and you are startled and jerk and the
object flies right off the desk? You could predict some (not all) of these
things if you only looked at the desk, or considered what you are planning to
do with your object pushing. You can’t necessarily know all you need to know to
make predictions if you only look at the trajectory of the object over a
limited time period.
196
Susan
Anderson says:
Gwinnevere,
I noticed the difficult writing
format and your conclusions, which
if true, would be worldshaking. There was also your leading assumption that you would be banned, which comes
from a certain quarter where rumors don’t always match facts. There was your condescension, particularly in your attack on
Wayne Davidson, who actually does science in the far north and belongs to a
somewhat rarified group therefore. Then there’s your chosen identification, which references
a certain romantic ideology.
However,
I did get a little above myself, letting my nose for fake skepticism
(real skeptics are not so eager to find fault with one side and hold up the
other) and instinct tread beyond my knowledge. I hope you will pay attention to the people here, who are taking the trouble to work with you,
and pursue the evidence
honestly. I am not a scientist, though I have multiple
associations with science and spent a brief while studying biochemistry at MIT
and a much longer time there teaching scientists how to draw. I’ve studied
climate hard and watched the evidence, intently for the last decade, but will
never be a physicist.
I had
resolved to behave myself since I’m sinning above my station here, but your odd presentation was too tempting and I blew it again. Mea culpa, somewhat, and not
just to you.
Harassment
begins:
dhogaza
says:
I had resolved to behave myself since I’m sinning above my
station here, but your odd presentation was too tempting and I blew it again.
Mea culpa, somewhat, and not just to you.
No need
to apologize, unless you’re upset that you misidentified a crank for a denialist.
203
Didactylos
says:
Gwinnevere,
further to what David Miller said, here are no less than ELEVEN completely
different climate indicators that all show a strong trend signalling global warming.
They
are:
Land
Surface Air Temperature
Sea-surface
Temperature
Marine
Air Temperature
Sea
Level
NH
(March-April) Snow Cover
Tropospheric
Temperature
Ocean
Heat Content (0-700m)
Specific
Humidity
Stratospheric
Temperature
September
Arctic Sea-Ice Extent
Glacier
Mass Balance
NOAA
have supported these trend assessments with 55 datasets. NASA’s GISS is just
one out of these 55 datasets.
These
11 indicators aren’t even the limit of what we have, they are just the most
unequivocal, unarguable records, going back decades (and in many cases
centuries).
204
Didactylos
says:
Oh, and
Gwinnevere – I don’t want to pile on, but you have made a couple of errors:
1) The NASA and CRU temperature products are not
the same. You seem to attribute your “curve” to both.
2) Your “simple AGW math” is wrong. Your model is actually rather complicated, and you have fallen into the
common trap of over-fitting. Over-fitting is a problem distinct from the issue already explained (at length) about
the lack of predictive power from curve fitting.
I wish
you luck in your future exploration of statistics.
PS: You
twice reference icecap.us as a secondary source. You should be aware that they
are not reliable. Go to
the primary sources.
210
Gwinnevere
says:
Thank
you, all of you, for showing such an enthusiastic interest in posting (so many)
arguments to my posts. I really appreciate your calls, and I will try to meet
them, one by one, and by the time and ability I have. Please be patient.
To be
continued.
Gwinnevere
212
Gwinnevere
says:
no193
David Miller:
Oh
David. You are absolutely correct.
— Of
course the items you mention are the most central besides »dry mathematical
curves». I apologize for being such a clumsy functional nerd. However, the
mission is to kill the denialist side and get to the point of a cure by strict
mathematical physics (as I see it — energy for a cure). Thank you for reminding
me.
Gwinnevere
213
Gwinnevere
says:
no185
Pete Dunkelberg:
Hello
Pete.
— Your
post addresses me by a quote that belongs to a post from no148-149 Meow (and a
suggested link with no further contextual description).
—
Excuse me Peter Dunkelberg. But if you have something on mind to be drafted,
you would have to be more specific as to the onset of your subject. I can
already say here, I will
not travel around different links without described context. Please give a context in a readable sentence, so that I (and
others) can follow your intention and argument. Thank you for sharing.
Gwinnevere
214
Gwinnevere
says:
no192
dhogaza:
”Arbitrary”?
— I
would agree with you ONLY if the AGW-values were »arbitrary».
But how
is it, dhogaza?
— I
would not say that a 98% match of measured and calculated is an »arbitrary» —
the integral part of the industrial fossil carbon emission giving the
CO2-concentration, certifying for the rest (utilized energy on the level of T22
J, T for 10^+, ocean heat content ca 0.85 M/M²) that the three-functional set
of curvatures (Sea, Industry, CO2), with the Industry curve as the central
component to and in the NASA-measure, is genuine and trustworthy. Please.
— Please try again, dhogaza. Only if you can show that observations do not match
calculations, I will convert to your position. AGW holds. You are absolutely
welcome on my account to try to convince me otherwise. Thank you very much.
Gwinnevere
215
Gwinnevere
says:
no189
ccpo:
Hello
ccpo.
”… you
seem to be saying …”.
— No.
Please excuse me, ccpo. As I said before to Susan Anderson:
— I’m
just reading the thermometer. Doubt
the dotted, doubt the measured.
IF I am
wrong, so is the dotted — and, at least, the part 1860 to now 2011, also
»wrong».
— I am
just defending what I see (trying, possibly, to show the others).
”based on current math”:
— No.
Based on current measure. Doubt the dotted, doubt the measured.
”solar
minimum”:
Please,
ccpo:
— Solar —
natural — variations has nothing to
do with AGW-math. Variations in the Sun
distributing energy lies besides the AGW-complex as a separate complex. It, the Sun by variation, has got nothing to do with the driving industry fossil carbon
emissivity, which apparently is the only one genuine energy driving cause to
the measured global warming, the NASA-curve.
I would
anyway say that your argumentation, nevertheless, to some extent, is plausible:
— All
variations give contributions, no doubt. But as you also might have observed
(no direct link here), calculations in general show that the variation from or
Sun, including its potential in generating influence from cosmic radiation, as
such are to small by contribution to have any significance. These Solar
variations do appear, of course, but they are minor compared to the general
global warming effect. For this reason, the Sun is left out completely in the
basic AGW-math. There is only the industry part — and a constant irradiative
net power from the Sun roughly about 250 W/M² — that is the active, causing,
agent in AGW. No Sun variation.
Again,
ccpo:
— The
only foundation I have to make a reference on and to in accord with my posting
descriptions, is the
NASA-curve measure, and without it, nothing. There is no »model» or »theory» in that. I see it just as a physical appearing
phenomena, an ongoing process, that has to be explained, described, expressed
as to cause and extension. Thank you for your interest. I am constantly looking
for flaws in my own apprehension — you help. Thanks again (and for any further
contribution).
Gwinnevere
216
Gwinnevere
says:
no190
wayne davidson:
”Gwinnevere,
a flaw in you logic …”.
I heard
that, wayne davidson. Thank you.
I see
what you mean.
— But
you also see, at least, a part of the already established ocean research
(D’Aleo, 2008 and further):
— Natural ocean average temperature is periodically
changing (with about ±0.1 °C) within periods of (partly) a rough 20 year cycle
and (partly) a 60-80 year cycle (with minor variations due to the average
surface periods of roughly 5-10 years).
— This
is interesting, wayne davidson — very interesting, and only you will have the
credit for exposing such an excellent spot of the matter, absolutely:
”The
seas can’t go down in temperature while the Arctic goes up.”,
”That
is impossible”.
— You are absolute right, wayne davidson. Absolutely.
What
does it mean? Let us try this one:
WHILE
the general (average) global oceanic volume is on the falling edge of its
NATURAL — as it was before the AGW-age — temperature trough, that is the down
period (now 2000-2040, as mentioned by reference in post140) — the global
warming, the actual AGW temperature-energy functionality from industry fossil
carbon emissions, adds its contribution, of course. Then, again of course:
— A
general, all global continental oceanic warming appears, not only in the
Arctic, and all together with a net averaging temperature readout of this type:
same. No change. No average net changing temperature will bee seen 2000-2040,
according to the Doubt the dotted, doubt the measured NASA-curve match.
— AGW
EATS the (falling edge of the) natural down sea period.
— The
down going natural oceanic cooling period is erased (precisely) by the up going
global warming — warming all the oceanic content, not only the Arctic.
Plainly,
and hence, a minor misapprehension was seen flawing the computer circuits,
wayne davidson:
”To
your claim: Warmer Arctic, colder
oceans”.
— No,
wayne davidson. Here is the clear misinterpretation, please. The measure shows:
»Warmer Arctic, warmer oceans in general». There is no difference.
— The
average includes all areas, all volumes.
— As
the Arctic warms, so does the entire average oceanic volumes, of course.
And you
are perfectly right:
— »The
seas can’t go down in temperature while the Arctic goes up».
— All of them changes simultaneously. Of course.
Gwinnevere
217
Gwinnevere
says:
no195
Patrick 027:
Hello
Patrick 027.
— And what if all of
your — our — claims had no meaning?
The philosophy of TRUTH is beyond this web page, if I am not misinformed, and too the way mathematics and
physics connects to truth, its provability and the quests in concern of
certainty and identity.
— I
hope you will understand that, Patrick, and that I am in no position of arguing
with you on the part on your suggestion. I would like to though, but am not allowed to. Thank you.
Gwinnevere
218
Gwinnevere
says:
no196
Susan Anderson:
Thank
you for the observation — I am not a troll, and I neither wear a camouflage for
evil intentions, or a deniers or a skeptics dress. That type never attended to
my nature.
— On
the other hand, Susan:
— Information on »banned» and »rumors» and the like connected to
PERSON, neither this web page is intended for, nor I will discuss with anyone.
It has no connection to science, but belongs to journalistic gossip.
As to
the BANNED assumption and this WebSite Real Climate, and others, if appropriate:
— There
are alternative arguments in
and of science, not necessarily from so
called deniers and skeptics.
But there are some web sites that does not allow
certain »inconvenient opinions». While the general
scientific community throws out denialists on their (repeated) arguments, the denialists camp do the same with type
Gwinnevere who has set up the goal to kill all global denial — by knowledge. Until we have found out the status of this camp, Real
Climate, the IF clause will stay put.
— I
understand (to some extent) your carefulness, and accept whatever excuses you
have, if any. My interest is only of a pure scientific nature: erase denialist
camp, solve for energy, great technology (fine art).
Gwinnevere
[Response: With all due respect, I cannot
make head nor tail of your postings, nor fathom
what you are referring too. Regardless, please
stick to at least moderate scientific issues and leave the rumours and conspiracies and the denialists out of the
picture. - gavin]
erased
no218 moderator gavin Response:
— Right. Do erase it. I won’t mind. This is for Real Climate.
Gwinnevere
223
dhogaza
says:
To summarize: in a given circumstance, physics can force the
proper functional form used in fits …
It’s
explanatory because it’s modeling (and is constrained by) the physics. Note
that you’re saying the exercise “illuminate[s] mechanisms involved in the
process being studied”, i.e helps with understanding of the explanatory
*physics*.
What “Gwinnevere” is
not that …
229
John E.
Pearson says:
223
dhogoza said:
“It’s
explanatory because it’s modeling …
What “Gwinnevere” is
not that …”
I
certainly wasn’t referring to anything that Gwinnevere said since I can’t understand a word Gwinnevere says.
I do
think the distinction between “curve fitting” and “modeling” is fairly subtle.
Ptolemy was a dirty “curve fitter” and Copernicus (or perhaps Kepler) was a
modeler? Kepler tried a lot of really crazy stuff (using nested platonic solids
as “interpolating functions”, etc) before settling on elliptical orbits. I
don’t think there was much physics to constrain his curve fitting at the time.
Deriving Kepler’s laws from first principals must have made Newton sing from
the roof tops. If Kepler’s results hadn’t been sitting there waiting for an
explanation I suppose it would have taken longer for Newton to convince the world
he was on to something.
230
Gwinnevere
says:
no203
Didactylos:
Hello
Didactylos. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the fullness of your care.
— As in
the post from/to David Miller (no193), I apologize for leaving out these
important indicators. However, my aim was, and is, just to underline the formulation of the
process by mathematical physics. You are absolute
right. Thank you so very much for the contribution.
no204
Didactylos:
— Seems
the deniers will win this game, if we take it your way. Okay.
1. The
NASA-curve has SEVERAL (slightly different) versions: you are absolutely right.
The
NASA-curve (basic) I use is the first that appeared in my reference
(2008-2009). It is no longer onSite, it has been replaced by other(s) [during
two occasions].
—
However. The differences between the
different versions all follow the same regular variation (check by transparently overlaying the different versions), and
which I have accepted as an underlying theme of AGW due to different measuring
data with different averaging intervals, and which I assumed also would be understood by persons
familiar with the subject. That these curves vary
(slightly) intermutually, makes
nothing to the general picture; The central
industry fossil carbon energy driving function DEFINES all variants (the
remaining sea periods) by subtraction: you will, any way you see it, get a precise picture of the sea periods through any of the versions by subtracting the industrial fossil carbon part (as mentioned in post no140). No regrets.
2.
”Your ”simple AGW-math” is wrong”.
”… lack
of predictive power …”.
— I am
sorry to hear that, Didactylos. Such a stand-alone statement however is not
sufficient in science.
— As
far as I know, measured values from CO2-concentration matching a 98% hit has no
premise for a ”wrong”. And neither has a sentence like ”… lack of predictive
power …”.
— You are obviously misinformed as to the
outcome of »the simple AGW-math». Also,
basically, because it includes
the presently adopted results from different research groups as (very) good approximations, as already mentioned by reference in the post no140.
— It apparently means you are in a
(quantitative, scientific) minority, any way you want it.
—
Perhaps you are going to fast, Didactylos (anxious to underline the presence of
ignorance, I agree).
— Measured values matching calculated within
98% is, normally, declared a (direct) hit.
— But
please, don’t let me interrupt. Show me what you mean by direct quantity.
Your
PS.
If you
have a reference, please let it show. If you have a link, please write it out so we can see what
you mean by comparing references. (Otherwise
it is useless).
Gwinnevere
231
Gwinnevere
says:
no209
wili:
Hello
wili.
”So no
one wants to make a prediction about when we will hit 400 ppm?”.
— I’m
on. (I mean, AGW’s on):
400
ppm(v) [the additional (v) for ByVolume] will be reached (raw AGW-values)
year
CO2 ppmv
2018
399.38
2019
401.78
The
Mauna Loa values lie (at present) typically 8 ppmv higher than the raw
AGW-values
(partly
due to possibly additional components, gradually on the increase, now adding
more and more, we must eventually count on that, but as you already know,
debates run high on what is and what is not accountable on that part).
—
Taking the +8ppm into account yields
2015
392.43+8=400.43
That
would be the answer you are looking for, as far as the AGW-math is concerned:
— 400
ppm(v) is reached year 2015.
(CO2-function,
AGW-values above, described by link in post no140).
— I see
other contributors reach about the same result
(no221
Chris R @year 2015, no225 Phillip Shaw @year 2014 in March).
Gwinnevere
235
Meow
says:
@John
E. Pearson (228):
I do think the distinction between “curve fitting” and “modeling” is fairly subtle. Ptolemy was a dirty “curve
fitter” and Copernicus (or perhaps Kepler) was a modeler? Kepler tried a lot of
really crazy stuff (using nested platonic solids as “interpolating functions”,
etc) before settling on elliptical orbits. I don’t think there was much physics
to constrain his curve fitting at the time.
The
distinction can be subtle, but Gwinnevere’s
formula is not an example of that subtlety. We are
not in Kepler’s position, since we know much of the physics that drives earth’s
climate. Of course we can always know more, particularly about some of the
important variables and systems like ocean heat transport, what it takes to
destabilize clathrates, and so on. But fiddling with nonphysical variables like
the number of years elapsed since 1815 doesn’t get us that knowledge. Such techniques
can net, at most, an intimation that earth’s temperature might have some
periodic drivers. But we already know that from observing the sun, Milankovich
cycles, and so forth. And if all we want is intimations of periodicity, we’d do
far better to FFT the data.
CAPTCHA:
tiationg escapes
Ray
Ladbury says:
Gwinnevere, What you are saying makes no sense–quite apart from any difficulties of translation or
languabe. There
is no “AGW-math”. Hell, there is no “AGW
Theory”. There is a theory of Earth’s
climate, and anthropogenic warming is an unescapable consequence thereof. You seem to be taking
issue with entities that do not exist. If
you have an issue with the consensus theory of Earth’s climate–as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate
scientists–then state your differences clearly. Innuendo and insinuation are not conducive to science.
239
JCH
says:
In the
graph at the bottom of your link there is a period, the lull, from 2000 to 2040
with a note that 2008 is the 10th warmest year on record.
Do you think it odd
the coldest year in the warmest decade on record is a year from the warmest decade on record?
Anyway,
reconcile these with your “lull” (ALL of which appear to show your lull is off
to a lullabyebye start):
Starts talking ABOUT Gwinnevere — openly:
240
dhogaza
says:
Pearson:
Kepler tried a lot of really crazy stuff (using nested platonic
solids as “interpolating functions”, etc) before settling on elliptical orbits.
I don’t think there was much physics to constrain his curve fitting at the
time.
Actually,
it appears he made a pretty good intuitive guess about the physics, i.e. that
the sun’s the source of the motive force that leads to planets orbiting around
it and that it diminishes with distance from the sun. While there was no true
understanding of gravity at the time, he would’ve known common stuff such as
the fact that a the illumination from a point source like a candle falls off
with distance, maybe even knew the inverse square rule regarding such
phenomena, and extrapolation to the sun’s “motive force” or whatever he called
it was reasonable.
In fact
Kepler moved on to this model after his purely curve-fitting efforts failed.
The explanatory aspect of his successful effort lies in his intution regarding
what was later learned to be the sun’s gravitational field. If wikipedia’s
right, he didn’t work backwards using the fit of an elliptical orbit as an explanatory
tool.
This is
nothing at all like Gwinnevere is doing, and while you’re ignoring this person, my five word
response was directed at that poster. It’s short, understandable, and points
out why what he’s doing is not,
as he claims, explanatory and I’m surely not
claiming that my curt response covers every shade of grey in the spectrum.
Nowhere did I say that curve-fitters are “dirty”, and face it – Ptolemy’s
machinations had no explanatory value regardless of his personal cleanliness.
As Meow
says, “The distinction can be subtle, but Gwinnevere’s formula is not an example of that subtlety.” Gwinnevere’s
off the rails, and there’s no reason to be subtle with someone who’s so far
off track.
242
Rich
Creager says:
Gwinnevere-
After reading your comments, and considering the Turing test,
I have to ask: are
you a text generator?
248
john
byatt says:
#242
The Gwinnevere flies WordPress, has a
blog consisting of one post that has only one phrase. June start date
http://aglobalarming.wordpress.com/
251
Didactylos
says:
“Such a
stand-alone statement however is not sufficient”
And that’s the problem, Gwinnevere. Your
statistical skill is not yet advanced enough to see the
obvious truth, still less to do the analysis
required to assess it objectively. Yet you
are presenting your result with confidence that comes from not understanding its significance (or lack
of significance).
I suggest you ask for
some help at Tamino’s
blog. Or better yet, read some of Tamino’s past replies to curve
fitters.
You are
right in one way: if your goal was to approximate the data using a curve that
fits extremely closely, and you aren’t concerned with what the curve means – then in that limited sense you did extremely well. But your curve has no explanatory power or physical
basis, so it is no more likely to predict the
future than any other guess.
So, if
you think I am wrong and that you know exactly what you are doing, then go ahead and show us what happens when you withhold
data from your model and recalculate the parameters – does
it predict the withheld data to a significant
degree? Compare your model to a simple linear model over the last 30 years.
Which model has the most explanatory power? The “relative goodness of fit”?
This is like an r^2
test, but it takes into account the number of parameters in the model.
I could do this for you, I
suppose – but what would you learn then? :-) If you need help, ask here or in Tamino’s open thread.
262
Gwinnevere
says:
Improved
information on precise CO2-quantities from AGW-math to no209 wili:
General
equation (referenced at post no140),
CO2(ppmv)
= (12.7576)*(((YEAR-OffsetYear)/121.41)^4.25)+286
Note
that this expression is a (very) close approximation to the actual integral solution
(as yet, no available world source is able to give its algebraic form). It is
limited to approximately year 2028 [by a proceeding tangent of ca 3.4]. Above
that, we must use exact values from a numerical solution (Simpson Formula, or
the »Hypo-series» formula).
Preferences
in the basic AGW-math accounts for an offset margin of ±5 years, mainly due to
a (least) general surface ocean (0-500 M) period (see also note below).
With
respect to the available (from 1959) CO2-data from Mauna Loa at
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
a
shorter investigation (13Jul2011/Gwinnevere) on the AGW-math’s CO2 industry
integral shows a nearly exact match by the horizontal scale OffsetYear = 1811:
CO2(ppmv)
= (12.7576)*(((YEAR-1811)/121.41)^4.25)+286
With
(MaunaLoa)/(AGW) the lowest up to the last MaunaLoa-value 2010 is 99.69%,
highest 100.61%. That gives at most a ±0.7% deviation. These ±-levels are
skittering (or sidestepping) to and fro in the table roughly but not exactly on
a 5-10 year base, interval 1959-2010.
To find
the exact year by a given CO2-value is then calculated by
1811 +
(121.41)([CO2(ppmv) – 286]/[12.7576])^1/4.25 = YEAR
With
400 ppm input (no209 wili), the precise AGW-answer is
YEAR =
2014.26
0.26×365=94.9
(-Jan31, -Feb28, -Mar31 = 90)
(Phillip
Shaw already did point out a similar value in post no225).
=
4Apr2014 at 21:36 after midnight [9:36 PM]
No
extra CO2 besides the industrial contribution
——————————————————————————————
The
presumption of an eventual CO2-addition from side-effects is effectively erased
by the above clarification. That is, there is yet (2011) according to the given
AGW-math no (direct observable) additional CO2 added in the atmosphere besides
the part given through the AGW-math (precise) CO2-levels from the industrial
fossil carbon emissions (as measured at Mauna Loa). That is (very) good news,
in the middle of the bad ones.
NOTE —
precise ocean data are sparse.
——————————————————————————————
The
only available public free sources seen on INTERNET as I have found prior to
the AGW-math description, are the ones referenced by me in post no140 together
with some information on
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo/
Some
older (primary) data from early investigations may be found in different books
of reference in physics in general (in different countries), such as f.ex. the
Swedish FOCUS MATERIEN Almquist & Wiksell 2:nd ed. 1975 p487col2b [surface
period 5 years 0-500 M, polar ocean period ca 50 years].
(If any
of you should believe thath the AGW-math [post no140] is BASED on »D’Aleo-data»
you are in deep delusion).
— Due
to the great difficulties of observation and general theory, no general
agreement is yet (2011) found on ocean data.
— Some
persons here at RealClime might have the impression that the referenced ocean
data from Joseph D’Aleo (2008) at post no140 should have been qualified as
RELIABLE. That adjective has never been used by me in connection with ocean
data. The word of description is: AVAILABLE. Together with the
RealClime-reference above: There are no other publicly, free, available data
for the average Internet user to access on ocean data, as far as I know. The
rest is up to the measured NASA/CRU/GISS-temperature curves, and their
equivalents by known — reliable — components.
Gwinnevere
263
Gwinnevere
says:
no237
Ray Ladbury:
— Hello
Ray Ladbury.
I was
aiming at a confrontation with some PRINCIPLE argument on the AGW-quest. I
think I have found one now.
— By
QUALITY: Of course there is nothing
such as »AGW-math». It has no notation in the established academic
community. That is also clear from the post no140: the
present established »climate-math» is entirely referenced to Arrhenius math. As
the post reference shows, however, this Arrhenius math ”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate
scientists” as you say, is an approximation to the three
derivative-integral functions that EXPLAIN current data (Sea, Industry, CO2),
including Arrhenius math as a (close) approximation. To exemplify, your
»AGW-math», not Arrhenius math, explains current CO2-measured (Mauna Loa) data.
To be noted.
— By
QUANTITY, hence, the term »AGW-math»
is appropriate in use to refer the actual connections, comparisons, results and
presentations, and only as far as the quantities DO match
observations from research. There is nothing else to it.
(In »ancient
science», such »formulae» we held to be »empirical»).
I
really appreciate your arguing. It just promotes the purpose. Thank you very
much.
Gwinnevere
264
Gwinnevere
says:
no239
JCH:
— Hello
JCH.
First:
You seem to be asking if I think 2008 was a year from the warmest decade?
— I
don’t know that, really, JHC. I have to pass it on.
Second:
”reconcile
[»try to fit or match»] these with your ”lull””
— The
HADCRUT (global mean), GISTEMP (land-ocean global mean), UAH (lower trop.
global mean) are not that easy to interpret on a now-basis — yet.
Last
averaged value in the last updated version
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
ends at
2007.
— To be
honest with you, from my personal side JHC, I am unable to match not yet
settled average data to the same general curvature as the one in the past (up
to 2007).
— For
the record, we can exclude the UAH- data as these deal with atmospheric layers far above the one in
concern of the AGW-math part (maximum h=60 M).
— The
other two, mutually showing the same picture, has a mean horizontal trend the
period 1998-2009.
— It is
too early as I understand it, yet, to run to (general) conclusions. You seem to
point out that HADCRUT and GISTEMP data would indicate the AGW-math-dotted
continuing (from 2005 an on) to
be erroneous.
— In
that case, JCH, you are at first perfectly right, the AGW-match is corrupt, and
at second we are in exceptional trouble as to the possible change of the oceanic behavior.
Gwinnevere
265
Gwinnevere
says:
no 242
Rich Creager:
”Are you a text generator”?
—
RealClimate WebSite is no exception in generating (unwanted) invitations to persons not interested in the scientific
matter.
— I
have no whish to escape these individuals in their off-the-record-posts. I
would like to meet them and share the arguing. However, as you already know, this web page is not intended for such
discussions. Thank you for sharing.
Gwinnevere
266
Gwinnevere
says:
no251
Didactylos:
”Your curve has no explanatory power or
physical basis”.
— I
think I am awake in reading the above statement.
Didactylos,
a »model» connects to
statistics, probability. Knowledge
connects to certainty, which is an abstract
concept for statistics. AGW has no connection to probability.
How is
it Didactylos?
IF, as
you say, the »AGW-math» would have zero accountability in any scientific sense,
how is it that the top function — to exemplify — of the three power functions
having the Arrhenius logarithmic/exponent functions as close approximations,
the CO2-part, matches measured (Mauna Loa) values with a maximum deviation of ±0.7%?
— You don’t find a finer qualitative match by a
set of three power functions explaining the measured quantities (Sea, Industry,
CO2) — the cause of AGW, its process and its
extension.
To me,
that seems rather the opposite to your claim:
»Your curve HAS explanatory power AND physical
basis».
— The
authoritative recommendations you make at the end of your post, in the light of
the actual quantities, seems to
testify you are understanding mathematics as such in a principal
erroneous (irrelevant) way. Thank you for
sharing.
Gwinnevere
Didactylos
says:
Gwinnevere:
No.
You’re
not even wrong.
Learn to walk before you try running.
271
Gwinnevere
says:
RealClimate-Questionability
about the reliability of mathematical physics in the AGW-quest
——————————————————————————————
In
mathematical physics, a
triple power function unity by integral-derivatives is, as far as I know, considered one of the strongest structures
that exist at all in this beautiful Universe of ours. It is to be understood as
a reference of exceptional
solidity, especially in communicating quantitative
results.
If any single
one of the individual functions shows a clear and unmistakable mismatch to
experimental observation, we can safely disregard the other two too: the
structure is not the one we are looking for. Next.
If on
the other hand any single one of the individual functions shows a match, a
correspondence, with experimental, measured, observation of the kind 99.3%, so
the other two have to.
— The AGW-quantities, here in strong question
by several persons, are seen to correspond
within 99.3%, as mentioned by the post connected to the CO2-question by wili in
post no209.
From
that point of view, I find
it really bizarre that some persons here at RealClimate »have the nerve» to
sentence — erase — the entire complex with such finalizing power as, TYPE
”It is
wrong”,
”You
don’t understand statistics”,
”You
are executing a primitive level of mathematical skill”,
”You need help”
(my favorite),
not to
say other incitements of the kind not related to this WebSite.
— The
only way to »KILL» the AGW-math part, is to Find/GIVE REFERENCES by comparing quantities. As yet, I have seen none — but I would very much like to.
Gwinnevere
The Tamino man
gets pissed at Gwinnevere:
tamino
says:
Re:
#271 (Gwinnevere)
In mathematical physics, a
“triple power function unity by integral-derivatives” is, as far as I know, a
nonsense phrase. It sounds like a bunch of words you strung
together but you don’t really have a clue what it means.
Perhaps you should seek the help of
someone who speaks English.
Hank
Roberts says:
A ‘gwinnevere’ shows
up elsewhere discoursing on climate as ‘wkg/gwinnevere’ —
this stuff may be coming out of an explanation of everything
found at http://www.universumshistoria.se/
“… there is apparently a fixed pattern
geometry for nuclear physics, like the Pythagorean theorem to the mathematics
of geometry. But it is completely unknown in modern academia and science….”
You
read it there first.
278
Meow
says:
Once
again, Gwinnevere, you are fitting
a curve to the data using variables that have no foundation in the applicable physics, then using the curve to extrapolate into the future.
If I
want to estimate atmospheric CO2 concentrations in some future year, I’ll want
to start by understanding the existing
CO2 content, how much CO2 is likely to
enter the atmosphere, and how much is likely to leave it. That
leads me to look up the existing (well-measured) content, then to try to understand the nature and magnitude of
the processes that add CO2 (e.g., decomposition, anthro burning, land
use changes, natural burning, oxidation of CH4, etc.) and those that remove it (e.g., biomass uptake, ocean uptake,
weathering, etc.).
Why do
I do that, rather than just
projecting a curve? Because those phenomena actually govern the
concentration I’m trying to determine. A curve that fits some portion of the existing CO2 concentration record does not do that.
While it might be usable for an off-the-cuff
estimate good enough for blogs, it’s not going to catch, for example, the effects of a
(hypothetical) economic depression that halves anthro burning input, or an (I
hope hypothetical) study finding that clathrates’ decomposition is about to
accelerate wildly. Why not? Because it isn’t
based in the phenomena underlying the data
it’s being used to extrapolate.
If you
want insight into climate, you should try
to understand the phenomena that drive it. And
those are things like heat inputs, outputs, and means of transport;
concentrations of various gases in the atmosphere and solids in the oceans;
absorptivities, emissivities, and reflectivities of various surfaces; and so
on. Fitting a temperature curve tells you nothing about those phenomena, and thus nothing about climate.
CAPTCHA:
allimpe Habits
More ABOUT
Gwinnevere:
From here her expulsion is suggested openly
279
ccpo
says:
Re: #271 (Gwinnevere)
In
mathematical physics, a “triple power function unity by integral-derivatives”
is, as far as I know, a nonsense phrase. It sounds like a bunch of words you
strung together but you don’t really have a clue what it means.
Perhaps
you should seek the help of someone who speaks English.
Comment
by tamino — 13 Jul 2011 @ 1:16 PM
Absolutely. Having taught EFL
for years, I’m fairly skilled at
deciphering Second Language text. I am completely lost with Gwinnevere’s samples. I believe you have hit on the solution. There is another
option. Given her science chops, so far as anyone can tell through the mangled English,
seem to be in trouble, too, she may
want to stop posting altogether.
It
might be interesting to see what happens if the English is tidied up first,
though. If Hank’s intel is right, maybe one of our Swedish friends can
sort out what she’s trying to say.
From here
Gwinnevere is erased:
erased
— Thought so.
I am still waiting for you to exemplify quantities by practical
values.
— As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with you
on such premises. But I would very much like to.
Gwinnevere
erased
— Whether it is a nonsense phrase or not, tamino, your comment
makes nothing to the matching quantities in the deduced functions Sea, Industry,
CO2.
— I see no mentioning of quantities in your post.
— Does that mean you don’t want to accept these quantitative
matches in the three functions Sea, Industry, CO2?
— As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with
you on such premises. But I would very much like to.
Gwinnevere
erased
— Elliptical functions — never introduced in modern academy.
Atomic masses by the entire atom seen as a unit, not the »isolated» nucleus.
These two describe two different ways, with no mutual correspondence. The
precision in the resulting atomic masses talk for themselves in comparison to
the measured and the established theoretical.
To your information,
unless already familiar. (Don’t read it, unless you are qualified).
Gwinnevere
erased
The scientific community
and the meaning of Arrhenius-AGW-math
——————————————————————————————
This was, and still is, the subject of guesting:
— NATURAL temperature (atmospheric) variations are given by LOGARITHMIC
functions (time-derivatives) — the Arrhenius expressions. These are often
termed »radiative forcing» or the ”Arrhenius's greenhouse law for CO2” in the
established scientific community, see for example WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES,
MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008),
http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf
We all know that. Or should, in case missed.
— ANTHROPOGENIC variations — AGW-mathematics, however — have no such,
basic, connection; AGW is — only by quantitative provability and besides that,
not at all — expressed, explained and described through POWER functions:
— Why is that?
— The reason a logarithmic function cannot express, describe or
explain the anthropogenic (industrial fossil carbon) complex, is the central
driving temperature-energy function responsible for the phenomena (the middle
one in Sea, Industry, CO2). It is a power function. Not a natural logarithmic
function. Namely an elementary transient (power, energy) function. No
logarithmic (exponent, e-) function.
This is also what was posted, and notified, in post no140:
— The triple power AGW-math functions INCLUDE the Arrhenius (the
”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate scientists”, as noted in post
no237) expressions as a
VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION. That is what post no140 exposes to the
eye.
— But where is the notification of this, obviously illuminating,
(»world scientific sensational») mathematical coherency in the present
scientific community? I mean not the post no140 as such, of course not, but THE
COHERENCE as such, the bare mathematical correspondence — obviously too the
EXPLANATION: all of it.
— I see none.
Gwinnevere
Gwinnevere
becomes excluded:
281
Gwinnevere
says:
Answer
from Gwinnevere on previous posts:
— I have been trying to post answers to the
previous comments from you, all. But they seem to have been lost — while still more commenting from you on the previous
Gwinnevere’s posting continue to pop in.
—
Unless given space to answer, I am in no position to given
appropriate arguments to any of you.
Gwinnevere
[Moderator: there will be no more comments from or about you, until you have something constructive and
sensible to say. Sorry.]
END.
