AGW and Arrhenius — Universe History

content · webFindText on this page by Ctrl+F · AGW-Deniers’ Plateau

Simple and direct AGW-mathematical explanation — No AGW-Modeling or Simulation — also explaining why the modeling fails to explain AGW in detail

PhotoSource: Authors archive · NikonD90 · Details · GLOBAL WARMING · BellDharma in 2Jul2011

AGW and Arrhenius	The NASA(GISS/CRU) temperature curve	The HoaxersPage

Simple and Direct AGW	Man Made Global Warming	The AGW-Deniers Plateau

Hello everybody. My Acronym is BellDharma. This is a (special) web page about global warming launched 4Jul2011.

Those of you who eventually are familiar with the Swedish website platform in Universe(s) History, more precisely the »AGW-thread», will find this document a (short) summary to that part — with some additional material. Some of the text here connects to it. Its Swedish counterpart in this htm-document is found in Den Globala uppvärmningen — matematiska samband. For the rest of the text, I hope »the Swedish audience» will enjoy the English part too (Swedes in general [after WWII, for which I am ashamed] are pretty good Englishmen). Thank you very much.

Preface

AGW holds. You are safe. You are home. But the modern academic scientific community never was able to EXPLAIN why and how. Instead a »the mean academic» appeared (around Jun2011), pushing »the kids» away BECAUSE they asked, never taking an open discussion, always demanding arguments to be settled in a way before even mentioned. Here you will be safe from such tyranny.

In this document, you will be introduced to a short visit to the (very) simple AGW-math-basics — that »the mean academic» in principle always HAD the opportunity to show you, and me, but never got in to the core of in the expedition of grasping the essence: That knowledge is a FRIEND of the peaceful, of the asking. Not an enemy. Science, understanding, ability to explain, is settled not by consensus, political opinion, but by knowledge, ability to relate, show, guide and acknowledge; Knowledge is inclusive, not exclusive. Also the errors are explained. There is no inventions of math in knowledge, just pure deduction. If you find that something does NOT hold, you are perfectly right. To find out HOW, is called (the philosophy of) science. Modern academy has obviously developed something else — now more luminous than ever.

Introduction

The mathematical explanation to AGW — the mathematics of anthropogenic global warming — is seen to connect to a mathematical proof of AGW in describing the difference in the mathematics of Arrhenius and AGW. In the following it is shown how the mathematics of AGW and Arrhenius’ logarithmic functions coincide (by giving specific offsets to Arrhenius’ curves) and how the latter give good approximations to the more precise mathematics of AGW, which however [Jun2011] seems unrepresented in modern quarters. The presentation yields a solid example of the mathematical validity of AGW, giving a simple and elementary simultaneous but thorough explanation of anthropogenic global warming by mathematics.

In AGW-beviset, extensive references have already been exposed with consistent results from research groups (Hansen et al 2005). These are also mentioned in the additional results by B. Lin et al 2010, included in this document, with further well known connections to the general IPCC-presentations [See IPCC-link on top of the document in AGW-beviset].

The AGW-proof in mathematics is based on three derivative-integral connected curves (which I am sure you most presumably already have a certain familiarity with, to some extent):

The image [original size location] links to a more (complete, extensive) descriptive compilation with additional vertical scales from the actually known and observed functions (yet Jun2011 only in Swedish).

These three derivative-integral functions are

1. CO2-concentration (top above),

2. temperature-Energy feeding (middle, connecting to the global warming measured NASA-curve together with the industrial fossil-carbon emission curve), and

3. heat-content (bottom, W/M², »Ocean Store»).

For the mathematical proof however, it is sufficient to know (depart from) only the mathematical expressions themselves (in these three functional curves) — type »I found them while running in the woods» would be sufficient. HOW they came to appear would be of a less important party, nothing to impress on the validity itself. That part is given (yet Jun2011 only in Swedish) in AGW-beviset. For a first fast insight, we set out directly on the (found) expressions in order to study their connection to Arrhenius math and their already well established preferences.

See a first (summing) short form of the above in

Simple and direct AGW-mathematical explanation

with further details in this document from Basic AGW-math.

Basic AGW-math

The AGW-Deniers’ Plateau

ManMade Global Warming

HoaxersPage · TheFinalCountDown

BellDharma 2Jul2011

Simple and direct AGW-mathematical explanation — No AGW-Modeling or Simulation — also explaining why the modeling fails to explain AGW in detail

ImSource: Authors archive · Summer26Jun2011 · NikonD90 · Detail · GLOBAL WARMING

Simple and direct AGW-mathematical explanation

No Modeling or Simulation requested — these are contained as special aspects

by BellDharma 2Jul2011

»The logarithmic mathematics of Arrhenius» generally [Jun2011] appears as the one and only basic agency in making mathematical enquiries on »explaining global warming» in the scientific community. It has also become »the Achilles’ heel» in all AGW-discussions (Anthropogenic Global Warming): dead-end discussions only enhancing (developing) bitter hostility and rivalry (and ideas of revenge, and also punishment). The reason why is simple to see and understand — once we know HOW certain central (3 »simple») mathematically formulated curvatures give solidity to the entire AGW-complex, how the curves and their expressions do explain the Arrhenius-modeling math results (from all [respected] research groups as well, as these anyway all point to one and the same principle IPCC-resulting picture) — in a simple and elementary view (click for larger view with brief description):

In short: All three solid curves are from top to bottom derivatives and from bottom to top integrals explaining one mathematical-physical process of energy distribution — AGW, fed by the central industrial fossil-carbon emissivity.

TOP CURVE describes the CO2-concentration within 98% of the measured values, MIDDLE CURVE describes the central driving energy mechanism to AGW, the industry fossil-carbon combustion complex, it connects to a corresponding smoothed sea version of the heat uptake together with natural sea variations, forming a direct match to the resulting observed NASA-curve we identify as our criteria of Global Warming, and BOTTOM CURVE the actual effect (power in W/M²) with which AGW proceeds at the present. Brief (shorter) descriptions explain the details as tabled below. A detailed description of how the different mathematical expressions are deduced is given (as yet Jun2011 only in Swedish) in AGW-beviset.

Basic AGW-math

The AGW-Deniers’ Plateau

Man Made Global Warming

HoaxersPage · TheFinalCountDown

As seen from the comprehensive figure above and its consistent quantitative results, what Arrhenius’ math does not contain, and what (hence) creates the dead-end emerging »Achilles’ heel» in all AGW-discussion, is the central driving temperature-Energy [t|E]-function. It is [See B. Lin et al 2010 p1937t Fig 2] simulated in the scientific community (never deduced), and neither has, nor can be given, a mathematical connection inside the Arrhenius expressions often termed »the Arrhenius greenhouse law». The three connected curves in figure have [as yet Jun2011] no mentioning in the scientific community. As we see, the Arrhenius curves (dotted) are close approximations — provided they are given appropriate (modeling) offsets, however still in lack of the central explaining t|E-function. »Simple math».

BellDharma 2Jul2011

DEN GLOBALA UPPVÄRMNINGEN — AGW — GLOBAL UPPVÄRMNING — Matematiskia Samband — AGW — Proofs in Anthropogenic Global Warming · INLEDNING

DEN GLOBALA UPPVÄRMNINGEN · Inledning

BILDKÄLLA: Författarens arkiv · 14Maj2011 · Nikond90 · Detalj — GLOBAL UPPVÄRMNING · matematiska samband · Summering från AGW-beviset

DEN GLOBALA UPPVÄRMNINGEN — Matematiska Samband

av BellDharma 1Juli2011

Den förklarande/beskrivande AGW-matematiken och den (sedan slutet av 1800-talet) etablerade Arrhenius-matematiken har ingen gemensam grund. Men Arrhenius logaritmiska samband — som används av etablerade forskargrupper i olika klimatmodelleringar och simuleringar — ger goda approximationer till den uppenbart i det närmaste exakt beskrivande AGW-matematiken, och förutsatt Arrhenius-kurvorna ges tillbörliga offsetvärden:

AGW-kurvorna [heldragna] räknat uppifrån [CO2] och ner är varandras derivata, med den centralt drivande [industrins fossila kolutsläpp, havsversionens upptrögade, utslätade, version] temperatur-energifunktionen i mitten. Denna ingår inte i Arrhenius CO2-naturliga variationsmatematik. CO2-värdena [ljusvioletta] stämmer in till 98% med uppmätta värden. Energikurvans vertikalskala beskrivs utförligt i Energikurvans vertikalskala.

Image links to a more (complete, extensive) descriptive compilation with additional vertical scales from the actually known and observed functions (yet Jun2011 only in Swedish).

Den centrala t|E-funktionen [Se Man Made Global Warming], tillsammans med den förenklade havsperioden, ger en alldeles tydlig ekvivalent komponentsumma med den uppmätta NASA-kurvan — den enda kända typ (med olika varianter beroende på medelvärdesperioder) som vi associerar med begreppet global uppvärmning:

y = 6[1-1/(1+[x/10]^4)] + 0.222(0.9[(2cos (pi x/1.48)) + 0.5(cos (3pi[x-0.1]/1.48))]),

or the corresponding now-year-based connection as (dotted below)

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)])

Men sambandsformerna, trots uppenbart överensstämmande och därmed tydligen prediktiva med direkt bevisbar jämförande referens från ca 1860 till nu, omnämns inte i den etablerade vetenskapslitteraturen.

Uppgifterna bekräftas med samma principiella kvantitativa resultat från fristående oberoende forskargrupper.

Det närmaste vi kan komma är här veterligt en nyligen (30Jun2011) upphittad och alldeles tydligt samhörande typografi från olika forskningsgrupper som framställt olika modellsimuleringar på Arrhenius matematiska bas; Speciellt tydligt framgår det i referenskällan B. Lin et al 2010 (s1926-1927 Fig 2, motsv. t|E-kurvan, NASA-kurvan och W/M²-kurvan) där också de redan kända Hansen-referenserna (2005) med flera omnämns i samstämmiga kvantiteter. Alla kvantitativa data (även generellt för IPCC, se från AGW-beviset) tycks alltså vara samstämmiga.

Men den beskrivande, sammanfattande, matematiken tycks vara frånvarande i moderna kvarter.

(Om den ställs fram är det först och främst tydligt att allt AGW-förnekeri upphör, effektivt och med omedelbar verkan: en komponentekvivalent är ingen teori, ingen hypotes. Den är ett bevis. Det finns, uppenbarligen, ingenting att diskutera i den frågan).

BellDharma

AGW

aGlobAlwarming

by BellDharma 25 Jun 2011-06-25 [GMT+1]^Solar[GMT+2]^Industry@21:30

As notified (from) on 20 Jun 2011:

Basic AGW-math

The AGW-Deniers’ Plateau

ManMade Global Warming

HoaxersPage · TheFinalCountDown

Basic AGW-math

ImSource: Authors archive · Spring14May2011 · NikonD90 · Detail

Basic AGW-math

by BellDharma 25 Jun 2011-06-25 [GMT+1]^Solar[GMT+2]^Industry@12:00

Below is shown all the active principle functions appearing in the complex of global warming — as here presented by RELATED MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS.

— RELATED MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS is what we can, and must, be capable of explaining, by complete logic, for any person to understand, by a detailed path of reasoning, without any INSTITUTIONAL INVENTIONS OF LOGIC or AGREEMENTS leaving individuals outside the community of Natural Science, only that which HOLDS, and besides that, noting at all. Errors are removed quickly and elegantly by the fact of being not understandable to YOU, not explainable, not relatable, not verifiable.

These functions show two groups: The AGW-group (top); The Arrhenius-group (bottom).

But, while the Arrhenius-group, the dotted curves below, is well represented in Modern Academy (MAC) by »radiative forcing», the AGW-group has no representation: it is not mentioned, not argued, seemingly completely unnoticed.

AGW-group

Dotted curves (green, blue), modern academy with Arrhenius expressions — lies outside a complete explanation, but makes »good approximations» with specific offsets — except for the central t|E which is excluded.

Solid curves (light violet, light blue, dark violet), the actually related mathematical-physical explanation, unrepresented in Modern Academy (MAC). Specific matches to 98% of carbon-dioxide concentrations (top) is given from the corresponding sea-smoothed industry fossil carbon (middle, derivative of the former, the central temperature-Energy curve), giving the actual heat effect (power, bottom, derivative of the t|E-curve, actually connected to the ocean heat uptake). See compiled illustration with sources.

The central and, in the science community, unrepresented aspect was certified 1992 by Richard Lindzen in this short quote:

”Consensus and the Current "Popular Vision''

Many studies from the nineteenth century on suggested that industrial and other contributions to increasing carbon dioxide might lead to global warming. Problems with such predictions were also long noted, and the general failure of such predictions to explain the observed record caused the field of climatology as a whole to regard the suggested mechanisms as suspect.”,

CATO Institute — Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, Richard Lindzen 1992

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

A more comprehensive figure with vertical scales of the different quantities is given in Effect and Energy in AGW [as yet Jun2011 only in Swedish]. All quantities are given by already well known, established sources. The two upper curves form a collective synthesis with established sources as shown in The 6 Curves (click to see the original),

— Is there anybody here having a hard time with »simple» mathematical physics?

Image right links to a more (complete, extensive) descriptive compilation with additional vertical scales from the actually known and observed functions (yet Jun2011 only in Swedish).

See also more in depth

Man Made Global Warming for details in the AGW-group.

BellDharma

The Deniers Plateau

The Deniers Plateau — 2005-2038

by BellDharma 20 Jun 2011-06-20

The situation depicts, obviously, a directly dangerous situation for science as a credible community.

For sake of reference;

— Take a look at »the deniers plateau», the present global warming period ca 2005-2035 with respect to the predictable NASA-curve (the dotted match) in

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/AGW1.htm

as described in ManMade Global Warming and Basic AGW-math from industry + natural sea variations [See also B. Lin et al 2010, the same principle result by simulation]:

Image (right) above

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/PNG/DeniersPlateau.PNG

detailing the actual Deniers Plateau with sources as given at the NASA-curve.

With the same type of matching and predictability as certified from 1860 up to now, we are now [Jun2011] in »a flat period» spanning roughly between 2000-2040:

No bigger changes will be seen within a direct practical average measure in global warming during the period 2000-2040:

The sea period is [now, 2011] going down, all the way to ca 2040 — as it did the preceding period 1940-1970 — while the actual global warming curve (t|E) continues up, all with a total net canceling out. Nothing happens.

Inevitable Result:

— A net »Lindzen-Christy affirmation: no bigger changes».

Deniers WILL increase (exponentially).

It is their »proof». Deniers Heaven: nothing happens.

— We are NOW about to hear that for the next near 2040-2011=29 years. A whole new generation.

— Are you prepared for that?

I’m not. (Public opinion will KILL »the scientific community» — most probably thoroughly too, my personal interpretation — unless »THE DENIERS FRAUD» is uncovered).

The Deniers Plateau will, unless exposed, outnumber The Science Community (in global warming) by general denialist public opinion — in (say) ten years, not to say in twenty. As a consequence, eventually nothing will be done to avoid the coming — the unavoidable steep heat-wall beginning from around 2040.

That is (obviously) what the deniers »want» — with all their might.

— Unless a solid stand will appear now — NOW — it eventually means this present year history i s »the denialist’s overtaking».

— The deniers’ opinion (all obviously based on pure »complicated ignorance»), is apparantly about to cause a general human catastrophe, unless the fraudulent character of the denier will be settled, once and for all.

Example (25Jun2011, Anthony Watts) — all marked text my notation:

“The End is Near for Faith in AGW”,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/

(13Jun2011, Kathleen McKinley)

”No Global Warming In The Last Ten Years”,

”Sadly, politics has infected science, and we don’t know who to trust anymore.”,

http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2011/06/no-global-warming-in-the-last-ten-years/

Typically:

”If we would only cut carbon emissions, then everything will be OK. Will it? If that is true then why doesn’t the rise in earth’s temperature track with the rise in CO2 emissions over the last 10 years? CO2 emissions keep risking, but the temperature hasn’t.”,

Matthew Wilson @BraveNewClimate28Jun2011

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/ - comment-130532

The scientific community cannot meet such arguments-questions — because the central energy driving AGW-function — the actual temperature-energy curve that KILLS the above argument [detailed here in Man Made Global Warming] — is excluded in the Arrhenius math adopted base: such a mathematical-physical foundation does not exist. Meaning: Science is outnumbered. See further in Basic AGW-math.

How do we answer Matthew Wilson?

— Because the actual temperature measure is composed of the actual up going temperature raise and a down going natural sea period (now 2000-2040), these cancel and will do so until about 2040 where a steep raise will follow similar to the period 1970-2000. Meantime, the CO2-concentration will continue to climb steeply upwards by exact predictive power along with additional contributions. See for yourself.

The scientific community cannot give this answer, because the central temperature function can only be simulated, not deduced, from the basic Arrhenius mathematical foundation being the entire mathematical basis of the scientific community. The academic community has no other explaining, scientifically established based tool, and that tool is insufficient, no matter its approximate overwhelmingly closeness. The central energy-temperature function is missing, effectively excluded by the Arrhenius mathematical base.

The skeptic is asking for a proof the scientific community does not have — not because it doesn’t exist.

Because SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY in general and ditto WEB SITES in explicit [Jun2011] only take discussions based on Peer Review references, there is neither a way for the simple observation to enter into the modern scientific community. [»We don’t accept other views than those already seen»]. Tough days.

Unless dealt with: The deniers will continue their agenda all the way to 2040, while the scientific argument will weaken: no temperature change. Then as we can se, from ca 2040, comes »the great shock», the steep raising temperature increase when the ocean period begins upwards again together with the raising t|E-curve. Not only the deniers will (most probably) become victims from even more harsh weather-climate conditions, but also all the others as a worst case scenario. But then it is too late — and the deniers didn’t care anyway.

But where is this highly clarifying predictability match shown in public?

UtellMe.

You are the consulted experts.

— This is obvious to me: once the deniers will catch a glimpse of the simple proof, the predictability, the match, the simple and easy-to-understand connections (even to a 4:th grader) collecting all data under one and the same roof, the deniers will vanish, disappear, drop off, like the natural healing on a bad wound.

Science will win this, knowledge will do it — but not on account of a single person.

— A ”march to the halls of government” is noble, respectable, admirable. But science has a better, more effective tool. It is called knowledge.

BellDharma

ManMade Global Warming

GLOBAL WARMING

Man Made Global Warming

by BellDharma 19 Jun 2011-06-19

Yes. It is definitely man-made. Let us see why.

The reason any one of us

— capable of performing basic calculations in mathematical physics

— can know why we certainly are on the right path in addressing Global Warming to Anthropogenic causes, is this:

With a general human evolution of technology

(illustrating image as below, details in AGW, the energy curve basic function as y=a[1–1/(1+[x/b]^n)], n=2, its derivative gives the effect [power] transient [ocean heat absorption, value 0,878 W/M² period 2000-2010, fairly in accord with other sources (Hansen group 2005), also in line with a more simple evaluation from Stefan-Boltzmann-radiation law, provided a correct interpretation], its integral gives the carbon-dioxide concentration [yielding a 98% match with measured values up to 2009, and further], both latter as long as t is added by fossil-carbon)

y = 6[1–1/(1+[x/10]⁴)]

utilized energy function

Image above

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/PNG/DetailsInAGW.PNG

Fossil-Carbon curve (black) from WIKIMEDIA COMMONS and RENEWABLE ENERGY — Critical Evaluation of the U.S. Renewable Energy Policy, 2009, respectively

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

http://www.renewableenergy.typepad.com/

it is IMPOSSIBLE to omit an additional temperature component (t) from a general fossil-carbon combustion temperature (T) from an emitted (combusted) amount (m) of the fossil carbon into the local atmospheric mass locale (M), account taken upon a general emissivity or absorption coefficient (a), simply expressed as

t/T=a(m/M)

giving

t = Ta(m/M)

[Temperature and Energy are proportional — as in the familiar General Gas Law: pV=kT=E giving T=E/k].

With account taken for thermal resistance

(R=t/P, P the irradiating power from the Sun: t catalyzes a thermal resistive increase from the already given irradiating Solar power)

the expression enhances to yield for a double

t := 2Ta(m/M)

[As long as a T exists (for fossils roughly around 2000-2200 °C), also a t inevitably will follow. But with no T (or a very low negligible value of it), also no t will be added: zero AGW].

With the given industrial fossil-carbon curve and its adopted mass-scale to fit the general energy-curve (E), m/t can be calculated [adopted value from 2005 as (average yearly scale base) 10.17094 T12 KG/°C, T for 10^+, with the reported yearly ca m=7 T12 KG fossil carbon to the measured total GW of ca t=+0.7°C], and (with a general Earth-based a=0.7, meaning ca 0.3 albedo) also M can be calculated [value 3.52138 T16 KG to be compared to the total atmospheric EarthM=5.3 T18 KG].

With simple figures [density at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) everywhere the same] M holds only at most h=60 meters above the solid Earth-surface to account for the measured t(AGW)-curve

— which (hence) excludes any AGW-debate on higher lying atmospheric layers (type Christy’s arguments, but also Lindzen’s »climate sensitivity»): these may (and do) contribute, but have no significance in the AGW-basics.

With a 50 pixel graphical square unit to draw from, and taking a more or less »simple» ocean (two-complex) period of type (cosx)+(cos3x) [coefficients must be added to get a scaling match to the other given curves] together with the basic t|E-smoothed fossil-carbon component, in all

y = 6[1-1/(1+[x/10]^4)] + 0.222(0.9[(2cos (pi x/1.48)) + 0.5(cos (3pi[x-0.1]/1.48))]),

or the corresponding now-year-based connection as

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)])

we have the dotted (5) from the already known and well recognized sources (as) given in

As far as here understood, this is the only (typical) exact proof of AGW that possibly ever will be seen. Note that the matching between the solid (measured) and computed (dotted) has variations depending on the local conditions given to the term »global average», and the degree of details in the measured observation.

y = 6[1 – (1+[x/10]⁴)^–1] + 0.222(0.9[2cosπ[x/1.48] + 0.5(cos3π[x–0.1]/1.48)])

dotted NASA-curve correspondent

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/AGW1.htm

The NASA-curve

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

is reduced to 65% horizontally to match the time scale of the Fossil-Carbon curve; The Fossil-Carbon vertical scale is then reduced to 33%

Original at WIKIMEDIA COMMONS:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

Also (with others) RENEWABLE ENERGY — Critical Evaluation of the U.S. Renewable Energy Policy, 2009:

http://www.renewableenergy.typepad.com/

to match (a closest possible approximation to) the (t|E)

The pure temperature/Energy curve given from the corresponding industrial Fossil-Carbon emissions curve as given at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

http://www.renewableenergy.typepad.com/

(greatly smoothed as seen by the great oceanic heat-inertial volume)

+(SeaPeriod)

The (simplified) surface ocean period curve, partly detailed in

http://icecap.us/docs/change/OceanMultidecadalCyclesTemps.pdf

ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project 2007-2008),

Ocean Multi-Decadal Changes and Temperatures, Joseph D'Aleo;

Authors references at

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

= NASA-curve vertical scale (solid NASA, dotted E+SimplifiedSea).

As is clearly seen, the matching »automatically» makes »a self proving predictive power» — however no account taken upon additive (radiative forcing) components (making the figure even worse);

There is, then, only one known agent to account for the measured Global Warming:

industry. Safely. Exactly. Precisely. Man made global warming. There is no point in this universe of ours as I know capable of showing me else-way.

Christy and Lindzen give wrong arguments (causing public chaos) because they do not account for the (unnoticed but simple) math-base (t/T-form) making up (an unmistakable equivalent to) the measured NASA-curve: the industrial fossil-carbon driving the whole (land-marine max height=60 meter) measure.

Radiative Forcing high above the Earth surface is explicitly not within the basic AGW-proof (the t/T-form giving a max h=60M), and therefore makes no contribution to the clarification of the AGW-quest itself. (Debates on the subject, not distinguishing the different aspects, make dead-end discussions).

AGW is no natural variation

AGW, a non natural phenomena, cannot be explained by the general math referred to as Arrhenius’ expressions (often termed »radiative forcing» and associated with the higher atmospheric layers): there is no driving energy function in Arrhenius natural math.

To explain (mathematically) for AGW, a strict isolated mathematical-physical complex must therefore be found (»no Arrhenius math»), including all the seven (7) known ingredients to the observed (A)GW-complex — and too, it must include »Arrhenius curves» as a special case if given specific offsets. And so is also the case, indeed (See Sw. ed. Den Globala Uppvärmningen).

Image above: Arrhenius’ expressions (dotted) included by specific offsets in the simple t|E-complex (solid).

Extensive details in

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AGWbeviset.htm - AGWbevisetDel3

See also article Basic AGW-math in this document .

That is what the simple t/T-connection does — with a seemingly fine alignment to already presented figures.

A precise and in depth description of the mathematical expressions, how they are deduced, how they compare with present [up to 2010] research and modeling concepts, is given (as yet Jun2011 only in Swedish) in

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AGWbeviset.htm.

BellDharma

HoaxersPage · TheFinalCountDown · by BellDharma 2011-07-03 | YearMonthDayTime

SkandalSidan — för folk i farten

HoaxersPage

AGW-Deniers’ Plateau

dotted: y = 6[1-1/(1+[x/10]^4)] + 0.222(0.9[(2cos (pi x/1.48)) + 0.5(cos (3pi[x-0.1]/1.48))]); or the corresponding now-year-based connection as

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

Matthew Wilson @BraveNewClimate28Jun2011

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/ - comment-130532

Matthew’s observation is — obviously — just and correct.

But so is also AGW.

— Attempts AT PRESENT from the academic scientific community to MEET Matthew’s observation with an EXPLANATION just WORSENS THE SITUATION — because the scientific community AT PRESENT has no mathematical component with which to satisfy that Quest: Arrhenius’ basic logarithmic-exponential expressions, the only mathematical tool known to the scientific community AT PRESENT to meet global warming calculus, does not cover the answer. But a just answer does indeed exist.

It seems you are deluded — together with a constantly growing crowd, these days [Jul2011].

With exactly the same predictable power as the match (dotted, also link below) holds from 1860 to now, we are in a period (2000-2040) where the natural down going sea period practically cancels the up going global warming caused by the industrial fossil carbon emission, giving a flat plateau of about 40 years duration, see (f.ex.) compiled already well known established sources in

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/AGW1.htm

Most so called deniers or skeptics refer to this present flat level as a PROOF there is no global warming: no temperature raise, but a still up going increase in CO2. This is also in perfect accord with the three derivative-integral functions explaining the dotted match, but of which (especially) the so called deniers seem particularly unaware. If you want to carry on with that legacy to your children, that will be your choice and your responsibility. On my account, I choose to select a more conservative attitude as I realize the steep coming heat-wall from around 2040 — similar to the period 1970-2000 called »The Great Pacific Climate Shift» [‡1], no account taken on additional components (permafrost). Forty years. That is, obviously, the available time humanity has to make a cure, if possible. And there obviously is only one train to catch. It is, obviously again, spelled: Departure NOW.

Hoax? Could you please develop that more in detail?

In the record of human history, you have a great opportunity in engraving the meaning of the concept of being SMART. You can use this opportunity. Or you can pass it to a future generation.

But the worst of all is this:

— Look how the academic scientific community MEETS Matthews Quest: he is about to be THROWN OUT, not to say he, the Quest by itself, is DIRECTLY DEROGATED by the actual MODERATOR, appearing as »God’s Right Hand». That is the worst of it all; There is, obviously, no open discussion — no open knowledge — in today’s »science». The academic community itself, obviously, generates the disturbing ghosts it claims everything else to be responsible for in this AGW-turbulence. [And more is to follow ...].

ANOTHER OBSERVED ISSUE in academic community, obviously, is this one:

— CAPITALS ARE NOT ALLOWED in posts, comments, in some Academic Web Sites — because, and hear this heaven and earth, it is apprehended as SHOUTING. Not emphasizing by using the only simple and direct advanced tool there is to make a FOCUS by script. Keyword. Programmers use it frequently, and effectively [Compare Borland’s DELPHI from version 1 and on with Windows API, to give a known example].

— And so it goes on, and on, and on: The modern academic community seems interested in everything — except THE POINT. It never gets to it. Deleted because capitals, OhMyGaad. Humanity obviously is in acute need of a new scientific community, worthy the name.

Se also

The RealClimate Exclusions

————————————————————————————————————————

[‡]1:

page 1 bottom of

http://icecap.us/docs/change/OceanMultidecadalCyclesTemps.pdf

Inledning

AGW-beviset behandlar genomgången av de olika partierna i detaljerad (fullt uttömmande) mening. Den här presentationen utgör, till viss del, en summering baserad på delvis nyligen upphittat material (Se B. Lin et al från 2010) som bara bekräftar det redan framförda (den allmänna kvantitativa samstämmigheten i ämnet AGW).

Med ev. vidare från GLOBAL UPPVÄRMNING — matematiska samband.

References

AGW

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Several (many) webSources use the term AGW for »Anthropogenic Global Warming». But few (if any, still looking Jul2011) seem to derive the actual historical passage as to when and where it came about. Perhaps nobody can tell — except WE who were there around 2000 and the following decade. Direct historical records are found on the Web under Climate History and Climate Change.

Arrhenius' Greenhouse Law

”Arrhenius's greenhouse law for CO2”,

WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008)

http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf

B. Lin et al

TOA — abbrev. TopOfAtmosphere:

”

Since there is almost no heat storage

change within the atmosphere and land at annual time

scales owing to their negligible heat capacity and temperature

change, the TOA net radiation or the imbalance should

be the same as ocean heat storage change. Actually, the measurements

of interannual variations of TOA net radiation and

ocean heat storage are found to be very consistent (Wong

et al., 2006). From the ocean heat storage measurements, the

TOA net radiation can be inferred as about 0.85 W/m² (Wong

et al., 2006; Willis et al., 2004). Thus, the average value of

0.85 W/m² for the annual means of the last 10 years is used

in this study, following Hansen et al. (2005) and Trenberth et

al. (2009).

”, p1926col2mb;