"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: hersheyh on 1 Aug 2010 13:36 On Aug 1, 12:41 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 10:00 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: [snip] > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > > > and > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > > > > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is > > > > > Neither am I. That is why I question why it was used. > > > > It was used to get rid of the accumulating trend. The temp and co2 > > > lines did not have the same slope because they are measured in > > > different units. If you want to compare details on them you need to > > > be able to match them up. The easiest way to do that was to remove > > > the slopes from both lines and scale one to about the same magnitude > > > as the other. I could make an educated guess at the math behind the > > > command but I'm not going to bother. If you really want to know the > > > exact method just download the source code from the site for free. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/software > > > > > > but the peaks are > > > > > at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks > > > > > like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 > > > > > > or > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 > > > > > > Now look at the raw data again. > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 > > > > > > The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising > > > > > that 2010 had a spike. > > > > > > Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different > > > > > slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by > > > > > removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly > > > > > cycles. > > > > > And that, in itself, could explain the pattern. > > > > I'm all ears if you want to try to explain how that works. While you > > > are at it explain where the spikes every 4 or 5 years come from > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > That is a plot of the monthly data just as it comes from GISS. I > > > think you are going to have a hard time explaining those spikes using > > > yearly cycles alone. > > > > > > The max co2 shows up 3 months after the min temp of winter, > > > > > and min co2 shows up 3 months after max temp of summer at Mauna Loa. > > > > > But there a other things that work on a yearly cycle. Better to look > > > > > at longer cycles where the affects go deeper into the water and there > > > > > is more lag. > > > > > > Anyway, as far as I can see it all looks legit. > > > > > It might be, but not the way it was presented. Specifically, it was > > > > used to claim that CO2 increases after temperature increases and > > > > implied that this meant that *all* the excess CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > came from CO2 released from the ocean and thus the correlation between > > > > CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is mixing up cause and effect.. > > > > When I first presented the graph I wrote > > > > "This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean." > > > > Yes, the graph was used to support the claim that co2 increases after > > > temperature increases. What's wrong with that? > > > After thinking a little bit more, I think that what the graph really > > shows is something similar to the lag seen in the annual cycle of CO2 > > levels. The annual cycle arises because there is a growing season, > > during which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to produce plant and > > animal material, and a decaying season, during which CO2 is generated > > by dead and decaying material. > > Show me the math that creates the 4 to 5 year cycles in the raw data. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > If you can't do that you are just blowing smoke. *You* are the one claiming that this graph says something worthwhile. *You* are the one that needs to explain the math if I am wrong in my description of what this graph represents. I described how I think this graph was produced from the raw CO2 and temperature data. First, flatten the increasing curve of both CO2 and temperature into a straight line, thus removing changes due to fossil fuel introduction of CO2 and the temperature increases correlated with that increase. Second use averaging to remove the annual fluctuations of both temperature and CO2. What is left is variation that is not observable when you examine the raw data because it has too small an effect. That small amount of variation due to multiyear factors in the exchange of CO2 with the known CO2 sink of plant material then becomes evident. That small multiyear exchange specifically is mathematically removing both annual fluctuations and exchange and the long-term increase in CO2 (in both upper ocean and atmosphere) and temperature. If that is not what this graph shows, then what does it show. > > What this graph does is to *first* > > remove all evidence of the increase of atmospheric CO2 *and* all > > evidence of the increase of temperature related to that increase > > (which is why the line is flat). > > It does not remove *all* evidence or there would be no signal left. By flattening the curve of increase (smoothly), it is mathematically removing most of the fossil fuel effect on CO2 and temperature. By averaging over a year, it is mathematically removing the annual fluctuations. What it represents is the residual changes in atmospheric CO2 to plants equilibrium that occur over longer time frames than a year, but not the increase due to fossil fuel additions to both the atmosphere and ocean. > > This, of course, is the change that > > is relevant to global warming. > > Which is not what we were looking for. We were looking for evidence > of which signal was lagging the other. I'm starting to think you have > ADD. I know that there is a seasonal lag between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that that is in the direction of atmospheric CO2 lagging temperature (and this is due to differences between the time of uptake of C into plants and outgo of C from decaying plant and animal material). There is also a lag between atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels and its appearance in the upper oceans (on a different time scale, but also relatively short). But your claim (at least as implied) is that the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is coming *from* the oceans rather than going into the oceans. That is nonsense unsupported by the data. The ocean is and has been a net sink. The graph you point to, in particular, does no such thing as tell us that most of atmospheric CO2 comes from the upper ocean (aqueous chemical sink). It is an examination of the *residual* of an equilibrium process between atmospheric CO2 and the sink we call 'plant' material (actually, plant and animal). It tells us that a very small fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is moving into and out of a sink on a multiyear cycle of some sort. That it is a very small fraction of CO2 is evident from the fact that one has to mathematically remove both decade long trends and annual fluctuations in order to see it. That the CO2 release lags temperature, tells us that the temperature rise (up to a point) somehow allows slightly more CO2 than would be expected from the annual cycle to be incorporated into plant material only to be given back up when that material decays. Possible explanations for this *small* effect, which would otherwise be hidden in the decades long increase and annual cycle, could be cycles in ocean currents (El Nino/Nina?) or cycles in weather cycles. > > *Second*, it averages out changes in > > CO2 and temperature over the course of a year. What remains, then, > > are changes in averaged temperature and averaged CO2 levels that are > > NOT due to either annual changes > > Yes, there are too many things that could be affecting annual cycles > so we are looking at longer cycles. > > > or changes due to the secular > > increase in temperature and CO2 due to the input of fossil fuels. > > What part of the explaination that you cannot tell which is lagging > when both are rising do you not understand? I understand lagging just fine and accept it for not only the annual cycle but whatever is driving this small residual effect. I am merely pointing out that your interpretation doesn't make sense as an explanation of why CO2 has increased over time in *both* atmosphere and ocean since the industrial revolution. It makes more sense that the residual is primarily due to plant absorption and decay processes. Besides the effect is small. So small that it can only be detected by mathematically removing the much larger effects of fossil fuel input to the atmosphere and the annual growth cycle. IOW, it is insignificant. Interesting in its own right, but insignificant as a driver of atmospheric CO2 levels. > To determine which lags > you need to find where both respond to the same input. We might not > know what caused those spikes in the temperture every 4 to 5 years, > but we can see that the co2 level didn't respond until after the > temperature change. The most reasonable explaination for the change > in co2 was that it was responding to the change in temp. If you have > a better explaination I'm all ears. I don't buy it that the 4 to 5 > year co2 peaks that match up with the temp peaks above are created by > annual plant growth. You're grasping at straws. No. I agree that whatever this small residual cycle represents, it probably, like the annual cycle, is temperature driven. I just question the relevance of this small residual effect to the larger fact that the ocean is currently acting as a sink for fossil fueled atmospheric CO2. > > > That is, we are looking at fluctuations that occur because some sets > > of years have better/longer growing potential than others and more > > growth will be followed by more decay. There is NO evidence that most/ > > any of the CO2 release is primarily due to oceans. > > If you are talking about the over all increase in co2 then I never > made that claim. If you are talking about the co2 peaks that match up > with the temp peaks I think the evidence is pretty strong. To use the > AGW line, "What else could it be?" Yes. For this small and relatively insignificant effect on the CO2 equilibrium. It may be interesting. But it is not that important. > > > This is all that > > this graph means, AFAICT. That the fluctuation in the equilibrium > > level of atmospheric CO2 is not *entirely* explained by annual trends > > or trends due to the secular increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil > > fuels. That there is a small fraction of CO2 atmospheric levels that > > involve multi-year cycles of uptake and outgo from the sink of plant > > and animal materials. BFD. > > And it just happens to cooincide with temp fluctuations. Yeah, > right ;) Yes. As is the annual cycle. But it is just not very important. The fact remains that it is fossil fuel usage that is causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere *and* the increase in CO2 (and decrease in pH) in the upper ocean. A tiny residual effect related to temperature that follows a 4-5 year cycle which, like the quantitatively larger annual cycle involves a lag between CO2 uptake and outgo, may be interesting, but is not quantitatively important. That you have to explicitly remove both the uptrend of CO2 and the annual cycle to even see the effect tells you that. > > > It uses the same raw > > > data used to support AGW theory. That's how science works, you study > > > the data and see what it tells you. As for the second part of your > > > statement I most definitely did not say or mean to imply that *all* > > > the excess co2 was released from the ocean. All I have said is that > > > the co2 level is affected by the temp. That is pretty well > > > established by the observed fact that the changes in co2 level track > > > the temp with a lag, not the other way around. Based on that it's not > > > much of a reach to say that a good share of the yearly cycle of the > > > co2 level observed is due to temperture changes, and those are of much > > > greater magnitude then the longer cycles we were looking at. > > > And the annual cycle (which is in equilibrium) is much greater, in a > > quantitative sense, than the multiyear fluctuations you are looking at > > in that graph. > > The annual temperature cycle around here ranges from 100°F to -40°F. > Does that mean a few hundreths of a degree annual increase due to GW > doesn't matter? > > > *And* the change due to the increased input of CO2 > > from fossil fuel burning in the atmosphere/upper ocean system is even > > greater in magnitude. Of course, in the graph you presented, *both* > > the annual and fossil fuel contributions are mathematically removed so > > that you can *see* the minor impact of multi-year changes in > > atmospheric CO2 that occur when those *major* factors are removed. > > The exact same thing is done to show the tiny changes due to GW. Are > you saying there is something wrong with that technique? No. They are not the same. You are claiming that this residual category is important solely because CO2 lags the small temperature change. It is not. *If* this were a major source of atmospheric CO2, you wouldn't have to remove both the overall upward trend and the annual cycle. Mean temperature change of a few degrees, however, is important to living organisms who have rather narrow temperature criteria. And to geological features like glaciers. > > > It could, in fact, be nothing but a lag artifact. > > > > If you wish to invoke things like that you need to show how. I > > > supported the graph I presented. It works both ways.> > If you can think of a > > > > > different reason for the close match of the cycles and the lag I would > > > > > like to hear it. > > > > > > That's all I have time for right now. Later :)
From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Aug 2010 13:38 On Aug 1, 10:47 am, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 10:00 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > > > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > > > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > > > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > > > > > addition to this cycle. > > > > > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > > > > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > > > > > exclusion of all else. > > > > > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > > > > > graph I posted. > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > > > > > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > > > > > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > > > > > graph. > > > > > Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an > > > > analysis with multi year cycles. > > > > > > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > > > > > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > > > > > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > > > > > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > > > > > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a > > > > life. > > > > > The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here > > > > in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28... > > > > > Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) > > > > > I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data > > > > showing the yearly cycles. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > > Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. > > > > > Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > > Looks about right copared to > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > > > > > Here is GISS temp monthly > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 > > > > > yearly > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 > > > > > and 5 year > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 > > > > > So the site is using the correct data. > > > > > Looking at the graph > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > > it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above > > > > those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the > > > > rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year > > > > cycles. To check I tried > > > > IOW, the graph shown *specifically* and *intentionally* removes all > > > evidence of the *major* observable effect, namely the correlation of > > > increasing CO2 and temperature to focus on minor (and possibly > > > insignificant) fluctuation relationships between CO2 levels at Mauna > > > Loa and global temperature *after* one removes the major effect. > > > The fact that both are rising tells you nothing about which leads or > > lags. And the fact that they both rise does not prove correlation. > > So, to what do you attribute the rise of both atmospheric CO2 *and* > ocean CO2 over the last 50 years, if not the burning of fossil fuels? > To what do you attribute the global rise in temperature over the same > time frame? There are a number of factors that have contributed, and yes, burning fossil fuels is one of them. I never said otherwise. Obviously burning fossil fuels produces co2. Now tell me what this has to do with what I wrote directly above. > > There are all kinds of things that have risen with respect to time > > that have nothing to do with each other. If anything the fact that > > these minor deviations relate to each other supports that there is a > > correlation. It just doesn't happen to be in the way you would like > > to see it. As for this being a minor effect, the AGW signal gets > > swamped by normal fluctuations. Does that make it insignificant? > > The AGW signals (both CO2 and temperature) are not swamped by even > annual fluctuations (much less the even tinier multiyear fluctuations > your graph shows) over the 50 year time frame. The total rise in global temp since 1850 is about 1.5°C. Even if you attribute all of that to AGW it amounts to about .01°C per year. Are you telling me that the temp where you live doesn't change by more than .01°C during the course of a year? I didn't think so. On this graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 there are places where the temp changes by over .10°C per year, making it a far stronger signal than the .01°C AGW increase. > That is why you had to > remove them to see the multiyear fluctuations in the exchange between > rapid exchange sink (mostly plant material) and the atmosphere. > If I had told you that the lag in the annual co2 cycle was due to temperature would you have acceped that? Not too likely huh. So a different cycle was used. Still you are trying to claim that the annual cycle of plant growth somehow can account for up to a year of lag in a five year signal. This is a perfect example of what Dawlish describes as pulling your visor down. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > > and > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > > > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is > > > > Neither am I. That is why I question why it was used. > > > It was used to get rid of the accumulating trend. The temp and co2 > > lines did not have the same slope because they are measured in > > different units. If you want to compare details on them you need to > > be able to match them up. The easiest way to do that was to remove > > the slopes from both lines and scale one to about the same magnitude > > as the other. I could make an educated guess at the math behind the > > command but I'm not going to bother. If you really want to know the > > exact method just download the source code from the site for free. > > IOW, you get rid of the major observable trend over 50 years and the > major observable annual trend in order to focus on minor multiyear > fluctuations in the exchange between atmospheric CO2 and some sink > (probably NOT the ocean, per se, but plant material, whether oceanic > or land). The question was which signal leads and which lags. The 50 year trend tells us nothing about that. Getting rid of it made it easier to see what was left. It may be possible to see the lag even with the trend left in there, just as you can see the 4 to 5 year temp cycles here http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 It is just easier to see them when you strip away the trend. That you have such a hard time grasping that idea while accepting it when it is applied to AGW says something about you. If you are just going to keep beating a dead horse I'm going to quit wasting my time responding.
From: Claudius Denk on 3 Aug 2010 02:33 On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Continued from previous thread. > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > be beyond human control. You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > apply yourself. Superposition?
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 3 Aug 2010 14:52 On Aug 3, 2:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Continued from previous thread. > > > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > > be beyond human control. > > You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > > > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > > apply yourself. > > Superposition? You are remaining very cryptic and have not given much expression of your position. When I ask you about rates of change you come back with a blank response, as if you cannot conceive of this concept. The six billion humans on earth burning fossil fuels daily is a spike in time unlike other spikes in time. Coal burning back in the 1800's was probably an active effect on climate, but the exponential curve that we witness will not carry on. In terms of the cell analysis you only answer with a question. So I suppose it is for me to fill out the idea a bit further to gain your critique. A simpler instance is a five fold symmetry that can occur in a water bucket when stirred to form a vortex. We must accept that the vortex is unitary, yet we will still have to admit that there is a five fold discrete symmetry emanating. These two discrete procedures are then in superposition. We can regard the ultimate atmospheric flow as one celled, so long as material in the polar region does make it to the equator. We have to admit that a two or three celled system is the prevalent one, but to what degree the proper arithmetic analysis includes this single cell flow, well, this is my question to you. I suppose that if we accept that there is more atmosphere in existence then there will be some interaction, and we can consider several outcomes: 1. More atmosphere means more vertical motion, leading to more cells rather than less, and so a diminishment of any single cell phenomena. 2. More atmosphere means more room for clean flow, leading to an increase of the single cell flow in superposition with any multicell flows. I am thinking that 2. is the stronger of these. I would think you could step in here with some Corioliss type analysis to appear smart, right? The one thing I am seeing in this moment is that when Coriolis type forces bend the path they are raising the pressure or the temperature. I presume that you, if you are advanced as you claim are more in favor of feedback prinicples leading to self corrections that stabilize the system. I am mostly just attempting to do analysis here and am not at all immersed in this field, except within the societal swing that is taking place. I see this "Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere which does support your claim that the greenhouse effect is bunky. Still, the change in CO2 level, and this is one of those Gore graphs where he steps onto a lift in order to show where we are going, is dramatic. What happens if we run out of oil and continue our demand for fuel via biomass? There are just too many arguments for population dampers to be implemented. Every human should want high grade natural resources, which means less humans. Thus far the atheistic Chinese are the only ones to implement a serious plan. - Tim
From: Claudius Denk on 4 Aug 2010 03:24
On Aug 3, 11:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 2:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > Continued from previous thread. > > > > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > > > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > > > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > > > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > > > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > > > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > > > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > > > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > > > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > > > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > > > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > > > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > > > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > > > be beyond human control. > > > You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > > > > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > > > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > > > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > > > apply yourself. > > > Superposition? > > You are remaining very cryptic and have not given much expression of > your position. Remember this: "Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of dimwitted nose pickers." I think it's pretty expressive. > When I ask you about rates of change you come back with > a blank response, as if you cannot conceive of this concept. As I recall, I asked you for clarification and you declined. > The six > billion humans on earth burning fossil fuels daily is a spike in time > unlike other spikes in time. Coal burning back in the 1800's was > probably an active effect on climate, but the exponential curve that > we witness will not carry on. I used to think this way. > > In terms of the cell analysis you only answer with a question. So I > suppose it is for me to fill out the idea a bit further to gain your > critique. A simpler instance is a five fold symmetry that can occur in > a water bucket when stirred to form a vortex. We must accept that the > vortex is unitary, yet we will still have to admit that there is a > five fold discrete symmetry emanating. These two discrete procedures > are then in superposition. uh, okay. What's your point? > > We can regard the ultimate atmospheric flow as one celled, so long as > material in the polar region does make it to the equator. We have to > admit that a two or three celled system is the prevalent one, but to > what degree the proper arithmetic analysis includes this single cell > flow, well, this is my question to you. I suppose that if we accept > that there is more atmosphere in existence then there will be some > interaction, and we can consider several outcomes: > > 1. More atmosphere means more vertical motion, leading to more > cells rather than less, and so a diminishment of any single cell > phenomena. > > 2. More atmosphere means more room for clean flow, leading to an > increase of the single cell flow in superposition with any multicell > flows. > > I am thinking that 2. is the stronger of these. > I would think you could step in here with some Corioliss type analysis Well, it's nice to know you think so highly of me but I honestly don't see what your point is. > to appear smart, right? Appear smart? > The one thing I am seeing in this moment is > that when Coriolis type forces bend the path they are raising the > pressure or the temperature. You need to be able to see more than one thing at a time in order so correctly understand the dynamics of the causative processes therein. > I presume that you, if you are advanced as you claim are more in favor > of feedback prinicples leading to self corrections that stabilize the > system. Actually, no. But that's only because I prefer a manifold system (especially if it is a manifold system that is replete with vortex dampers) as the primary means to achieve stablilization. Self correction is, in my mind, a bit of a pipe dream. Especially after the experiments by Hollywell. > I am mostly just attempting to do analysis here and am not at > all immersed in this field, except within the societal swing that is > taking place. Given the freshness of your perspective I imagine it must seem more like a yo-yo at times than a swing. Hang in there, though. Don't worry. It gets easier. > I see this > "Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural." > from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere > which does support your claim that the greenhouse effect is bunky. > Still, the change in CO2 level, and this is one of those Gore graphs > where he steps onto a lift in order to show where we are going, is > dramatic. This was the hockey sticks grandest moment. You can ignore it. > What happens if we run out of oil and continue our demand for fuel via > biomass? > There are just too many arguments for population dampers to be > implemented. Every human should want high grade natural resources, > which means less humans. Thus far the atheistic Chinese are the only > ones to implement a serious plan. I think it's embarassing that a country that big can't even field one car on the NASCAR circuit. |