AGW1&2 — Proof of
Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW1
AGW1
|
|
1.
NASA land-marine measured temperature curve during the 20:th century as
presented in http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ 2. The pure
temperature/Energy curve in (1) 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) 3. 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 4. (2) + (3) 5. (4) dotted over
solid (1) — see enlarged below. |
AGW2 — (5)
See also NOTE below the figure.
NOTE WITH CARE that the dotted match in the
figure above is NOT recognized by modern academy standards. [See RealClimate]. It is not even recognized as such:
Its notification is openly taunted by the RealClimate personnel (further
referenced below).
For anyone eventually interested in the development of the details in
anthropogenic global warming (Jul2011), a separate article on the subject is
under edition; The revelation of the content behind RealClimate has depicted
the situation to be a little more complicated than advertised, and yet simple
(as many of us already may have noticed).
The principle figure above prevails with the named
NASA/CRU/GISS-extensions,
Sample@INTERNET
22Jul2011
|
NASA versions Sep2009 | Jul2011 |
NASA/CRU |
NASA/GISS |
|
|
|
NASA association |
|
CRU (Climatic Research Unit) |
(See also the NASA-links above), and will be discussed and
related with further additional detailed comparisons with RealClimate for your
knowledge.
When launched, the additional article will be notified here — See AGW and RealClimate. The article below is only a (first) complement.
Addition from BellDharma
for Gwinnevere
All Gwinnevere associated posts
2011-07-14 |
YearMonthDayTime 17:30
The RealClimate Exclusions
Something we don’t like
in humanity, is appearance of discrimination — whatsoever.
The following content is for your complete
— uncut — personal reference, whether you agree or not.
In posting a reference on details to the
well known @INTERNET WebSite RealClimate
the posting person
Gwinnevere, in connecting to ARRHENIUS AND AGW, seems to have ended up as termed a (quote) »CRANK» (and
perhaps, »INFANT»).
That would, of course, be OK — if a
corresponding space was offered for defence.
However, it seems RealClimate WebSite
(”Climate science from climate scientists”) does not approve of such an order,
but chooses a more one-sided attitude — of this character:
WHILE continuing to give derogative comments
on Gwinneveres posts, RealClimate deleted Gwinneveres answers.
The actual RealClimate
topic has this following URL (beginning from post no140
from Gwinnevere, page 3),
and continuing over the
following pages, ending/prohibiting at page 6 (post no266),
at it seems.
We
can follow the development of arguments (mostly) by searching for
”gwin”-occurrences.
— While excluding
Gwinnevere from further posting, comments of an unmistakable degrading and derogative
nature did continue to be addressed to Gwinnevere — with all kinds of proposed
defects. Especially, as it seems, opinions on »her English».
Wao. ”Climate science from climate
scientists”. Some persons really know how to take advantage of such an
excellent opportunity in establishing a solid credit.
In case you have any interest in following
what is happening »at the frontiers»:
The following excerpts are the
deleted/inhibited/prohibited posts from Gwinnevere on RealClimate — to give a
fair picture of the arguing situation:
See also a full addition
of
All Gwinnevere
associated posts at RealClimate
The
deleted/inhibited/prohibited posts from Gwinnevere on RealClimate
2011-07-14 | YearMonthDayLocalTime 02:30
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
...
no269
Didactylos:
— 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
...
no273
tamino:
— 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
...
no276
Hank Roberts:
— 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
END RealClimate excerpts.
IF
this (the above exposed)
would be a representative section of established science on Earth 2011, there
is no wonder the situation is as it is. It seems the plug has been taken out,
all together.
—
It was already stated from the beginning in this encyclopedic exercise: MAC [Modern Academy — the responsible
AGW creator, not the workers at the factories]
is [apparently]
a primitive institution on Planet Earth, born out of the essential nazistic
idea that mathematics is a human creation,
the PRINCIPLE idea that intelligence is authorized by human institutions, not
by Nature.
Compare explicitly the Fields Medal (first
1936) Medallion Text (‘the finest award a mathematician can have’ [MATEMATIK
2000 Lärobok 3 · NT | Naturvetenskapsprogrammet, Björk · Borg · Brolin · Ljungström
· Natur och Kultur 1991, p219]):
”Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri”, »To
overwin ones human limit and become master of
the universe».
NATURE is, always was, and will continue to
be, master of the universe. Not any human.
See also explicitly in ENTROPY —
how MAC unplugs the bare idea
of a purpose in Universe — and how its
primitive idea is explained by related physics as such: primitive.
Do
see the 1h29m INTERNET FILM unless already familiar,
PHILOSOPHY, PHYSICS, MATHEMATICS - DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE
(BBC FOUR)
You
will most probably have one of your most interesting 1h29m sessions. Good film,
basic reference.
—
Modern academy does not realize it is overrun, always has been, always will be,
by this: nature.
The
Entropy-article focuses on the most essential details.
See also a full addition
of
All Gwinnevere
associated posts at RealClimate
A NOTIFICATION of the above publishing
has been sent to RealClimate of the following content:
To RealClimate:
As this writ anyway will be
read/moderated by you, you are hereby notified of its content:
While still unresolved in question,
RealClimate seems to have deleted responding posts from the person Gwinnevere,
while at the same time comments on previous posts TO Gwinnevere continued.
I will make a report on this, on an open
place on the web, available for anyone to inspect; The posts from Gwinnevere
you deleted will be published by me, so that people can get a full — and thus a
fair — picture of the actual argumentation, not only your one-sided version of
repeated cuts (with ev. further continuing verses and pounces aimed at a
further derogation of the person Gwinnevere).
Humanity never was impressed by persons
in any community believing themselves to be the center of Intelligence —
proposing a general division of humanity into A-people and B-people. That is
essentially nazistic (not in the English
dictionary, meaning: of a not openly Nazi uniformed but still daily established
character applying to the behavior showing contempt of truth, especially in
concern of equal human rights of opinion in recognizing a general face of
respectable conduct)
idealization, and we are not interested in its issues, attitudes or
contemptuous preferences. We have Nature for the purpose of Intelligence, and
without Her, nothing. The rest should be open for a serious scientific arguing,
which it seems RealClime is unable to comply. That is indeed sad.
If you want to add something to this
appeal, whatever, it is custom to give you an opportunity to do so.
You can send your response, if any, to
the email-address of this post. If an answer will be received from you, it will
be added — uncut — to the publication.
Thank you for sharing.
With kind greetings, BellDharma for
Gwinnevere
2011-07-14 | YearMonthDayLocalTime 18:45
Last updated version YearMonthDayTime 2011-07-22
*