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:

8 Jul 2011 at 9:25 AM

 

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:

8 Jul 2011 at 2:22 PM

 

@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:

8 Jul 2011 at 2:22 PM

 

@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:

8 Jul 2011 at 3:04 PM

 

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:

8 Jul 2011 at 11:43 PM

 

#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:

9 Jul 2011 at 3:28 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 3:30 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 3:32 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 3:56 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 5:04 PM

 

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).”

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/

 

 

189

ccpo says:

9 Jul 2011 at 5:44 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 5:48 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 6:03 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 7:03 PM

 

— 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:

9 Jul 2011 at 7:19 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 7:54 PM

 

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:

9 Jul 2011 at 8:15 PM

 

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:

 

 

199

dhogaza says:

9 Jul 2011 at 11:26 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 4:54 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 5:15 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:05 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:09 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:11 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:12 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:16 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:20 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:23 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 11:27 AM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 1:23 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 4:18 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 4:22 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 4:24 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 7:07 PM

 

@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

 

 

237

Ray Ladbury says:

10 Jul 2011 at 7:36 PM

 

Gwinnevere, What you are saying makes no sensequite 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:

10 Jul 2011 at 8:08 PM

 

Gwinnevere

 

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):

 

HADCRUT

 

GISTEMP

 

UAH

 

 

Starts talking ABOUT Gwinnevere — openly:

 

 

240

dhogaza says:

10 Jul 2011 at 8:21 PM

 

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:

10 Jul 2011 at 9:56 PM

 

Gwinnevere- After reading your comments, and considering the Turing test, I have to ask: are you a text generator?

 

 

248

john byatt says:

11 Jul 2011 at 12:38 AM

 

#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:

11 Jul 2011 at 8:00 AM

 

“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 parametersdoes 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:

12 Jul 2011 at 11:46 PM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 12:26 AM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 1:11 AM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 1:22 AM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 2:26 AM

 

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

 

 

269

Didactylos says:

13 Jul 2011 at 8:37 AM

 

Gwinnevere: No.

 

You’re not even wrong.

 

Learn to walk before you try running.

 

 

271

Gwinnevere says:

13 Jul 2011 at 12:50 PM

 

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:

 

 

273

tamino says:

13 Jul 2011 at 1:16 PM

 

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.

 

 

276

Hank Roberts says:

13 Jul 2011 at 3:03 PM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 7:15 PM

 

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:

13 Jul 2011 at 8:01 PM

 

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

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

 

erased

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

 

erased

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

 

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:

14 Jul 2011 at 7:50 AM

 

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.