AGW3 — About
Proofs of Anthropogenic Global Warming and RealClimate Mathematics | Introduced
2011VII15 | Latest
updated version: YearMonthDayTime 2011-07-25 |
content thisPage · FindText on this WebPage Ctrl+F
AGW and
RealClimate by BellDharma
The
discovery of a mathematical elite on Earth |
Comparing
results from B. Lin et al 2010 |
RealClimate Pushing/Mixing
pollution for climate |
AGW
vs RealClimate |
max
error ± 0.7% |
Excerpt
of TRUTH | Related Mathematics and
Physics — not found @INTERNET
| Why&How AGW holds
| English Summation
The situation is worse than
thought. Many so called deniers seem to be right — not in that AGW is a »hoax»
or »scam» or a »fraud». AGW holds. But the established references trying to
EXPLAIN the phenomenon apparently are in hands of really bad educated, however
academically well merited, claiming themselves to be »an intellectual elite on
Earth». That would be OK IF they also accepted an open debate on details, now
when the different stances have appeared. They don’t (They are afraid to
expose details, the general flaws and inabilities in modern academy in
understanding basic physics and mathematics on Earth the year 2011, for which
they apparently answer with taunting, see details in The
RealClimate Exclusions, running to hide behind merited
academics fences; we sum it cowardice). The following shows the essential
details in how and why it has come to be so in the AGW-complex — or is anyway
an attempt to expose it. Science is now an open field.
AGW and
RealClimate — July 2011
After
a SHORT visit to RealClimate:
the
dottedRed appeareD [see the right part below, termed
RealClimate Predicators]:
RealClimate personnel believes the nearest future (from now July 2011) will develop
approximately and roughly according to the red dotted raising slope: the
personnel strongly resist any detailed discussion, further
details below. The RealClimate predictions are based on CO2-concentration
analysis in atmospheric samples (satellite data collection) under »mathematical
statistics», apparently directed by a now revealed foremost proclaimed
»mathematical elite» on Earth: domain at RealClimate. The black dotted line is
the amplitude sum of the smoothed Industry-energy Fossil Carbon curve
(orange E below) and (a simplified version of) The Natural Sea periods, as shown below.
Click on the images to read a more detailed description.
t(NASA) = –0.4 |
+ (1.765)[1–1/(1+[(YEAR–1815)/212.7]^4)] |
+ 0.0653(0.9[(2cosπ(YEAR–1880)/31.48)+0.5(cos3π[YEAR–1880-0.1]/31.48)]) |
There is an even closer
match to this specific NASA-version by the SeaPeriods in [Sw.ed.]
The Period-Difference. However note,
that we are dealing with a global average: no »precise» figure exists.
The statistical method
cannot explain, describe or express this result, see WHY
— except as a close approximation by so called »climate modeling». See The AGW-group, also further below in RealClimate
Modeling Mathematics. The solid underlying gray line belongs
to the original (2009) NASA-temperature curve. Its original has since been
replaced by other types, however still in general representation of the above
depicted principal form. A survey of the different NASA-types is shown in NASA-versions. A compiled source of
links to the different established NASA-curve sources is found in the AGW1-reference, and in Man Made Global Warming.
The
scientific impression (before direct contact with RealClimate)
was: the discovered match
(dotted black) will be most welcome. It will be interesting to discuss the details
with professional researchers — in preparing for a near CURE. Humanity
is so unified.
Response in practice: Taunt. Banning by
directing a ”sensible and constructive” arguing. Rejection by the strongest. No
detailed discussions. See The
RealClimate Exclusions. RealClimate is
obviously no open scientific community. That was sad to hear.
Maybe
this is what is feared: equality, truth
.See CONTEXT TRANSLATED EXCERPT
below, and ENTROPYCONCEPT IN RELATED PHYSICS (Sw.ed)
for camparing purposes — it includes examples, comparisons and many cross
referring links to established ideas, esp. those confluent in/with Wikipedia
(”verifiability, not truth”,
from Wikipedia policy). Collision head on.
ONE PERSON appeared (seemingly) sensible
and constructive at RealClimate (wayne davidson, to which the post from [our
investigator] Gwinnevere also was dedicated).
Through the short dialogue that appeared, it was clear that the proposed
so called ’lull’, the plateau seen above at ca 2000-2040, was interpreted as
’impossible’ (also aimed at
by additional comment from JCH [post no239][Jul2011] with references to HADCRUT, GISTEMP and UAH) — and further inferred by the fact from RealClimate
to ban (stop) any additional posting on the subject (see also IPCC below).
HADCRUT GISTEMP UAH
From these implications, and to some
extent from the general IPCC-chart collecting the different climate
modeling forecasts
the rough DottedRed from RealClimate appeared. That is —
generalized — a rough equal to the central t|E-power function curve seen above
left [t(AGW)], see The AGW-group and further below in The Elementary
Transient Function.
However is any exact detail in the DottedRed at present impossible to verify from
the source in accord with its strange and hostile, apparently mobbing attitude
(See The RealClimate Exclusions).
One thing that also emerged out of the
visit to RealClimate was the following one — perhaps the most astonishing of
all in a community supposed to appear as SCIENTIFIC: the central connecting
expression, explaining the AGW-math (See Man Made Global Warming):
t = 2Ta(m/M) ..................... the
heart of the matter
Nobody even asked, neither got a note of
its existence. The RealClimate population — apparently planet Earth’s leading
academic elite of merited mathematicians 2011 — just closed down the whole
subject as nonsense, without even looking, even less without asking.
What a wonderful examination. (WHAT dragged this type into the educational
institutions? Obviously not a scientific interest).
We
can look at »the result», the AGW-math as follows by comparison with »the
RealClimate basics».
Comparison — how
statistical modeling adheres to AGW-math
Overlayed
comparison
Basic AGW-math with overlayed compared results from B.
Lin et al 2010, p1927t Fig 2, see
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/1923/2010/acp-10-1923-2010.pdf
NOTE.
B. Lin et al 2010 may be a rare exception in modern academy. The result
from the group, blurred gray and red above, is however based on other research
groups (often) figuring in IPCC-matters (type, Hansen et al). In this
example the results from the B. Lin-group only serves to illuminate the
difference between the established modern academic ideas (RealClimate)
compared to the much more simple to understand AGW-math as it appears from the elementary energy transient
function, orange
above.
The overlayed result
(blurred gray and red) shows a direct similar match to the underlying
AGW-mathematical components detailed in Man Made Global Warming. But the
overlay (B. Lin et al 2010) is based on simulated climate modeling from
CO2-concentrations where no exact central driving
temperature-energy function is possible to derive, see RealClimate
Modeling Mathematics. While the exact explanation apparently
attends to the orange energy transient function, any forcing
statistics trying to compel a MATCH also never will find a credible account on
precise quantities of the actual energy transient function, which is the
central curve and function in The AGW-group.
The match confirms and thus further
explains the basic properties and differences between mathematical statistics
(using Arrhenius math) and AGW-math (power functions having no climate
connectivity, no natural variability) in The AGW-group. The similarity only
confirms, and hence refers, the identity by principle. See a detailed
description from AGW and Arrhenius. Personnel at RealClimate is however openly taunting
the above presented comparisons, apparently banning any detailed discussion.
See a separate report at The
RealClimate Exclusions.
It is not known how RealClimate personnel
treats the results from B. Lin et al 2010 (Perhaps they
are banned too). The apparently extremely contemptuous (aggressive) personnel
does not allow a discussion on the subject of matching quantities.
Below is shown the B. Lin et al corresponding
logarithmic model curve fitting with the AGW-Sea power curve (W/M²). As we see
from the basic The AGW-group, the result from B. Lin et
al 2010 corresponds almost directly to the logarithmic dotted blue below,
Click
on the picture above leads to the Swedish original triple AGW-curve description
— the htm-page may require a few seconds [on slower Internet connections]
before the image loads, please excuse us.
And so we can see, by direct practical
example (logarithm part bottom, with a simulated energy part middle, further
below in RealClimate modeling mathematics), that the established modeling exposes
a MIX of [dF=X/dx] logarithmic (sea heat content vs radiative forcing,
bottom) and [dF=Xdx]
power [transient] functions (central energy, middle) —
contained as described and expressed by the AGW-math. From this, the AGW-math term (now
by itself) apparently depicts a (new) branch of natural intelligence that
modern academy not only never cared to notify, but also apparently has choosed
to derogate. See separate report in The
RealClimate Exclusions.
Note
the general proportionality between Temperature and Energy through the general gas law,
pV=kT=E
giving E=kT;
As the effect (power) P=E/t, it holds that
P=[E=kT]/t, which connects to radiative forcing.
Similarly,
from Pt=E=kT where P from Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law
[P=aAkT^4] can be related to a Temperature function [T], the differential form
Tdt associates to a (further) power function.
These details appear in modern academy
climate modeling mathematics in a practical example as described by the source
of B. Lin et al from 2010;
They write the basic model expression [developed from earlier works by still
others in modern quarters] p1924col2mb as
with
a final form p1925col2b
Note
that the solution to these expressions include numerical methods [special
computer programs]. The authors write about it p1926col2b,
”With
these aforesaid two constraints and other information
mentioned
previously for the climate system model,
Eq.
(5) can be solved numerically. Actually, an analytical
solution
for the climate system is also possible although this
equation
cannot be solved in the normal LDE framework.”,
LDE
= Linear Differential Equations, p1924col1t;
”But,
to derive the analytical solution, a transcendental equation
needs
to be solved, which still requires numerical calculations
in
addition to complicated analytical efforts. This is
beyond
the scope of this paper. To focus on the understanding
of
physical processes of the climate system, numerical
calculations
are therefore directly applied to Eq. (5).”,
B.Lin
et al 2010,
Estimations
of climate sensitivity based on top-of-atmosphere
radiation
imbalance
Also
note especially the B. Lin et al results of ”big time constants on
climate change”,
p1928t
Fig 4,
to
be compared with the basic and central driving energy
function curve in the AGW-complex
[See also a detailed description in Man Made Global Warming
unless already familiar],
Separate
picture in
http://www.universumshistoria.se/AAAPictures/PNG/DetailsInAGW.PNG
As seen, and forecasted by The AGW-group, all figurative results in the clean
power function model-free AGW-mathematics appear as corresponding primaries
to approximated results in modern academy climate modeling from (so called)
forced climate models.
Let us see how modern academic
mathematical elite in the year 2011 deals with the details.
RealClimate modeling mathematics
RealClimate
modeling ideas
Further
clarification and mathematical proof
To clarify by further comparison with
modern results HOW these (RealClimate results) are possible approximations to
the AGW power functions, and also WHY a central energy function for AGW cannot be deduced
from climate modeling, we now take a look at the PRINCIPLE mathematical
foundation from where modern academy — RealClimate — makes its mathematical claims. The
figure below compiles the comparison by the actual functional type expressions,
with following description.
Graph Unit50p
1[5.7(1+0.4è'–1[0.45x–5.3])'–1]+0[6(1–1/[1+(x/10)'4])]
RealClimate
— modern academy —
—
modern academy mathematical elite on planet Earth 2011 —
force
natural (green) onto unnatural (orange) phenomena
From a first order homogenous not
linear VARIANT (conv. differential equation)
with one not constant coefficient, the so called Logistic (Growth) Equation
y = M(1+Ce^{–Mat})^{–1}
M = 5.7, C = 0.4, Ma = 0.45, Offset x =
–5.3; x:= x–5.3
Elementary energy transient
function
(Also detailed in Universe(s)History in The K-cell, Sw. ed.)
y =
a[1–(1+[x/b]^{n})^{–1}]
a = 6, b = 10, n = 4
Detailed functional description
Why&How AGW holds — AGW stands for for Anthropogenic Global
Warming
IN RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS — a
clean-up work by BellDharma after modern academy in order to make all essential
description and presentation of physics and mathematics in our Universe understandable
by related arguing and logic, intrinsically free from the modern academy
inventions and ideas of self proclaimed universal mastery
— the elementary
transient function (not found @INTERNET 2011VII19) y=x(a+x^{2})^{–2}
is deduced in The K-cell HeatPhysics, Sw.ed. It is the corresponding physial
effect (power) in Watts developed by the actual transient process (as in a
Lightning, or a firework), beginning from a definite point in time from zero
effect. It is deduced as the derivative from the effect’s integral part,
same as the used energy from (here short, see K-cell Mathematical Deductions), [conservation
of energy]
E=LQ^{2}/t^{2}=k/t^{2},
k/E=t^{2}=a=timeOffset (T_{TIME}=0);
k/a=LQ^{2}/t^{2}=E=constant; k/E=a+T^{2}
[actual time function]; E/k=1/(a+T^{2}), E=k/(a+T^{2});
DefiniteForm: E=(k/a)(1–[1+T^{2}/a]^{–1}):
This form is generalized as the
above for y=a[1–(1+[x/b]^{n})^{–1}],
where the generalization consists of the exponent n to be arbitrary
depending on case. Its generalized form in terms of a VARIANT (conv. differential equation)
is not (here) easily recognized, except on the form (kx/y’)^{1/2}–x^{2}=a
from P=kT(a+T^{2})^{–2} with P as the energy derivative
(y’).
PLEASE NOTE THE GENERAL
SWEDISH EDITION NOTIFICATION FOR AVOIDING TRANSLATORY MISMATCH in case of
consulting the Swedish original text.
The ELEMENTARY CLIMATE FUNCTION (not found @INTERNET
2011VII19),
exposing specific climate processes, on the other hand exposes a timing offset
in principle situated at the beginningless past. It is, and must be, associated
with the birth or formation of the Earth body as such — long before humans
appear — for example the availability of a certain atmospheric gas (CO2). A
climate process (working by wind, clouding, precipitation, heat, cold,
salinity, and so on due to Earth rotation and Sun orbiting forming resonances,
appearing periodically as High or Low cresting) will therefore also ALWAYS
have a corresponding principle mathematical effect function of the »softer»
alternative form
y=2a(e^{–ax})(1+e^{–ax})^{–2}
from a general corresponding energy function (or logistic growth equation)
y=(1+e^{–ax})^{–1}. Based on
a strict mathematical foundation, it is hence excluded that a transient process
can be explained by a climate process; The
transient begins abruptly, the climate process has no such. To prove this for
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) we then only have to prove AGW is a
transient phenomenon — a happening appearing with a time offset inside human
history, and beginning from a strict definite point of time. Such a proof also
exists with overwhelmingly certitude. We study how.
How AGW is
AGW and
a transient phenomenon
POWER TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION (good
representation @INTERNET by images 2011VII19) — the network feeding any industrial technological
evolution — will have no potential (zero potential) as long as a
connection between electricity and magnetism is not known. It doesn’t matter
how much market, craftsmanship or any other development a community has prior
to its event: no greater energy usage can develop unless through power
transmission constructions. In the year 1820 the Danish scientist Hans
Christian Ørstedt discovered the revolutionary connection between electricity
and magnetism, leading (within the week) to the first mathematical treatise on
the subject through the French scientist and prodigy André-Marie Ampère. 1820.
Beginning from 1820, the potential of power transmission constructions
began to release its power, with a corresponding global increase in human
(industrial) energy usage. A transient function
process hence began from 1820 through an accelerating exploration of fossil
carbon as an energy source. The FUEL feeding this technological revolution was,
and still mainly is (July 2011), fossil carbon: coal, oil and gas. Apart from
the AGW-group itself, already explaining the
transient function beginning from 1820 to match measured data, specifically the CO2-concentration (Mauna Loa) within
±0.7%, as connected to the observed global warming (GW)
during the following 19th century, it has already been pointed out by other
investigations [IPCC] that no other
possible source than the human industry (such as variations from the Sun) can
be responsible for the magnitude of the observed GW-change. The matching
quantities, together with the transient functionality as such, and its
provision of being NOT a natural climate variation, hence proves, and certifies
AGW to be AGW, where the AGW also is certified and verified to be the
transient function beginning from 1820, in releasing the potential of power
transmission technology. This development apparently and hence was no result of
a »climate process». It was, apparently, the result of a pollution. Then
it should be clarified: The observed Global
Warming (GW) is Anthropogenic (AGW) and it follows a transient function, same
as the energy function central to Industry Fossil Carbon Combustion. See compilation in Man Made Global Warming. Further detailing
below finishes the overview.
AGW — A POLLUTION. Through — as
it may be understood — the lack of fundamental knowledge in physics from
Modern Academy, a POLLUTION — AGW — developed along with the following Second
Industrial Revolution Train with departure 1820. Energy movement needs fuel,
but the only fuel known at the time was of a fossil nature — carbon, oil, gas.
Combustion of fossil carbon has no available natural recycling impact to
establish a natural harmony with the prevailing Earth climate factors.
Consequently and slowly, piece by piece, industry fossil carbon combustion
started to dump heat [t=2Ta(m/M)]
into the oceans (by a sophisticated natural land-marine close to Earth-surface
atmospheric network).
The normal (general, primary) transient power function, as explained
above, has exponent n=2 in
y =
a[1 – (1+[x/b]^{n})^{–1}]
The
steeper evolution with n=4 because lack of knowledge — the natural flatter part
with n=2 never developed. The delay or PUSH from 1820 — as it may be
interpreted — was caused by modern academy ideas during the 1800:s with new
inventions in the logics of mathematics and physics, pushing the industrial
energy source to fossil fuel instead of The Natural Alternative — YET to be uncovered:
It is inevitably in
the nature of the [inductive]
process as such that IT will come — soon.
— In our case, as the year 1820 marks the preferred index of departure through
Ørstedt’s discovery — power transmission
technology’s first day, the following energy function to emerge as the form
of (the second) industrial (r)evolution — there WAS, and still IS, no
corresponding NORMAL — natural — departure of a power transient, a soft
evolutionary curve: It was, as it may be interpreted, DELAYED by Modern
Academy, inventing all kinds of new Logical Stuff during the 1800:s, hence preparing
for AGW. At least, this MAY be the plausible description of the story.
Namely (or anyway) because in pushing the natural energy transient, it
receives [through induction] a steeper succession (a corresponding faster,
shorter, time evolution), with a corresponding functional higher exponent (here
apparently n=4). THAT also fits with the industrial fossil carbon
emissivity world statistical curve — click on image below leads to the
article in the Swedish original. Industry Fossil top, transient
energy function bottom. Nominal starting point 1820. [Variations (within
ca 10 years) are smoothed out by the corresponding oceanic heat uptake and the
general ocean heat inertia].
Anthropogenic
Global Warming (AGW) follows a transient funcion, same as Industry Fossil
Carbon Combustion
— IF KNOWLEDGE had been at hand
1820 — meaning no AGW-development — the industrial evolution WOULD have
developed without any natural pollution: no fossil fuel to feed the energy for
industrial development. Applying the n=4 energy transient function on
the NASA/CRU/GISS-curves, directly reveals THE SEA
PERIODS (they appear directly with a subtraction of the energy curve from
the NASA one) — however met with a direct taunt from modern academy
in dropping the note, see The
RealClimate Exclusions: it is classified as »nonsense». The integral of the energy function itself
leads to quantities in CO2, see table below,
with a max deviation of ±0.7% compared to Mauna Loa measures — apparently also
»nonsense». With such a tight fit (we now leave the RealClimate
staff to its own destiny), it is clear and beyond any doubt that the energy
transient really describes the AGW-complex by detail.
Result: AGW is a pollution. Not a climate variation, or a
variation in climate. It has apparently no climate parameters, no climate
features at all, no »model». It is, obviously, described through power
functions from a basic energy
transient, as described above, not from natural (logistic)
variation functions, although these as a TYPE, as we have seen in The AGW-group, attend (very) close
approximations.
Max error ±0.7%
The
final result is shown by the three derivative-integral connected AGW-curves in
1. EffectEnergyCO2concentration with its central energy transient function, as explained
above, corresponding to the sea-version of the industry fossil carbon and the
actual global temperature increase caused by the industrial dump (here often
denoted the t|E-curve), and
2. The Dotted Match to the NASA-curve (N) from the
temperature-energy transient (t|E) = industry emission and the remaining sea
periods when t|E is subtracted from N.
The three AGW-functional curves
and their scaling connections to the actual quantities, are explained by the
simple and linear »industry temperature dump connection» t=2Ta(m/M), here detailed in
English in Man Made Global Warming. As is shown here,
and in other places by comparing examples connected to AGW-mathematics, these
curvatures apparently serve as not reachable ideal limits to the modern academy
(RealClimate) climate modeling exercises. However as already stated, AGW has
apparently no connection to climate, nor to climate parameters. AGW is
obviously a (still continuing) pollution in nature, caused by modern academy
and its fundamental lack of, and in, basic and elementary knowledge of physics
— AND in mathematics. Universe(s)History was dedicated for You (and me too) to peer into it (all
this, and else) for yourself — to start being also a scientific citizen on
planet Earth, not just a tool to be manipulated by local cudgel authorities,
most famous and beloved in modern academy. Its all for you.
The
final test in precision of the resulting three AGW-curves, is the comparing
values between measured CO2-concentrations at Mauna Loa and those calculated
from the AGW energy transient integral. The values (by an optimal comparing
adjusted offset to year 1811), are tabled further below in Comparing CO2-values. Max error is ±0.7%.
MATHEMATICS IN GENERAL. Please also note
this. Especially the several modern academic established concepts in CALCULUS cannot
be understood, explained, deduced or even expressed properly unless new terms,
sometimes in direct conflict with already established, are related, thoroughly,
with explaining examples and cross
references, in order to grasp the real and true logical EXPLANATION — that (thing) we are here for. Universe(s)History
includes this part, at your service (Mathematics all from the start up to Calculus, how Natural Processes
can be formulated by sophisticated [physical] mathematics), but is yet only in
Swedish (and too, not [yet] really as exhaustive as should, but in fair content
of and for the purpose). It means from the point of view of RELATED MATHEMATICS
and PHYSICS, directly, that there, at present, is no general standard by which
to communicate specific mathematical issues WITH persons in modern academy, as
(far as) these, also in general, have the idea they are representing the universal
elite of mathematical intelligence. Communication crashes here (compare RealClimate), in that the named elite refuses to
discuss details — meaning they will be included as a (very) primitive species
in the book of human civilizations. We don’t necessarily have to deal with
these, to be noted. Modern academy high school mathematics is not needed to
understand the essential details in Universe(s)History, not in any part
whatsoever [there is no modeling, no statistics, no matrix math, no
combinatorics exercises (except as given by precise description if mentioned at
all, compare ENTROPY CONCEPT IN RELATED PHYSICS)]. The details of differentials and
integrals are however of vital importance. See from ZERO FORM ALGEBRA (Sw. NOLLFORMSALGEBRAN).
This edition will be modified (and extended continuously) whenever
needed for purposes of improving quality and clarity, and as far as time and
resources allow.
Short Mathematical Orientation — Function Classes in Related Mathematics — not found @INTERNET
GENERAL NOTE: Physics — universe, as it has shown —
cannot be explained in a stand-alone sense by the modern academic teaching
system due to its INVENTED ideas and concepts. Mathematics has, apparently, a
KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM of itself to be DEDUCED, not invented. The CleanUp includes
NEW TERMS that must be studied PARALLEL TO THE ESTABLISHED in order to reach a
full EXPLANATION — for the established part [which is, then, seen to be a
PRIMITIVE]. The following excerpt from the original Swedish edition may give a
first insight.
FunctionClass I operative functional expressions:
(generally but not
exclusively conventionally termed Rational functions)
everything (a) imaginable on squared paper — except the grid=constants
y_{1}^{n}1^{/}^{2}^{^}^{m}1
a
= GM = —————— , n&m Î N , y Î GM_{GEOMETRICAL QUANTITY}, Î is read ”belongsTo”
y_{2}^{n}2^{/}^{2}^{^}^{m}2
Anything expressible through + – × ÷ √
FunctionClass II Everything remaining:
(generally but not
exclusively conventionally termed Irrational
and Transcendental functions)
INoperative functional expressions:
1 EXPONENTIALLY
FOUNDED functional expressions (all from Binomial Theorem)
_{n}_{}
(a±b)^{n} = a^{n}(1+ å[[(±b/a)(n–m)]_{m}_{!}/(m+1)!])
^{m}^{=0}^{}
divides in subclasses
exponential function
......................... a^{n},
general exponential function, variable not specified
base function .................................... x^{n},exponential function with
variable base, conv. power
function
the true power
(potence) function .... x^{x}, exponential function with variable
as both base and exponent,
(conv. termed a transcendental function), not easily found @INTERNET,
see f.ex.
http://www.analyzemath.com/calculus/Differentiation/first_derivative.html
Its derivative is
included in the general (Sw.ed.) POTENCY DERIVATIVE — also not found @INTERNET,
[(P)^{Q}]’ = (P)^{Q}[(P)’Q/(P) + Q’ln(P)], see attached examples
exponent
function .............................. e^{x}, exponential functions with
variable exponent, conv.
exponential function
2. The
LOGARITHMIC functional expressions:
_{m}_{®¥}
ln
x = ±( – å (1 – x^{±1})^{m}/m) , |
x |<1 for +:
^{m}^{=0}
3. The
TRIGONOMETRIC functional expressions in PREFIXxSIN:
_{n}_{®¥} _{n}_{®¥}
sin
x = å x^{2}^{n}(–1)^{n}/(2n)! cos x = å x^{2}^{n}^{–1}(–1)^{n}^{+1}/(2n–1)!
^{n}^{=0} ^{n}^{=1}
See Deductions to Series for Sine and Cosine
Connections for arcus functions here left out for brevity.
Continue in the more detailed
Swedish original in The Functional Classes in related Mathematics.
Description
Continuing from RealClimate
modeling mathematics
All natural variations on Earth (except for type
Lightning with a distinct emerging time zero point, and other time limited
processes in particular)
have a STARTING POINT in analogy with a primary formation of the body Earth:
There is no zero result (y=0) equation-value in time beginning from within Human
History for a NATURAL variation (such as CO2). These TYPE NATURAL VARIATION
equations represent the Green Curve;
y
= 5.7[1+0.4e^{–}^{0.45(t–5.3)}]^{–1}
y = 6[1–(1+[x/10]^{4})^{–1}]
While resultGreen (vertical, y)
approaches zero, the time variable extends backwards through the past towards a
principle beginningless past. The Green Curve describes in general how a
population (can also be applied to »energy used») grows within a limited space
(population growth). That is not the case for a not natural (anthropogenic)
phenomena, AGW, the Orange Curve; Anthropogenic Global Warming. It has a time
starting point y=0 within human history — as a lightning, however
extended in time.
By the fact that RealClimate
mathematicians, as they say, must deploy their possible explanation for the
AGW-complex from a CLIMATE parametric foundation, that is the GREEN
— meaning no starting time point — but
that — as we have seen — the AGW-complex inevitably has a starting time
point, also obvious to the RealClimate mathematicians, and therefore, by strict
mathematical reasons, must be approached from another mathematically functional
standpoint than the CLIMATOLOGICAL one, namely the non climatological energy
transient AGW-math function, it is also clear that RealClimate
mathematicians inevitably must — they have to — PUSH their »climate modeling»
GREEN into the actual AGW transient ORANGE and about which RealClimate
mathematicians apparently have no direct knowledge.
But
in trying to PUSH an individual function into another individual function
inevitably raises RESISTANCE. One way or the other, the two must show separate
quantities.
Meaning: RealClimate mathematicians are apparently pushing — violating —
a natural math, the GREEN, onto an unnatural process, AGW, the ORANGE, in order
to reach the necessary functional, »explaining», conditions: a starting time
point for which the climate complex cannot account.
DIRECT PROOF: the central energy
transient AGW-function IS the only quantitative PRECISE function from which to
receive MATCHING PRECISE QUANTITIES from a theoretical standpoint. There is no
other. See f.ex. the overlayed compared result from B. Lin et al 2010 (exact
match).
The confidence in this statement
entirely relates to the precision quantities of the CO2-concentrations within
±0.7% as the energy transient AGW-function integral, see tabled values.
In other words: To reach a RESULT in any
alignment with observational measurements, RealClimate mathematicians must
ADOPT, one way or the other, the power functional AGW-math properties, directly
or by so called »statistical methods», which however by exact notation, and as
we have seen, is NOT recognized in RealClimate, see The
RealClimate Exclusions.
IT MAY BE SO THAT the results from
(particularly) B. Lin et al 2010 have, compared to RealClimate
mathematicians in general, a more direct connection to the AGW-math functional
curvature, the
tight MATCH
of what is called “black: simulated — 0.2K” to the central AGW-energy
transient, see previous image. Namely with »an option» for RealClimate
mathematicians and their beloved statistics to PUSH alternative solutions from
the GREEN to the ORANGE like this (which would explain The DottedRed):
GREEN Unit50p y=11.5[2+0.1(è'–1.8[0.34x–5])]'–1
y = 11.5[2 + 0.1e^{–1.8[0.34x–5]}]^{–1}
Pushing the GREEN (natural climate variation function)
towards the ORANGE (AGW, pollution, not natural variation, no climate connectivity) bottom, forces
the climate function to raise proportionally on the top part. As known here,
there is no way to adjust the climate function parameters so to receive a more
general close match to the central transient ORANGE AGW-math function. One way
or another, erroneous, imprecise quantities spur out.
THAT suggested curvature however is as
we see not in line with the AGW-math explaining properties, the dotted (See
details from The Elementary Transient).
However, there is no answer to this post — or any other — on the account
for RealClimate. See The
RealClimate Exclusions.
WHAT
THE ABOVE EXPOSED COMPARING EXAMPLE SHOWS — AGW is a pollution, no
climate issue
A mathematical function as such, adopted
for a natural variation (X/dx, The
Green),
meaning it doesn’t have a starting point in the history of humanity, see The Elementary
Climate Function,
does not apply by any precise general quantities to a process (Xdx, The Orange) being limited by precisely a starting
point AFTER the appearance of humans. Saying: AGW is no climate issue; AGW has
no climate parameters. Zero such. AGW is a pollution.
If this is accepted as a correct
statement, and a fair and just description, that is also apparently just
another way to have CLARIFIED that the mathematical IDEA behind RealClimate (trying to PUSH the Green into the
Orange) is no more suited for an explanation or sound natural communication
than a CONTINUING extended POLLUTION: forcing natural to unnatural.
POWER FUNCTIONS, energy transients — not
logarithmic and exponent functions, natural variations (which are characterized
by a far in the past time offset) — explain isolated timing processes in our
universe.
WHY is that so?
BECAUSE only a power function (P=E/t) HAS an unequivocal central driving
energy function (E=Pt), connecting integral (emissive concentration) and
derivative (heat storage) to a triple unity (apparently an unknown descriptive
mathematical unity in modern academy). It has a starting point (and by losses,
also and ending point).
A logarithmic function, a natural variation, has no such feature.
Why is that so?
Because a logarithmic function has no START.
It doesn’t BEGIN.
That’s why the Green (natural) is bad math in even attempting to explain
AGW-physics (not natural). See also Detailed
functional description.
In still other words: climate modeling
(natural variations) CANNOT EXPLAIN AGW. The bare idea of a MODEL — at all — in
connection to AGW, a pollution, is bizarre. We don’t model pollution. We remove
it — by explaining its exact feature: modern academic IGNORANCE.
RESULTING
STATEMENTS
AGW has, apparently as it may be
understood, nothing to do with CLIMATE.
AGW is POLLUTION. A pollutant. A wound.
It apparently emanated from ignorance and stupidity (especially and apparently
a mathematical such) from modern academy during the 1800:s — and still is going
strong (Jul2011). To introduce the TERM climate in the topic of AGW, seems like
dressing your newly baked bred with stones and sand, expecting people to eat
that while chatting at the coffee bar the latest math launches from RealClimate.
The
Why — click image for original description
COMPRESSED
SUMMATION
The AGW-group (power functions, solid) compresses and explains how and
why RealClimate mathematics (logarithmic functions, dotted) finds close results. These are
apparently explained trough the elementary
transient function
central to the AGW-group mathematics. It apparently is not known in modern
academy (MAC). On an attempt to discuss the content, its population (MAC) began
openly to derogate and taunt. See The
RealClimate Exclusions.
— While the AGW-power function curves
contain the natural central energy-temperature driving and explaining central
functional building to the not natural AGW-phenomenon, the mathematical-statistically
based logarithmic functions has no such central driving core. Natural
variations math
— climate math, the logarithmic functions — has no starting point, no
beginning; A result (y=0) never happens, while on the other hand a result (y=0)
is most fundamental to AGW. From this simple investigation is concluded that
Natural variations (CO2-mathematical statistics, which never feels a y=0)
cannot explain AGW; AGW is a non natural process, a not climatological
issue. AGW is apparently a pollution. It has nothing to do with CLIMATE: no
climate parameters.
That is apparently WHY the natural
CO2-statistics by itself, RealClimate-math, cannot EXPLAIN the not natural
anthropogenic global warming.
That is:
RealClimate
mathematicians are apparently using natural variations math to approximate
unnatural behaviors math.
The quantity result, see The AGW-group, comes quite close but lacks precision,
while the quality result illuminates a direct crash. How the explaining
AGW-math is taunted by modern academy is for the rest documented in The
RealClimate Exclusions.
The natural nature of the logarithmic
functions, the climate math, is as we see in The AGW-group of the type as to give naturally close
approximations to the naturally solid functions being not climate math. The solid curves in the AGW-group
describe isolated processes in physics within finite time intervals — like
f.ex. lightning, or the time history of a firework. That is:
the
natural variations (CO2), beginning from far back in the past, are in a lack of
the not climatological natural central, driving energy component (AGW)
— with its starting point
in the present (1820).
In other words: AGW cannot be explained by the prevalent ideas in modern
academy — although it can be modeled quite close to the true answer. The true
answer apparently has shown to be the quite simple AGW-mathematics in Man Made
Global Warming
— but which modern academy (as yet, i.e., RealClimate) obviously refuses to take into
consideration. Compare The RealClimate Exclusions.
Values
of CO2-ppmv from AGW-mathematics compared to Mauna Loa
by
offset from year 1811
year |
a=ML |
b=AGW |
c=a/b
% |
description |
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 |
315,97 316,91 317,64 318,45 318,99 319,62 320,04 321,38 322,16 323,04 324,62 325,68 326,32 327,45 329,68 330,18 331,08 332,05 333,78 335,41 336,78 338,68 340,10 341,22 342,84 344,41 345,87 347,19 348,99 351,44 352,90 354,16 355,48 356,27 356,95 358,64 360,63 362,36 363,48 366,49 368,14 369,40 371,08 373,17 375,80 377,50 379,78 381,86 383,72 385,57 387,36 389,78 |
315,60 316,46 317,34 318,24 319,15 320,09 321,05 322,02 323,02 324,04 325,08 326,14 327,23 328,33 329,46 330,62 331,79 332,99 334,21 335,46 336,73 338,02 339,35 340,69 342,06 343,46 344,89 346,34 347,82 349,32 350,86 352,42 354,01 355,63 357,28 358,96 360,67 362,41 364,18 365,99 367,82 369,69 371,58 373,51 375,48 377,48 379,51 381,57 383,67 385,81 387,98 390,19 392,43 394,71 397,03 399,38 401,78 404,21 406,68 409,19 411,74 414,32 416,95 419,63 422,34 425,09 427,89 430,73 433,61 436,54 |
100,12 100,14 100,10 100,07 99,95 99,85 99,69 99,80 99,73 99,69 99,86 99,86 99,72 99,73 100,07 99,87 99,79 99,72 99,87 99,99 100,02 100,19 100,22 100,16 100,23 100,28 100,28 100,25 100,34 100,61 100,58 100,49 100,41 100,18 99,91 99,91 99,99 99,99 99,81 100,14 100,09 99,92 99,86 99,91 100,09 100,01 100,07 100,08 100,01 99,94 99,84 99,90 |
ML measured values in
ppm(v) from Mauna Loa ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt AGW calculated values
in ppm(v) from AGW-math by CO2(ppmv) =
(12.7576)*(((YEAR-1811)/121.41)^4.25)+286 according to the close approximated
integral to the Industrial Fossil Carbon Emission temperature-energy function,
see deduction (yet in Swedish edition only) at The Integral Curve for E. The default year
offset is 1815 yielding a 98% match. The expression is explained more in detail
in separate compilation (Sw. ed.). The TEST appeared in RealClimate when a contributor
(wili) asked if anybody could give a
prediction of WHEN we reach the 400 ppm line. On account of AGW, this is also
a test between measured (Mauna Loa) and calculated (AGW power functions).
Namely whether any additional CO2 has entered the atmosphere (as an
additional side-effect because of the already added heat). IF the AGW-calculated part shows a
homogenous adhesion to the measured values — which we can test by seeking a
the most closest match by a the best fit year offset — we would be certain
than no extra CO2 has entered the atmosphere apart from the ordinary
industrial carbon emissions. Meaning: the
AGW-curve follows the observed with no significant deviation That is also what the values here to
the left show: Observed follows calculated with no significant deviation
(±0.7%). The chart as seen by OpenOfficeCalc The small ±-glitching steps over unity
(100%) shows a rough interval 5-10 years with no direct apparent pattern (may
be due to the general Solar Cycle of average 11.1 years; perhaps due to a
general [periodic] maximum-minimum radiative forcing). The smallest deviation reads 99.69% (1968) and the largest 100.61% (1988). That is at most a deviation (error) ±0.7%. This
match is apparently called »nonsense» by RealClimate personnel: the leading
mathematical elite on planet Earth year 2011. “Your AGW-math is wrong”. ‘Unless you give sensible and constructive
comments, you are not welcome here. Sorry’. See The
RealClimate Exclusions. These are, apparently, the Darkest
pages in the history of humanity and science. |
To be continued.
The
Discovered Match
As a musician plays the symphony part
from reading the notes, normally invisible as music for the layman, it was
directly seen this below depicted possible principle connection — from the measured
NASA global warming curve (1), holding in mind the general utilized energy
function (2) connected with the evolution of technology (See Man Made
Global Warming,
from 1820, Ørstedts discovery): SeaPeriods (3) + Industry (2) giving a match
(4);
About the SeaPeriods WHATEVER THE MAIN TEMPERATURE
SEA PERIODS, they CHANGE not within even tens of thousands of years. How can
we be sure? Apart from the daily Earth
rotation the Moon monthly rotation, and the yearly Earth nearly circular
orbital revolution around the Sun, Earth precession (26000 years) is the most
close of the periodically changing mechanisms, given an ideal solid water
volume and continental geometry. So, if any sea periodicity is
observed to hold during any shorter period (3, as suggested in our case, ca
60 years), also it will continue to hold during at least the nearest
ten thousand years. However, this observation (3)
is not accepted in modern academy. The reason why, as stated from the source
(see RealClimate), is still awaiting an answer. |
The
picture above is explained more in detail with links to the parts in The AGW1-reference,
also by clicking the image. The composition of the sea period (3) is explained
by detail in The Sea Period
(Sw. ed.).
The
match is also called an equivalent (by components) — or a fit.
See
also Curve
fitting @INTERNET Wikipedia — ”the process of
constructing a curve, or mathematical function, that has the best fit to a
series of data points”.
RealClimate personnel — modern academy leading
mathematical elite 2011 on planet Earth — seems to have the idea that
”curve-fit” —advertising an equivalence — is some »dirty business» in line with
»nonsense», and it must not be mentioned anymore. The following will, perhaps,
spread some light in the dark.
Related
mathematics and physics explains
Curve FIT, Curve MATCH, Curve
EQUIVALENT.
These are called, termed and named in
the English language: synonyms.
Having found a FITTING MATCHING EQUAL
functional curve to an observed NATURAL PROCESS is as far as the English
language is known to have found or TOUCHED a DYNAMIC CORRESPONDING FUNCTION
— an equivalent, a TONE, or a resonance — to the natural process.
WHY is that clear?
— It is clear because as each process in
Nature is unique in that it has a specific IDENTITY to be distinguished from
any other identity, you now like a CAR to be distinguished from a TREE, a KNIFE
from a HEART and that stuff, the only certifying instance of having found the
actual individual in terms of mathematical physics is that it also has an
associating unique FUNCTION: a curve, a FIT, a MATCH — an equivalent (by
summing components).
Are there established institutions on Earth questioning that part — I
mean apart from RealClimate? Show us.
In this case, the found (approximated) function is — besides the known
Industry Part (2 above) — the same as the SeaPeriod (3):
— Detailed inspection also reveals Sea
Periods, partly, to be known already; See The AGW1-reference. But due to difficulties (small man,
big planet) no general big picture is yet available.
So, what can we possibly conclude
BASICALLY ABOUT the sea periods as such, their general dynamics, within the
already familiar basics on Earth as an already familiar mechanical body?
SeaPeriods, dependent on continental
separation, water containing volumes, Earth rotation nearest, does not change within
hundreds of years, not within thousands of years, but nearest Earth Precession,
within tens of thousands of years, as far as here is known and provided a
constant Solar irradiation, influences of continental separation omitted. So,
having found the FIT, MATCH and EQUIVALENT apparently means the same as to have
found something that does not change within the nearest ten thousand years.
FITS IT 1860-2011, it will fit for the
rest too.
We cannot conclude a further stance from
modern academy at this stage in this matter — no
comments, no references — as it does not want to relate a detailed discussion.
— IF there would be some profound FLAW
in this principal, principle reasoning, please tell. This presentation is
dedicated to a flaw- and error-free content, right from the first sentence. If
it contains errors, these must be removed, or if it reveals the entire
conceptual domain to be erroneous, the domain must be removed in its entirety.
The author might be blinded by idealized favoritism, as is the case with any
other individual, a phenomenon not seldom appearing in the history of
philosophy, sometimes responsible for some (deadly) mistakes. Only with the
help of other persons can such a construct be revealed, unless seen directly.
As yet (Jul2011) no separate English
translation exists.
Please
be cautious in using type GoogleTranslator
if you want to read the untranslated
Swedish edition of articles in Universe(s)History: GoogleTranslator is (yet) a
real bad solution, and it is best you DON’T USE IT unless you are aware of its
shortcomings. As a detailed example for reference and comparison, see the below
authorized translation, which is a certified English edition of an actual
Swedish original, here the TRUTH
article.
PREFACE to English translation of TRUTH
2011-07-17
CONTEXT TRANSLATED EXCERPT
The
Truth
From the Swedish original edition
— Here at your service as an exact comparing
Swedish-English translation example
of how REALLY BAD GOOGLE/Internet
translators really are (YET — they will become better in time) — not seldom a
real ugly result (better turn it off). See some referred points below.
Specific translational differences between reasonable context (me) and the
GoogleMachine, marked by orangeYellow. [The GoogleTranslator will never sell any books of
eminent dignity, my opinion].
NOTE 1. STATEMENT [Sw. påstående] and
CLAIM [Sw. hävd, hävda] have different magnitudes of emphasis:
Statement is ANY sentence; CLAIM
associates also to a stance. The GoogleInterpretator doesn’t seem to
know the difference. Means CRASH in philosophy topics in particular.
NOTE 2. CHANGE and MODIFICATION have a similar
difference, also not recognized by the GoogleTranslator [doesn’t it READ the
actual word?].
NOTE 3. Obviously not: It replaces CONSEQUENCE
[Sw. konsekvens] with IMPACT [Sw. mångtydigt; inverkan, påverkan].
NOTE 4. In some parts — it
is best you turn the translator off. Horrible [Ex:. ”everything is based
on truth”. We leave this statement up to Google to reveal — and relate].
Truth — Certified English
Translation from the Swedish original · TRUTH — as
explained and applied through related mathematics and physics · See
also short PREFACE
above.
Truth — not found @INTERNET
THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUTH
— how the concept of truth can be described
without risk of misapprehensions or misunderstandings and independent of general ideas and opinions,
— without political, religious or metaphysical
connections
TRUTH
Everything emanates from truth — wait, I’m not finished yet,
but it’s supposed to read
something in the headline
too:
statement: TRUTH is
certainty.
proof
(verification): ”Truth exists not” is a certain statement — and as such a perfect lie since
truth is certainty.
IF this reasoning is accepted as certain, and so it is here, THEN is the statement verified:
The truth exists (is, without change, see below), and is certain.
consequence: No statement can crush truth, or vandalize truth, or in any other way change any part or aspect of or in
truth, because
all claims are true and certain but not necessarily consistent with truth —
certainty — self. In other words: everything emanates from truth — true meanings as well as false
meanings. Thereby is also,
apparently, the headline of the
subject well relatable: everything emanates from truth.
The truth can surely be denied. But as also
a denial builds on certainty — that is the same as truth, namely in the
denial’s formulation as a claim having any significance — it possesses no
[inner, self] substance, but is built TOTALLY on the power of truth. Hereby
becomes also the differences in entity (or, entities) [Sw. väsensskillnanden]
between truth and lie safe.
Therefore must each denial of truth fall, no
matter how strong and well established it may be. Lie is hence by
forehand condemned, as it emanates from truth, namely as a truth’s denial, a
certainty’s denial.
properties: indestructible,
never created, impossible to vandalize, changes never, in perfect rest, in
perfect calm, in perfect harmony: peacefulness-founded [Sw. fridsamhetsgrundad,
also corresp. Engl. tranquility-founded]
character: rest’s and state’s absolute
principle, balance,
equilibrium, perfect calm, preference to any possible variation (state’s opposite)
(the »movie-screen» or the
variation-free »monitor screen» everything is viewed on)
description: ”What
is truth?” is (hence) a
self-destructive (witless)
question BECAUSE if
it — the question — is certain,
and no one healthy [or sound] wants
to (here, as far as known) ever come into a debate on that detail, it is
only a proof of truth’s,
certainty’s, existence.
SO IS TRUTH
ESTABLISHED BY STATE,
or indestructibility
(physics’ first principle). As such, precedes or establishes truth —
as a foundational fundament — the human intelligence by sound, gestures and (graphical) images: language, how it emerges and develops through
(the human) history.
The quest
of “true” or ”false” can (hence, consequently) NOT be settled by ”analytical meanings” except in mathematics (see below)
as, apparently, all meanings
emanate from truth as certain and existing meanings but in whose illuminating light not all
humans always are in concord.
Truth, application example —
not found @INTERNET
APPLICATION EXAMPLE
EqualSign from Mathematics from the beginning:
Mathematics is founded on certainty (whether true or false). It
is identified in mathematics through a comparison between at least two
parts L (left) and R (right). If both are identical
the equivalence V=H holds, where ”=” guarantees
certainty (provided the elements are correctly given/described from start). That is, an
equivalence can never be broken. For ”not equal to” or ”is different from” the symbol ¹ is used.
Physics’ first principle —
not found @INTERNET
Physics’ first
principle
Entire mathematics — and physics — is synthesized excellently through state’s
principle (see from Truth):
BUT Physics contains
no state (absolute
position-determination during zero time). But it is described and understood
compellingly YET through such (distances between the bodies independent of
time: The now). The foundation in our distinguishing thinking hence makes a
NATURAL strong difference between mindWorld (state, does not exist in physics)
and phenomenaWorld (variation, cannot define state’s principle). But the
entire modern academic teaching system is built on totally negating this
decisive distinction (compare: the origin of The Idea of Intelligence).
State’s Principle (APARC, Absolute Physical
Reference):
State exists not in physics, but is
foundational for physics’ description. We must have an overview (by zero time,
impossible in physics).
See further in detail from PHYSICS’ 7
PRINCIPLES
and ATOM TRIANGLE — not found @INTERNET.
STATE’s (truth’s) INDESTRUCTIBILITY (see Truth) relates equivalent on a corresponding
central part in MATHEMATICS — interval’s indestructibility —
and which lays the foundation of (among others) energy law. See further by details
from Atom Triangle, unless already
familiar.
Certified translation
in English from the original in Swedish by the author
BellDharma
2011-07-17 | YearMonthDayTine
SPECIAL NOTE. Someone has stated: I am
the way, the truth, and the life. AS genuine, it is apparently also the eternal
(never created) »voice» (witness) of truth (not explicitly a say from a
historical person, but from truth itself, as it is said) — no religious aspects
said. We will (most certainly have to) return to that part later, namely in
connection to philosophy (human rights) as a part of science in concern of
recognizing an intelligence in general, what it means, and how it is
apprehended throughout human history.
Also compare Truth
@INTERNET Wikipedia
[sample 2011-07-22];
— The words »certainty» or »certitude»
are not even mentioned; »Certain» is used in three (3) places; “to form certain types”, “which satisfied certain platitudes”, “essence of certain objects”. (I.e., a linguistic address
pointer).
— In general (everything — except the
point: the statement as such):
“Truth has a variety
of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or
reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or
actualities”.
Specifically
about GoogleTranslator (YET 2011)
As exemplified in Truth: Don’t take any GoogleTranslation to be of any
essential WIT — unless you are qualified to read the content between the lines
and between the words (often horribly out of context):
— GoogleTranslator may be helpful if you
are out shopping. Otherwise it is best to leave the translation to a qualified
human being. The corresponding GoogleTranslation to the Truth-article above
from the original Swedish is a nightmare. Be careful.
Ex.:
— What is the difference between
”everything is based on truth” and
”everything emanates from truth”?
— Apparently is based on and emanates
from.
In the first case it seems to be some
kind of an »eternal building». Some kind of a house. We here, and IT there.
That is (indeed) a weird statement.
In the second case truth is exposed as a
source to everything — the exclusive House too.
(Meaning: We cannot describe truth as an
object, only as an indestructible source to our ideas: »eternal inspiration»).
— Compare: »Everything is based on certainty»: ‘My life has no meaning’. Indeed,
quite the opposite to truth. Truth is especially powerful in giving life and
hope to the poor and sad, as truth is inclusive (you are the most welcome of
all), not exclusive.
To be continued.
Comprised — not
found @INTERNET:
in simulated climate
modeling from CO2-concentrations no
exact central driving temperature-energy function is possible to derive
:
climate variation
effect-functions
have
no definite time point of a beginning; a climate variation [wind-, water-,
heat-changes through Moon-Earth rotations and Sun orbiting] has no zero functional
value, but varies in time by different quantities [wind, water, heat]; Then it
neither has any definite time point from where a
definite
energy-temperature function could be
deduced [it »begins», and then varies throughout the rest of Earth’s life,
beginning with the formation of the Earth-body as such].
AGW,
on the other hand — apparently a pollution,
not a climate issue, not a »model» concept —
being
an anthropogenic phenomenon, has
a most definite,
unequivocal, time point of departure. See further from The Elementary Transient Function.
Climate-variation
effect-functions hence have not the prerequisite
for a corresponding exact
central driving temperature-energy function.
STILL INSISTING ON USING CLIMATE MATHEMATICS, such an energy function, a
function featuring a definite starting point, must hence BE INVENTED or modeled
— forced [by approximation] — upon a climate functional expression. That is apparently
what RealClimate
does. »Violence math».
That is HOW no exact
central driving temperature-energy
function is possible to derive in a simulated climate modeling from
CO2-variations, as here interpreted from RELATED MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS
— not found @INTERNET.
AGW3 — AGW and
RealClimate
topics header
content
references
Latest updated
version: YearMonthDayTime 2011-07-25
*END.
SpellChecked 2011-07-20|21.
rests
*
√
τ π ħ ε UNICODE — often used charcters in
mathematical-technical-scientifical descriptions
σ
ρ ν ν π τ γ λ η ≠ √ ħ
ω → ∞ ≡
Ω
Φ Ψ Σ Π Ξ Λ Θ Δ
α
β γ δ ε λ θ κ π ρ τ φ
ϕ σ ω ϖ ∏ √ ∑ ∂ ∆ ∫
≤ ≈ ≥ ˂ ˃ ˂ ˃ ← ↑
→ ∞ ↓
ϑ
ζ ξ
Arrow symbols, direct via Alt+NumPadKeyboard: Alt+24 ↑; Alt+25
↓; Alt+26 →; Alt+27 ←; Alt+22 ▬
Alt+23
↨ — also Alt+18 ↕; Alt+29 ↔