AGW and RealClimate — Universe History

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 DottedRed RealClimate

Overlayed Comparison

RealClimate Modeling ideas

The WHY

CO2 values

The discovery of a mathematical elite on Earth

RealClimate

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]:

The DottedRed

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

IPCC

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

Green: no profound beginning: natural variations (f.ex. in CO2)

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

Orange: sharply accentuated beginning: transient function, no climate connectability

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+x²)^–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=LQ²/t²=k/t², k/E=t²=a=timeOffset (T_TIME=0); k/a=LQ²/t²=E=constant; k/E=a+T² [actual time function]; E/k=1/(a+T²), E=k/(a+T²); DefiniteForm: E=(k/a)(1–[1+T²/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–x²=a from P=kT(a+T²)^–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%.

Related Mathematics

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

y₁ⁿ1^/²^{^}^m1

a = GM = —————— , n&m Î N , y Î GM_{GEOMETRICAL QUANTITY}, Î is read ”belongsTo”

y₂ⁿ2^/²^{^}^m2

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)

(a±b)ⁿ = aⁿ(1+ å[[(±b/a)(n–m)]_m_!/(m+1)!])

^m⁼⁰

divides in subclasses

exponential function ......................... aⁿ, general exponential function, variable not specified

base function .................................... xⁿ,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 x²ⁿ(–1)ⁿ/(2n)! cos x = å x²ⁿ^–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.

Starting Point

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.

AGW a pollution

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

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.

AGW-CO2 versus Mauna Loa

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

99,72

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

100,25

100,34

100,61

100,58

100,49

100,41

100,18

99,91

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.

Swedish Edition in general in Universe(s)History — TO BE NOTED

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.