missing out on

missing out on putting new ideas down

The first is seeing the universe is infinitely older than we can imagine there must be lots of other background effects from other big bangs, not just the  background noise from the one that may have created our semiverse. These effects should also be detectable. One way of detecting them would be unusual inversion or denting of the universe at the outer limits of what we can see. Could rogue matter exist?

The second is amnesia which we all have to a more or less degree. I am talking about our dreams and their deliberate fading away. I had a great comment the other morning worthy of listing for all time and it has gone.

Write down these thoughts as soon as you have them for they invariably deteriorate and disappear. The other thing that does happen unfortunately when you do write them down is that the do not always appear as great as when you first had them, in fact they can look quite banal but if you do not put them down you will never know.

Lost a trifecta the other day 10 dollars free from TABCORP . Backed Geelong to beat Fremantle, Collingwood to beat Port and Richmond to beat Carlton. Would not have paid much but I would have got my free 10 dollars. All three lost. Not that I now take a lot of bets but this makes it all the more hard to fathom.

As mentioned previously the world takes you on and yo go 2 steps back for everyone forward.

Well that cleared all the dreams away!

Is there any hope of communication on a blog ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the pause

Every pause starts with one small step. The step can be backwards or sideways.

But this can be due to a multitude of factors.

The pause is confirmed when a second reading is also sideways or backward.

Mind you it is a very temporary pause and of very little import.

Further readings can be up or down and still be a pause  as long as the average of the readings from the first step remain at or below the last reading that was he start of the pause.

Now comes the interesting part. Defining a pause as the length of time from the initial start point would give a decline instead of a pause if the readings over time continue downwards

A pause is actually a leveling of the readings, which dates from the last reading backwards.

Hence after say 20 readings downwards one has to take extra readings from the upwards part of the graph to balance out or level the new downwards section. The way to do this is to take the line across from the last reading to the new first reading, then evaluate the area above the line and take the average  level here as the length of the pause.

Obviously the start of the pause is not where the line goes across from the last reading but a little higher,

The point is though that the pause extends backwards as well as forwards as long as the last measurement  puts the average below the  initial measurement when the pause started.

When the average starts dropping significantly the pause extends out dramatically.

When does a pause become a reversal or fall?

1929 is a good answer. A fall or reversal starts with a similar change to a pause only it is never a sideways step always down.

The only answer can be in retrospect although a good sign is a preternaturally large fall. The global climate changes constantly and a big fall is only likely through a catastrophic event which mankind cannot ward against.

 

  1. I opened the fridge and found a frozen Schrodinger’s cat. At the same time I note a giant leap upwards on the arctic sea ice extent.[Ice Area NORSEX SSM/I August 1st 2013]
    Conclusion.
    The world has just done a quantum leap sideways in space in the last few days and both the Arctic and Antarctic are getting less sun.
    At least it makes more sense than more heat deciding to go missing in the deep sea.
    PS will write further if the cat is alive or dead

  2. when it thaws out, that is.

    AGW could exist if  Human beings produced enough energy or CO2
    to increase the thermal load in the earths atmosphere. Alternative methods could also work e.g. painting/coating the earth’s surface  black to absorb heat [or white if one wanted AG Cooling.]. The amount of heat coming in [and leaving the earth each day is on orders of magnitude so vastly different that human heat output is negligible and always will be.
    Steve Mosher believes that CO2 increase of itself must scientifically lead to warming  [AGW]. and technically he is right except…
    one, there is no step by step link to show this is happening. The CO2 goes up but the temperature goes up down and sideways and never in kilter with the CO2 rise.Obviously there are “natural variations” but there is no link and he knows this.
    secondly  there may be confounding reasons that lead to greater outgoing radiation when the  CO2 levels go up. The extra heat retention may cause more cloud, thinner atmosphere. more reflectiveness of the atmosphere whatever that counter balances the pure physics of CO2 alone.
    If such forces exist [a little more likely than the deep heat in the oceans rubbish] He should be prepared to be more skeptical than he currently allows himself to be.
    PS better to drag the oceans than beat the bushes to find AGW  believer’s at the moment Steve

 

 

 

 

 

I lost my keys

I lost my keys the other night in the dark, Kept looking for them under that streetlight but no keys.
Q  Where could they be.
A  ?   [not the sea]the other night in the dark, Kept looking for them under that streetlight but no keys. Q Where could they be. A ? [not the sea]

GIGO

The aim of this piece is to demonstrate that the computer models  used for making predictions on Global Warming  are basically unable to make the predictions they do in any meaningful way.

To do so I will have to show the reasons that  they cannot work for the use they were intended.

The arguments will have to rely on logical reasoning

Analogies to other similar situations will help demonstrate the points used.

The argument will rely on the complexity of the task and the amount of input available at the current moment. It will also depend on the definitions used which will need to be set out clearly.

The topic of Global Warming will also need to be explained in context and history.

Potted version. The earth as a  rotating solid mass revolves around the Sun and has forces exerted upon it by other celestial bodies including the moon, other planets, comets meteors space debris and background radiations of many sorts.

It is presumed to have formed 4 to 5 billion years ago at the same time as the rest of the planetary system. Its composition is unknown  and has had to be inferred from its weight, motion  and chemistry and observation of other planets.

Due to the presence of a strong magnetic field it i s postulated that it has an iron core  and seismic experiments suggest that it has a liquid core with  a more solid covering of iron and then a mantle of other elements.

The earth possesses a degree of internal heat which might be kept going by nuclear fission of radioactive elements in the earths core and crust. Another  cause of heat production is thought to be from compressive forces due to the pressure of the materials themselves as it rises closer to the core. Gravitational forces are also postulated to work  on the material of the earth as in causing waves in water but also in causing storm patterns [Coriolis forces] and land or earth waves. While usually postulated as working on the mantle and crust there is no reason to expect that they might not work on all parts of the earth.

 

The earth surface is where humanity lives in a space of 2 meters from the surface of the ground up. This living space is broader for other parts of the biosphere.
Bacteria can live to depths of up to 5 kilometers in the earth mantle and seas and can go to thousands of meters in the air

Conditions for life involve a need for water, sunshine and oxygen and carbon dioxide plus numerous other trace and not so trace elements and compounds. Not all components are needed for some life forms eg anaerobic bacteria do not need oxygen and some plants and animals survive without sunshine

For those creatures on the earth’s surface an important element is the surface temperature.

 

 

from the font

Climate Change as an issue is about to get tricky. The stock measurements are converging to an average and about to break out.

Given the cold world [Roy Spencer] after a warm start to the year. Given the Enso Neutral to slightly cold . Given the large amount of ice at both Poles at the start of the melting season north and the freezing season south one would expect a Slowing of the melt north and a large extent plus south but it stops just when you want it to go. I cannot believe the Antarctic has stalled back under 12,000,000 for a week. Or that the DMI 30% is diving at the same time.

Fingers crossed, there are a couple of holes to fill in in the Antarctic  and the northern coastlines still show a lot of traces of ice. Apart from sounding like a warmest [ in reverse ] the best tactic here is lots of wishful thinking to back up the aforesaid facts. Hope it works this year.

 

Arctic v Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article by Tamino on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

He states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin [ Note to Mr Forster et al ] hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

 

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.

Stats   a

rea of Global Sea Ice varies from   14.5  to 23.5 total combined area. No balance of north and south masses there but a reflection of the distance away from the Sun. Overall  14.5 just after  winter in the north . 23.5  in summer in the north Sun closest to the earth!

 

arctic ice     Max       16                  Min 3

antarctic   Max        19                           Min   2

there is more antarctic ice out to a further latitude at its maximum due to the disparity in heat reaching the earth’s surface in the north compared to the south. This is due to the northern hemisphere being closer to the sun in summer. If it was the other way around there would be no sea ice around Antarctica in summer .

 

poles and the sun is closer to the south pole  in the southern winter.  To achieve an increase in  the southern  area anomaly of  1,000,000 square kilometers  at the lower latitude requires roughly  the same amount of heat loss as it does  the heat gain to melt an anomaly area 1.96 square million kilometers in the north..

when the ice is 1,000,000 square kilometers  more in anomaly at the south pole the degree of cooling is up to 2 times as much as as the amount of heating  needed to  create an anomaly of -2,000,000 square kilometers  at the north pole

Due to the statement set out above  a melting anomaly 4 times greater than a freezing anomaly in the South barely  equates.

 

Arctic versus Antarctic

A semi scientific perspective.

An article on sea ice area and extent  and balancing  has upset my apple cart enough to try to sort out some common sense  debate on the issue of  North and South sea ice.

It states “Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.”

As I am not a mathematician  or a  facts at the finger tips person I would appreciate  any such comments or additions that make sense  [or nonsense of] my statements to be added to this article.

Statements

At maximum extent I believe the volume of the southern ice pack is smaller [16 square million kilometers[ to  than the  northern ice pack [18 square million kilometers]   via eyeballing a graph from climate4you.com

The last 30 years have seen an imbalance in the  total ice balance  to the negative side  but currently the balance is very  positive with only a slight negative southern anomaly. This means that the southern  area gain of 910,000 square kilometers is  3.4 times that of the northern hemisphere  loss of 280,000 square K. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another it pays to check the current facts.

The two areas of ice do not occupy  the same relative areas to their poles so cannot be looked at as  twins or mirrors of each other. The north is part of a circular semi spherical surface, The south is a larger  circumference dough nut or torus shape though also on a semi spherical surface. Furthermore the heat that reaches them from the sun does so at different latitudes  and hence heats and melts them at different rates for the corresponding times of the year.This explains in part why the pattern of the global sea ice area moves up and down and not in a sinusoidal pattern as would be expected .

The two bodies of ice are totally different in the amount of heat that reaches them as most of the ice at the arctic is at a  much higher latitude,  ie over the north pole  whereas the ice in the antarctic  starts 400 [guess only?]  or more kilometers from the south pole.

Because the earth is curved the amount of heat received  at the surface increases cubically [???] as one moves away from the polar area. So if  the ice area  is starting 400 kilometers away from the pole the heat the ice is receiving is very much higher per square kilometer average  than the same area of ice centered around a pole.

The sun is closer to the north pole  in a northern summer than the south pole  in summer  hence the total  heat delivered to the ice is  greater in the North than the South. Hence the rate of melting  at the south pole is always greater naturally , not as an effect of global warming. [Also the rate of refreeze as the sun is further away in  northern winter at the north as to southern winter at the south pole]. The rate of refreeze should also  be slower in the south due to the fact that the energy reaching the outer ice is higher  at the higher southern latitudes than at the northern very high latitudes.

All late winter ice is thin  hence will melt quickly whether the ice extent for that year is high or low. The rapid melt at the start  in 2012 was due to the larger extent of ice able to melt and was no more rapid at the start than that in years with a similar ice extent like the late 1990’s.

Ice in the antarctic requires much colder  temperatures to extend the same distance out as the arctic does .

When some one states the melting in the arctic is 3.4 times that of the freezing in the antarctic [by someone who completely understands the maths of what I am talking about] , One can only conclude that he is being disingenuous.

The existence of such a large anomaly of  area of frozen water so far out, increasing over the last 30 years, must be  a  sign that the earth is currently not warming. If it was warming the Antarctic ice should be disappearing quicker than the arctic ice as it is further out [although in the colder hemisphere.]

The fact that the Antarctic ice diminishes to almost nothing  in Summer  should not  be compared to the  ice in that same latitude  at the North Pole in Summer .As a guess  I would say that there is very little  ice at the  Arctic at the same latitudes except for where glaciers in Greenland etc enter the sea.

disclaimers,         always leave some area’s wrong for the critics.

 

caught in a losing loop

why is it when things go well, things always go badly twice as much.

Or when you have a good idea someone else comes up with it when you are procrastinating about it. Why do you winning bets never get put on and your gold plated winners lose. Why do you never have time to write that winning novel. Yes. It could be . You are caught in THE losing loop.    Wow.

Ways to get out!! first rule . you cannot get out. What then .

Either sit back and wait for it all to end or fight it and lose.

Actually I have had a win!! I have a fool proof way to win at the Australian herald sun supercoach.

Not that that is any big deal

.

But the plan is in place the aim is to win one round and a thousand dollars

Its all systems go as now at the 5th round [completed] and already megabucks in front .

Now to turn this minor dream into reality . Look out world here I come.

Updates and denouement [when I realise I cannot devote the time and attention  or my 3 top players break a leg.]

Other tips  to win.    Never , ever , tell anyone you know how to win. OOPS.

 

29/6/2012  tired too much in last week run off feet consequently perfect scene for losing out on the footy coaching

But life’s a tease

3 teams have run out of buys with only 19 positions filled [of stars ]

This is their week to win. will it happen.

On a brighter note 1 team, Liz’s left with 2 picks and 19 places filled with an injured superstar to come back in round 15 if the team holds together injury, report, form and illness aside.

Given normal circumstances it should win by a country mile .

Already second highest value in top 200 teams in terms of players. Finger’s crossed

but as said above whenever your that close something goes wrong

Thought for next year /this year Hale and Roughhead ruck and forward to swap if needs an option to bring in a spare ruck would work better with 1 weak and 1 strong player   good players and gives an extra ruck but on other hand is only 1 player?????

 

 

AGW refutation

A view on AGW and Climate Change.
The sun heats the earth. The amount of energy that reaches the earth every day is a trillion, trillion, giga million watts or there abouts. Easy to calculate anyone?  yes? thanks
It is a very hot torch and the only one in town.
With all that power however it only manages a change of 80 degrees centigrade form -40 in the poles to plus 40 in the warmest parts.
Now calculate the amount of energy that human activity can produce every day on average and at its worst. Burn a few oil fields and a forest or two, explode the nuclear missiles, even, shock, horror, leave all your lights on.
easy to calculate?  yes’ anyone .
Lets be generous and say a trillion million watts give or take one or 2 trillion.
Hmm that would change the energy per day in the world by  perhaps, at a guess, one trillionth i.e.
1/10 to the 12th
Effect in a day negligible , in a year negligible, in a millennium negligible.
Forever virtually negligible
Funny that. Humans cannot affect the temperature of the earth under current conditions no matter what they do.
I am not sure who is more risible. Real Climate AGW people or skeptics who cannot explain this simple scientific concept.

Now I know I have the energy amounts,names and degrees  “wrong”. Heavens knows it may be ten or a hundred times less important than 1 in a trillion. But the figures are there, The data is there, why doesn’t anyone look at it.

This is not to say that lots of action is needed to improve the world from human caused problems, actions must be taken for the right reasons and AGW is not possible or real at this stage of our development.

Disclaimer. the above small article is only possible due to AGW  in the world [which really deserves to be called MGW “Mannian Global Warming”] surely .

This blog will be updated as it evolves with the best  figures  available. Any help in this direction appreciated.  angech

Computer programmes and modelling

Computer programmes and modelling

Basic flaws

1. anything  that can be modelled will rebel against the model and modeller.

Hence the two places that modelling would be very useful are the stockmarket asport results. Despite  all the high computer power available  outcomes in these two areas are not reliably predictable as all the possible events affecting them cannot be adequately programmed into a computer and when they are and are acted on this then leads to changes  in the behaviour of the observed event away from the expected outcome.
eg races are fixed  and company results are falsified.

2. Modeller bias is always present  eg set up a  company called Joe’s best business and set out to evaluate it.  Amazing “Joes’ is the  best business.

Worse set up a panel on Climate change. Amazing  finding “The climate changes”,  never would have expected that in a million years from that panel.

Early days yet and this is just a kindergarten attempt at Blogging. The sophistication is yet to come.