Re: [asa] A simple example

From: William Hamilton <willeugenehamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 10:14:05 EST

Thanks, Bill

I should have included the ability of small scales can blow up to
macroscopic scales. Thanks. What I'm getting at is that small scale
variations can remain small for a long period of time before they work their
way up to measurable size. Look in any of the books on chaos and fractal and
sooner or later you'll come to a time history plot that shows practically no
variation for considerable time, then suddenly the oscillation grows --
seemingly unprovoked. I'll look up an example and post it later (right now
I'm cooking breakfast for myself and my wife)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

> Bill:
>
> Of perhaps greater significance is the character of chaotic events that I
> mentioned a while ago. Detailed turbulent simulations have shown that small
> scales (think turbulent and unmodeled in any detailed sense) can work there
> way up to large scales (where we can measure it and call it weather, even
> global weather).
>
> I'm not sure, however, what your point is. Such a view would surely
> support the possibility of a man induced climate change, and, for that
> matter the influence of other unnoticed influences. What does your point
> intend to get at?
>
> thanks,
>
> bill
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, William Hamilton wrote:
>
> Thanks, Rich.
>>
>> I will respond at greater length later -- you've touched on an issue that
>> is
>> discussed in Scafetta and West's papers, but I haven't looked at that for
>> a
>> while. I need to find the reference and reread it. The short answer is
>> that
>> the earth-sun system is a high order, nonlinear, chaotic system. Such
>> systems demonstrate sensitive dependence on initial conditions, as well as
>> superposition of oscillations at many different frequencies. See
>>
>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stochastic_resonance
>>
>> C. Nicolis, Solar variability and stochastic effects on climate, Sol.
>> Phys.
>> 74, 473-478 (1981).
>>
>> C. Nicolis, Stochastic aspects of climatic transitions-response to a
>> periodic forcing, Tellus 34, 1-9 (1982).
>>
>> It would also probably be useful if you haven't viewed it already, to view
>> the video of Scafetta's talk at EPA last February. There's a link to it in
>> my original message.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Even though resonance is theoretically possible before you go there you
>>> need to answer the question of why wasn't there resonance for thousands
>>> of
>>> years and suddenly in the mid-20th Century things just changed? Be10
>>> proxy
>>> studies have shown that solar irradiance AND the climate have responded
>>> in
>>> sync with sunspots. The problem is that AGW has swamped this effect.
>>> Prior to the mid-20th Century knowing the solar irradiance from Be10 and
>>> when there were volcanic eruptions the proxy record can be explained by
>>> mostly these two effects using computer model hindcasts. Furthermore, the
>>> forcing was not resonant. It's was direct with a relatively short delay.
>>> In
>>> short, you didn't need to model any resonance to explain the climate
>>> prior
>>> to the Industrial Era. After the mid-20th Century there was a large
>>> divergence, though, and the climate could not be explained by these
>>> natural
>>> forces alone.
>>>
>>> The last few years the Sun has given us an excellent controlled
>>> experiment.
>>> We have been stuck for several years with almost no sunspots and as late
>>> as
>>> this year it looked like we might have a repeat Maunder Minimum. Thus,
>>> there
>>> was good reason to believe that this would have a relative cooling effect
>>> on
>>> the climate. So we have AGW and the Sun running against each other and we
>>> can then see without the need of relying on computer models which is the
>>> larger effect. The results of this "experiment"? The current decade is
>>> on
>>> average 0.18 degrees C warmer than the 90s.
>>>
>>> Rich Blinne
>>> Member ASA
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM, William Hamilton <
>>> willeugenehamilton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have browsed through references supplied by Rich and Randy, and I will
>>>> read them in more detail in the next few days. However, let me state a
>>>> suspicion I have had for some time: I'm not convinced anyone (in the
>>>> conventional climate change community) is considering the potential of
>>>> resonance to cause temperature swings to grow with time -- even with
>>>> very
>>>> small excitation. I have put together a simple example using
>>>> Mathematica,
>>>> and the results are posted on my blog: bricolagia.blogspot.com. It's
>>>> probably the simplest possible example, and I claim no resemblance to
>>>> the
>>>> earth/sun dynamics. However, it does demonstrate that with an excitation
>>>> varying by 0.1 percent of the base value, there is no limit to the size
>>>> of
>>>> the response that can be realized. Although it's very crude (the efforts
>>>> of
>>>> a novice at Mathematica) I will gladly email my Mathematica file to
>>>> anyone
>>>> who asks.
>>>>
>>>> Let me take this opportunity to add my voice to Glenn's: We need a forum
>>>> in which we can post charts and graphs.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
>>>> Member American Scientific Affiliation
>>>> Austin, TX
>>>> 248 821 8156
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
>> Member American Scientific Affiliation
>> Austin, TX
>> 248 821 8156
>>
>>

-- 
William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 18 10:14:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 18 2009 - 10:14:20 EST