The pollution soaked
Parbati’s little critter.
A bud in the worm.
==============
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Peter Davies
David you’re correct. My bad.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by David Springer
I probably should have said I wasn’t going to read it even with paragraph breaks. But you probably enjoyed rewriting it so… no harm no foul.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by kim
How charitable of you, Wag. Would that they could be so charitable to themselves.
===============
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by kim
You two should book smoke lodge time.
================
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
Well, you've heard from me before. So I'll just set out how the section with 32-34, which generates a the wild results, should be done properly.
Start with a proper 3D vector form of the mass conservation equations. Nd is the molar density of dry air, Nv of vapor.
<b>v</b> is 3D velocity and ∇ is the 3D derivative vector:
0 = ∇ .(Nd <b>v</b>)=<b>v</b>.∇Nd + Nd ∇ .<b>v</b> (32)
S = ∇ .(Nv <b>v</b>)=<b>v</b>.∇Nv + Nv ∇ .<b>v</b> (33)
Since N=Nd+Nv=total air
S = ∇ .(N <b>v</b>)=<b>v</b>.∇N + N ∇ .<b>v</b>
(33a)
Now the objective for the moment is to remove velocity gradients. Since these are all in the scalar divergence ∇ .<b>v</b>, that is just a matter of linear algebra (elimination) on 32, 33.
S = <b>v</b>.(∇Nv - (Nv/Nd) ∇Nd) = Nd<b>v</b>.∇(Nv/Nd) (34a)
to use the form preferred by Cees.
So far this is just a manipulation - everything is reversible. But it has the form of this paper M13's (34). It is not a new equation; any pair of 32,33,33a and 34a can be used to regenerate the others.
Now we approximate. Originally the 2nd y dimension was dropped. The implications of this have not been well considered - it leads to a very artificial geometry, but we then have in components from 34a:
S/Nd= u ∂/∂x (Nv/Nd) +w ∂/∂z (Nv/Nd) (34b)
Then M13 contend that the problem can be reduced to a single vertical dimension. The assertion here is that the horizontal rates of change are negligible relative to the vertical. It is not a claim that they <i>are</i> zero; just that the vertical components will be little changed if they are omitted. That leads to
S/Nd= w ∂/∂z (Nv/Nd) (34n)
I've called it 34n to distinguish from the M13 34. It's exactly the same except that Nd is replaced by N. The reason is that Anastassia in effect used 33a, but neglecting S, on the basis that air was a suitable non-condensable reference. I'll refer the qn of non-condensable air to anyone who has ever been caught in the rain! If that equation had been correctly used with S, 34n would have also resulted.
Now Anastassia says 34n can't be right because it leads to "nonsensical" u ∂N/∂x=0. But it only does this if you make the <b>rookie error</b>, as in M13, of not removing the original equation from the set when you provide an approximate replacement. Here's how that happens. If you say 34a and 34n are both true, then you can subtract them:
u ∂/∂x (Nv/Nd) = 0, or
u ∂ Nd/∂x = u ∂ Nv/∂x
Since u∂ Nv/∂x=0 had been assumed, it can be added to both sides:
u ∂ N/∂x = 0
This isn't nonsensical - it reflects what was assumed in going from 34b to 34n. It's out of context; it was neglected relative to the vertical terms, but <b>not</b> assumed zero. That last came with that rookie error, which is exactly what Anastassia does with her 34.
And then you get a succession of nonsensicals. I saw a suggestion that her u ∂ N/∂x = S should be experimentally verified. Yes! Set up a big tank with dry air and a downwind density gradient. Just collect the water. You'll be famous.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Edim
I wanted to type sensible about sensitivity of course.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
“If you say 34a and 34n are both true” should be 34b and 34n
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by David Springer
kch | February 5, 2013 at 9:49 am |
The numbering is mine.
“Our parks will be arid brown fields(1); private automobile use unheard of(2); water will be severely rationed(3); significant stretches of our beloved coastline will have been sacrificed to the sea(4). Some of our flora and fauna will have vanished(5); exotic animals and pests will flourish(6). Vast numbers of marginalised human migrants will be here(7). Surveillance and restriction of our movements will be taken for granted(8). Walking in what is left of ‘nature’ will be nearly impossible(9). Terrible summer fires in our upland areas will be commonplace.(10)”
Wow. Three more calamities than the bible says are coming.
Now I’m really askeert.
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Douglas in Australia
Willard “When you’ll respond to my criticism at Eli’s”
Done (yet again)
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Wagathon
Instead of worrying about polar bears dying from the heat the bus drivers at the San Diego Zoo throw slices of white bread. That’s what really caring is all about.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Wagathon
Yeah, but it’s a dry heat!
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by David Springer
Actually Imagine is a Yoko Ono song and she might sue your ass if you use any part of it without permission. And you wouldn’t be the first she sued over that either.
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by steven
In my opinion you got the important part right. Yesterday is a better song than Imagine.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Michael
New paper;
“Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”
You gotta laugh.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Beth Cooper
Yes, Steven, ‘Yesterday, Michelle ma belle, Hey Jude,
Clown on the hill, I am the walrus,) Hard day’s night,’
plus ones fer each of them.
(Signing off me franchise now, whoever wants it go fer it!)
BC
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by yerim1
Excerpts from “The Curry Agonistes”
KK[Keith Kloor]: I question if there is really this breach of trust between the climate science community and the general public. Again, the average person is probably not paying much attention to these fractious debates between skeptics and a subset of the climate science community. I mean, every profession gets dinged by its share of controversies. The foundation for anthropogenic global warming rests on numerous solid pillars, which you agree with. So how is that a batch of intemperate emails and a decade-old scientific controversy over the hockey stick can rock this foundation, which is what you seem to be arguing?
JC [Judith Curry]: Evidence that the tide has changed include: doubt that was evidenced particularly by European policy makers at the climate negotiations at Copenhagen, defeat of a seven-year effort in the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill centered on cap-and-trade, increasing prominence of skeptics in the news media, and the formation of an Interacademy Independent Review of the IPCC. Concerns about uncertainty and politicization in climate science are now at the forefront of national and international policy. There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.
Further, they have been actively involved in managing science and scientists and in assessing scientists. They will not be convinced that a “likely” level of confidence (66-89% level of certainty) is believable for a relatively new subject, where the methods are new and contested, experts in statistics have judged the methods to be erroneous and/or inadequate, and there is substantial disagreement in the field and challenges from other scientists. The significance of the hockey stick debate is the highlighting of shoddy science and efforts to squash opposing viewpoints, something that doesn’t play well with other scientists. Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu made this statement in an interview with the Financial Times:
First, the main findings of IPCC over the years, have they been seriously cast in doubt? No. I think that if one research group didn’t understand some tree ring data and they chose to admit part of that data. In all honesty they should have thrown out the whole data set.
But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to understand this. I have gotten many many emails from scientists and engineers from academia, government labs and the private sector. As an example, here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday: “My skepticism regarding AGW has been rooted in the fact that, as an engineer/manager working in defense contracts [General Dynamics], I would have been fired, fined (heavily) and may have gotten jail time for employing the methodology that [named climate scientists] have used.”
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/
Thanks Judy
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
For example, I don’t know what you mean by AAM.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by blueice2hotsea
VP -
You have nominated the winds paper as describing an effect possibly stronger than butterflies. And you are looking for volunteers to promote your idea. Geez.
No need to throw rotten eggs when rotten tomatoes will suffice.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
“new, controversial theory.” Roger that.
And links to APCD. They could have said “new peer-reviewed science”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
