Amazing. ‘When the frequency of an event varies as a power of some attribute of that event (e.g. its size), the frequency is said to follow a power law.’ We have probability vs wind energy in your frequency distribution chart – which is not a straight line.
Weins law retains the power distribution of Planck but shifts the frequency of the peak with temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiens_law.svg The intensity of emissions doesn’t vary if you graph it as frequency or wavelength. Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. So what? It doesn’t change either Planck’s law or Wein’s displacement law.
It was you who said that the Taylors series was a power law – it is not.
Nothing you say makes any sense – you freely bring in concepts that are not real or valid to anyone who has any familiarity with the concepts. It is just verbiage.
Again – you have a frequency distribution of wind speed. So what? It has been done many, many times before.
‘Atmospheric and oceanic forcings are strongest at global equilibrium scales of 107 m and seasons to millennia. Fluid mixing and dissipation occur at microscales of 10−3 m and 10−3 s, and cloud particulate transformations happen at 10−6 m or smaller. Observed intrinsic variability is spectrally broad band across all intermediate scales. A full representation for all dynamical degrees of freedom in different quantities and scales is uncomputable even with optimistically foreseeable computer technology. No fundamentally reliable reduction of the size of the AOS dynamical system (i.e., a statistical mechanics analogous to the transition between molecular kinetics and fluid dynamics) is yet envisioned.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Show me a fundamentally reliable reduction in the size of AOS dynamical systems – I won’t be impressed. I will just think it is more rubbish.