#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Global warming and thermodynamical quantities

There was recently an interesting article in the New York times with the attention provoking title:

To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees

The article was written by an assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale.

In the article the author warns of socalled V.O.C.'s, (something I haven't heard of before):

Worse, trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health. These emissions are crucial to trees — to protect themselves from environmental stresses like sweltering heat and bug infestations. In summer, the eastern United States is the world’s major hot spot for volatile organic compounds (V.O.C.s) from trees.

and moreover they write:

Climate scientists have calculated the effect of increasing forest cover on surface temperature. Their conclusion is that planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.

if I understood the article right then more or less both facts taken together (the carbon cycle and its possible wrong understandings is also mentioned) leads to the recommendation: " Don’t Plant Trees." There are no references with respect to the claims though.

even if, as the author writes:

Planting trees and avoiding deforestation do offer unambiguous benefits to biodiversity and many forms of life. But relying on forestry to slow or reverse global warming is another matter entirely.

If you look at that pretty foto traumawald by Christian Miersch, who had recently commented here on Azimuth, then it seems indeed to be an important question wether science is able to determine the right measures to adress climate change.

For me this article brought however up some question, which I've been tossing around for quite a while, which is the question of the role of certain thermodynamic quantities like entropy and chemical energy in the question of global warming. That is a dark surface absorbs a lot of infrared (thats what I figure is behind the assertion: planting trees in the colder regions would lead to cooling etc. that is the net albedo change in reversing grasslands and other soils into forests seems to be different in differetn climates, where I am not sure wether I understood all the resonings behind this)) but one question is also: what's happening with the absorbed infrared. That is black body radiation is only a fist approximation and it might be worthwhile to think about effects like conversion into chemical energy etc. Like if I would look at this example of upconversion then the upconverted light of a dark looking leave would differently contribute to the overall radiation and in particular to the infrared balance, which plays an important role in the green house effect. In that context I am also asking myself how big are the cooling effects of human efforts in killing biodiversity and building rigid structures like streets and houses. That is exageratedly speaking: if earth would be covered with concrete then this could be seen as lowering the overall earth entropy, and if this would be the case some of the sun's energy would have needed to go into that entropy lowering and not into heat. I was hesitating to ask this question, because I always had some unease with certain thermodynamical laws (visible e.g. here.), but I am not sure how much of this under-understanding is due to missing out some literature or forgetting learned content.

«13

• Options
1.

Regarding the thermodynamic analysis WRT global warming.

I had the same idea and wrote about it here in the context of the CSALT model that I am working on

http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/

I guess that's what happens if one reads John's forum and you get ideas. I provided a link to John's post where he discusses variational principles.

A more thorough evaluation is here:

http://contextearth.com/2013/11/21/variational-principles-in-thermodynamics/

I don't know if this is a correct evaluation because it is of course impossible to do a controlled experiment on the Earth's atmosphere and ocean. The fact that the ocean immediately takes up likely 90% of the energy imbalance says that this may in fact be second-order. Yet, one can still do some impressive projections based on training the climate on thermodynamic factors that can absorb the excessive heat coming into the system, with CO2 being the ringleader:

This model also has relevance to the El Nino project, since one thermodynamic factor is variations in pressure, which are taken from the ENSO SOI index. The reason that I got started on the El Nino project was because I wanted to see if I could predict the SOI, and therefore make CSALT into a predictive model.

BTW, I didn't include nad's suggestions for the electrochemical potential implicit in photosynthesis, only because there are no known numbers for this dating back far enough. In my opinion, that is pretty much guesswork. But it certainly would have some effect.

Comment Source:Regarding the thermodynamic analysis WRT global warming. I had the same idea and wrote about it here in the context of the CSALT model that I am working on <http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/> I guess that's what happens if one reads John's forum and you get ideas. I provided a link to John's post where he discusses [variational principles](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/classical-mechanics-versus-thermodynamics-part-1/). A more thorough evaluation is here: <http://contextearth.com/2013/11/21/variational-principles-in-thermodynamics/> I don't know if this is a correct evaluation because it is of course impossible to do a controlled experiment on the Earth's atmosphere and ocean. The fact that the ocean immediately takes up likely 90% of the energy imbalance says that this may in fact be second-order. Yet, one can still do some impressive projections based on training the climate on thermodynamic factors that can absorb the excessive heat coming into the system, with CO2 being the ringleader: ![csalt](http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif) This model also has relevance to the El Nino project, since one thermodynamic factor is variations in pressure, which are taken from the ENSO SOI index. The reason that I got started on the El Nino project was because I wanted to see if I could predict the SOI, and therefore make CSALT into a predictive model. BTW, I didn't include nad's suggestions for the electrochemical potential implicit in photosynthesis, only because there are no known numbers for this dating back far enough. In my opinion, that is pretty much guesswork. But it certainly would have some effect.
• Options
2.

To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees

That is why we should avoid LENGTHY VERBOSE INFERENCS made by people and instead focus to derive the needed conclusions, as much as possible, from algorithms which are non-dogmatic and data driven.

IDEA: Petr Nets could be used as inference nets or Causal Nets of some kind, and the algorithms could scan data continuously and create new places and transitions for a large petri net which aids in making inferences for such huge dynamical systems as our planet is.

Dara

Comment Source:>To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees That is why we should avoid LENGTHY VERBOSE INFERENCS made by people and instead focus to derive the needed conclusions, as much as possible, from algorithms which are non-dogmatic and data driven. IDEA: Petr Nets could be used as inference nets or Causal Nets of some kind, and the algorithms could scan data continuously and create new places and transitions for a large petri net which aids in making inferences for such huge dynamical systems as our planet is. Dara
• Options
3.

As far as "boreal forests warm the climate" is concerned, a few references are: Betts (2000), Bala et al. (2007), and Bonan (2008).

Comment Source:As far as "boreal forests warm the climate" is concerned, a few references are: [Betts (2000)](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/full/408187a0.html), [Bala et al. (2007)](http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550), and [Bonan (2008)](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1444).
• Options
4.
I wrote a post here which followed up on another post on entropy transport. The big generator of entropy is just the thermalization of sunlight. Plants are able to in effect divert some of this, creating photosynthesis products which have free energy. That's what we all live on. Of course, when we've done all that, we've released the entropy, or lost the free energy, that the plants saved. So it's only a postponement.

The export of entropy is interesting. It all does have to get exported, and the mechanism is that the flux of heat out, which balances in, leaves at a lower temperature than it came. If it can be persuaded to leave even cooler, that's more free energy available. That's not necessarily good - it would probably encourage atmospheric mischief.
Comment Source:I wrote a post <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/entropy-and-greenhouse-effect.html">here</a> which followed up on another post on entropy transport. The big generator of entropy is just the thermalization of sunlight. Plants are able to in effect divert some of this, creating photosynthesis products which have free energy. That's what we all live on. Of course, when we've done all that, we've released the entropy, or lost the free energy, that the plants saved. So it's only a postponement. The export of entropy is interesting. It all does have to get exported, and the mechanism is that the flux of heat out, which balances in, leaves at a lower temperature than it came. If it can be persuaded to leave even cooler, that's more free energy available. That's not necessarily good - it would probably encourage atmospheric mischief.
• Options
5.

The big generator of entropy is just the thermalization of sunlight

How do you know that?

There are volcanoes under the oceans spewing incredible amounts of hot gases into the floor of the oceans and much entropy generated from that, which in turn MIGHT be warming the atmosphere as well, over 100s of millions of years. Why this entropy is not considered or measure as negligible.

Generally I need to question every statement as such and all the math and computations, my intuition tells me almost all of us are generally mistaken about the atmospherics dynamical systems

Dara

Comment Source:>The big generator of entropy is just the thermalization of sunlight How do you know that? There are volcanoes under the oceans spewing incredible amounts of hot gases into the floor of the oceans and much entropy generated from that, which in turn MIGHT be warming the atmosphere as well, over 100s of millions of years. Why this entropy is not considered or measure as negligible. Generally I need to question every statement as such and all the math and computations, my intuition tells me almost all of us are generally mistaken about the atmospherics dynamical systems Dara
• Options
6.

Somebody asked this question before on Azimuth somewhere.

Wikipedia cites the earth as generating 47 tW.

heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[4]

Comment Source:Somebody asked this question before on Azimuth somewhere. Wikipedia cites the earth as generating 47 tW. > heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[4]
• Options
7.

Thanx Jim

I was talking about the entropy in waters of the ocean, not surface crust. Most of the planet is covered by water and it is mostly very warm, if I compare the entropy trapped in the waters of the ocean and the atmosphere, I SUSPECT that there is more entropy in the water and lesser in the atmosphere due to density (perhaps).

Let's say I am correct, most entropy is in the water, then where is its source, sun or volcanic activities on sea floor.

If you look at Moon and Mars, which has more entropy in comparison to earth? I would say earth has more entropy because of its vast waters.

I could be entirely incorrect or dead right, but I need to do some calculations and verify.

Dara

Comment Source:Thanx Jim I was talking about the entropy in waters of the ocean, not surface crust. Most of the planet is covered by water and it is mostly very warm, if I compare the entropy trapped in the waters of the ocean and the atmosphere, I SUSPECT that there is more entropy in the water and lesser in the atmosphere due to density (perhaps). Let's say I am correct, most entropy is in the water, then where is its source, sun or volcanic activities on sea floor. If you look at Moon and Mars, which has more entropy in comparison to earth? I would say earth has more entropy because of its vast waters. I could be entirely incorrect or dead right, but I need to do some calculations and verify. Dara
• Options
8.
"There are volcanoes under the oceans spewing incredible amounts of hot gases into the floor of the oceans and much entropy generated from that, which in turn MIGHT be warming the atmosphere as well, over 100s of millions of years."

I think you might be mixing up entropy and enthalpy. The change of entropy is measured by the product of the heat flux and the change of reciprocal temperature. In the case of radiant energy, the starting "temperature" is basically the temperature that could be reached if the light were focussed. That's rather less than solar surface, but its reciprocal is still very low. So the rate of entropy creation is basically solar heat flux times 1/(about 300K).

Solar flux dwarfs anything you can think of - volcanoes, human, whatever. And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions.

If you want to talk about "incredible amounts of hot gases", you really need to look up some numbers.
Comment Source:<i>"There are volcanoes under the oceans spewing incredible amounts of hot gases into the floor of the oceans and much entropy generated from that, which in turn MIGHT be warming the atmosphere as well, over 100s of millions of years."</i> I think you might be mixing up entropy and enthalpy. The change of entropy is measured by the product of the heat flux and the change of reciprocal temperature. In the case of radiant energy, the starting "temperature" is basically the temperature that could be reached if the light were focussed. That's rather less than solar surface, but its reciprocal is still very low. So the rate of entropy creation is basically solar heat flux times 1/(about 300K). Solar flux dwarfs anything you can think of - volcanoes, human, whatever. And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions. If you want to talk about "incredible amounts of hot gases", you really need to look up some numbers.
• Options
9.

If you want to talk about "incredible amounts of hot gases", you really need to look up some numbers.

Sure thing, you know where I could look this up?

And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions.

Then there should be little (residual) entropy on the planet surface? That being said then there has to be other sources for entropy. In desert there is almost no moisture in the day and ice in the evening, that indicates a quick loss of entropy if all is due to sun.

The latter indicates, not inference, that oceans are playing a huge role in maintaining the entropy or enthalpy or any other source of let's call it complexity.

Most essential chemical transportation in our bodies are conducted via the Brownian Motion i.e. via entropic mechanism correct me if I am misunderstanding, if you remove the Brownian Motion of water molecules from our bodies, we cease. Without water's Brownian Motion none of the protein production or folding or transportation is possible.

This gives me an indication, again not inference, that water is key to the planet's entropy maintenance, not the solids and lesser the atmosphere.

And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions.

For deep waters I think this might not be true. And in particular the water properties are exceptional compared to all other liquids known to us, therefore I like to examine the statements we all made to make sure I do not infer prematurely about the Sun's role in entropy on this planet. Either way, I assume no assumptions.

Dara

Comment Source:>If you want to talk about "incredible amounts of hot gases", you really need to look up some numbers. Sure thing, you know where I could look this up? > And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions. Then there should be little (residual) entropy on the planet surface? That being said then there has to be other sources for entropy. In desert there is almost no moisture in the day and ice in the evening, that indicates a quick loss of entropy if all is due to sun. The latter indicates, not inference, that oceans are playing a huge role in maintaining the entropy or enthalpy or any other source of let's call it complexity. Most essential chemical transportation in our bodies are conducted via the Brownian Motion i.e. via entropic mechanism correct me if I am misunderstanding, if you remove the Brownian Motion of water molecules from our bodies, we cease. Without water's Brownian Motion none of the protein production or folding or transportation is possible. This gives me an indication, again not inference, that water is key to the planet's entropy maintenance, not the solids and lesser the atmosphere. >And neither surface heat nor entropy stick around for even years, let alone millions. For deep waters I think this might not be true. And in particular the water properties are exceptional compared to all other liquids known to us, therefore I like to examine the statements we all made to make sure I do not infer prematurely about the Sun's role in entropy on this planet. Either way, I assume no assumptions. Dara
• Options
10.
edited September 2014

The Earth gets 174 Petawatts of sunlight. That's enough to raise the temperature of the entire ocean about 1°C/year, if it stayed around. It doesn't.

The total heat escaping from the earth's interior is about 0.03% of that solar flux. That includes those incredible amounts of hot gases.

Comment Source:The Earth gets 174 Petawatts of sunlight. That's enough to raise the temperature of the entire ocean about 1&deg;C/year, if it stayed around. It doesn't. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget">total heat escaping</a> from the earth's interior is about 0.03% of that solar flux. That includes those incredible amounts of hot gases.
• Options
11.

Here is a recent paper:

Carbon release by off-axis magmatism in a young sedimented spreading centre

Continental rifting creates narrow ocean basins, where coastal ocean upwelling results in high biological productivity and organic-rich sedimentation. In addition, topographic gradients promote silicate weathering, which consumes atmospheric CO2 (ref. 1). The carbon flux associated with these processes has led to the suggestion that rifting may cool the atmosphere, leading in some cases to glaciation2 and even a snowball Earth scenario3

I will dig up the data from Prof. Lizarralde and their findings and possible models for the warming or cooling, great activity for migrained insomnia. Again I do not see the role of sun in this.

While I believe the sun has a lot to do with the entropy or complexity of our planet, I also believe that our water systems are also contributing, my intuition tells me even more that sun but this is not an inference.

Moreover in other papers they are talking about the salinity of the water in relation to entropy :

Climatological mean distribution of specific entropy in the oceans

Entropy, as enthalpy, internal energy of seawater is scientifically interesting thermodynamic state function of seawater.

It seems they use Entropy and Enthalpy as same definition for disorder.

Salinity of the ocean waters play important role in the derivative equation for the entropy!

Dara

Comment Source:Here is a recent paper: [Carbon release by off-axis magmatism in a young sedimented spreading centre](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n1/abs/ngeo1006.html) >Continental rifting creates narrow ocean basins, where coastal ocean upwelling results in high biological productivity and organic-rich sedimentation. In addition, topographic gradients promote silicate weathering, which consumes atmospheric CO2 (ref. 1). The carbon flux associated with these processes has led to the suggestion that rifting may cool the atmosphere, leading in some cases to glaciation2 and even a snowball Earth scenario3 I will dig up the data from Prof. Lizarralde and their findings and possible models for the warming or cooling, great activity for migrained insomnia. Again I do not see the role of sun in this. While I believe the sun has a lot to do with the entropy or complexity of our planet, I also believe that our water systems are also contributing, my intuition tells me even more that sun but this is not an inference. Moreover in other papers they are talking about the salinity of the water in relation to entropy : [Climatological mean distribution of specific entropy in the oceans](http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/4/129/2007/osd-4-129-2007.pdf) >Entropy, as enthalpy, internal energy of seawater is scientifically interesting thermodynamic state function of seawater. It seems they use Entropy and Enthalpy as same definition for disorder. Salinity of the ocean waters play important role in the derivative equation for the entropy! Dara
• Options
12.
edited September 2014

"It seems they use Entropy and Enthalpy as same definition for disorder." You need to read the fine print. Referee #1 said: "This manuscript is concerned with dispelling a non-issue, namely that isentropic surfaces are different to potential density surfaces. It makes basic thermodynamic errors and it should not be published."

The editor said: "This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Ocean Science (OS). A final paper in OS is not foreseen."

It's important not to make basic thermodynamic errors. Enthalpy and entropy have different units. Enthalpy is not a measure of disorder.

Intuition is fine, but reading some textbooks would help.

Comment Source:<i>"It seems they use Entropy and Enthalpy as same definition for disorder."</i> You need to read the fine print. Referee #1 said: <i>"This manuscript is concerned with dispelling a non-issue, namely that isentropic surfaces are different to potential density surfaces. It makes basic thermodynamic errors and it should not be published."</i> The editor said: <i>"This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Ocean Science (OS). A final paper in OS is not foreseen."</i> It's important not to make basic thermodynamic errors. Enthalpy and entropy have different units. Enthalpy is not a measure of disorder. Intuition is fine, but reading some textbooks would help.
• Options
13.

Enthalpy is not a measure of disorder

I was talking about disorder or complexity, so the word per your conclusion is entropy as I was using it. Please disregard my comments on Enthalpy.

Intuition is fine, but reading some textbooks would help.

I did not say intuition only approach, clearly as I read in many current papers published by reputable scientists that there are discrepancies in the entropic modelling of the atmosphere and oceans and one has to use intuition in occasions TO QUESTION one's preconceived notions.

I am sure we all need to read books not just me, and why I am here to learn from John, reading books and journals are not enough. The most important preamble to learning is to believe deeply that I do not know something or I am ignorant about a matter. I am not here because I am learned but because I want to learn.

This idea of reading some textbooks does not make anyone scientists. So I rather have a master apprentice relationship, my hope being to learn from John as such here. Work on and code actual problems with actual data, also read books and paper and blogs and also read the discussions in places like here. For me this is a sounder scientific approach.

Dara

Comment Source:>Enthalpy is not a measure of disorder I was talking about disorder or complexity, so the word per your conclusion is entropy as I was using it. Please disregard my comments on Enthalpy. >Intuition is fine, but reading some textbooks would help. I did not say intuition only approach, clearly as I read in many current papers published by reputable scientists that there are discrepancies in the entropic modelling of the atmosphere and oceans and one has to use intuition in occasions TO QUESTION one's preconceived notions. I am sure we all need to read books not just me, and why I am here to learn from John, reading books and journals are not enough. The most important preamble to learning is to believe deeply that I do not know something or I am ignorant about a matter. I am not here because I am learned but because I want to learn. This idea of reading some textbooks does not make anyone scientists. So I rather have a master apprentice relationship, my hope being to learn from John as such here. Work on and code actual problems with actual data, also read books and paper and blogs and also read the discussions in places like here. For me this is a sounder scientific approach. Dara
• Options
14.

The thermodynamical models for atmospherics and oceanics are far from understood:

Energy transports by ocean and atmosphere based on an entropy extremum principle

He questions some Extremum techniques, in other words much is not known even how to model these entropic models.

This is a better approach:

TOA: top-of-atmosphere flux

The work requires using actual top of the atmosphere satellite data for flux of radiation and build models for forecasting or categorizing the flux. This IMHO is a sound ground for scientific investigation. Again I count on John to clarify these approaches and thoughts.

Here again some significant anomalies are related to water:

It appears to be related in part to changes in the nature of tropical clouds (Wielicki et al., 2002a), based on the smaller changes in the clear-sky component of the radiative fluxes (Wong et al., 2000; Allan and Slingo, 2002), and appears to be statistically distinct from the spatial signals associated with ENSO (Allan and Slingo, 2002; Chen et al., 2002).

Dara

Comment Source:The thermodynamical models for atmospherics and oceanics are far from understood: [Energy transports by ocean and atmosphere based on an entropy extremum principle](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01031905) He questions some Extremum techniques, in other words much is not known even how to model these entropic models. This is a better approach: [TOA: top-of-atmosphere flux](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html) The work requires using actual top of the atmosphere satellite data for flux of radiation and build models for forecasting or categorizing the flux. This IMHO is a sound ground for scientific investigation. Again I count on John to clarify these approaches and thoughts. Here again some significant anomalies are related to water: >It appears to be related in part to changes in the nature of tropical clouds (Wielicki et al., 2002a), based on the smaller changes in the clear-sky component of the radiative fluxes (Wong et al., 2000; Allan and Slingo, 2002), and appears to be statistically distinct from the spatial signals associated with ENSO (Allan and Slingo, 2002; Chen et al., 2002). Dara
• Options
15.
edited November 2014

Paul, you wrote in your CSALT model comment

Regarding the thermodynamic analysis WRT global warming.

I had the same idea and wrote about it here in the context of the CSALT model that I am working on

http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/

I guess that’s what happens if one reads John’s forum and you get ideas. I provided a link to John’s post where he discusses variational principles.

The "thermodynamic analysis of global warming" is a sort of ongoing theme here in the Azimuth discussions and in global warming, which it should, as it is rather essential. For example in this post on the wiki Frederic wrote about radiation balances. I was however not really up for a fully fledged analysis, but made just some comments, because amongst others I could imagine that the thermodynamic balance for forests is different than for a sheet of black metall. Like Planck's law (which is used for the Albedo argumentation) makes rather special assumptions and I could imagine that plants with their conversion into electrochemical energy could display a rather different behaviour, but I don't know.

And frankly I have problems with your CSALT model. That is the modelling of the temperature curve looks impressing, however I didn't see at another place that mathematical problems (with the software) were aliviated, moreover I have trouble to understand your derivation of the CSALT model.

That is I can somewhat see that a variational approach may in principle give a model, however I can't relate to what's written in your post Variational principles.

For the derivation you refer to a paper by W. Muschik, P. Van and C. Papenfuss. I should point out that I personally know two of the authors, namely W. Muschik and C. Papenfuss. I had taken part in the one-semester thermodynamics lecture by W. Muschik, which was a requirement for the physics diploma at TU Berlin. Chistina Papenfuss was about in the same year as me and I occasionally chit-chatted with her, while I was still at TU (which I left 14 years ago) It is interesting to see that she has been like me recently a lecturer for HTW. I have though been in media informatics at HTW and she has been in car construction. You can't live on this lecturing though, so I hope she has some other income sources or someone who supports her. The job market theoretical physicists/physical mathematicians in Berlin is tight....

Anyways I know two of the authors, but I don't know much about their work. The paper seems to be an overview article for insiders, that is quite some notation and quantities are introduced without much or no explanation and definition. Like e.g. the quantity q isn't even introduced and you can only guess that it is probably some kind of heat density flux. Their approach seems only somewhat similar to John's variational approach. In particular it seems they arrive at the free energy condition from an entropy principle not via Lagrange parameters, but via making some assumptions on the involved quantities and dynamics (which may eventually be similar, as assuming a Lagrange constraint).

However their assumptions are rather strict and I can't at all relate how your assignments:

rho T S rightarrow Temperature and Heat Capacity

rho epsilon rightarrow LOD as internal energy

go together with their definitions. Like why is the length of day an internal energy? It's a time. Frankly it looks to me as that there are too many problems with your CSALT approach, that it can't be saved.

Comment Source:Paul, you wrote in your <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1485/global-warming-and-thermodynamical-quantities/?Focus=12634#Comment_12634">CSALT model comment</a> >Regarding the thermodynamic analysis WRT global warming. >I had the same idea and wrote about it here in the context of the CSALT model that I am working on >http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/ >I guess that’s what happens if one reads John’s forum and you get ideas. I provided a link to John’s post where he discusses variational principles. The "thermodynamic analysis of global warming" is a sort of ongoing theme here in the Azimuth discussions and in global warming, which it should, as it is rather essential. For example in <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Blog+-+doubling+CO2+part+two%3A+optical+depth+and+atmospheric+profiles">this post on the wiki</a> Frederic wrote about radiation balances. I was however not really up for a fully fledged analysis, but made just some comments, because amongst others I could imagine that the thermodynamic balance for forests is different than for a sheet of black metall. Like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law">Planck's law</a> (which is used for the Albedo argumentation) makes rather special assumptions and I could imagine that plants with their conversion into electrochemical energy could display a rather different behaviour, but I don't know. And frankly I have problems with your CSALT model. That is the modelling of the temperature curve looks impressing, however I didn't see at another place that <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1471/qbo-and-enso/?Focus=12484#Comment_12484">mathematical problems</a> (with the software) were aliviated, moreover I have trouble to understand your derivation of the CSALT model. That is I can somewhat see that a variational approach may in principle give a model, however I can't relate to what's written in your post <a href="http://contextearth.com/2013/11/21/variational-principles-in-thermodynamics/">Variational principles</a>. For the derivation you refer to a <a href="http://www.ovgu.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/2000_Heft2/Muschik.pdf">paper by W. Muschik, P. Van and C. Papenfuss.</a> I should point out that I personally know two of the authors, namely W. Muschik and C. Papenfuss. I had taken part in the one-semester thermodynamics lecture by W. Muschik, which was a requirement for the physics diploma at TU Berlin. Chistina Papenfuss was about in the same year as me and I occasionally chit-chatted with her, while I was still at TU (which I left 14 years ago) It is interesting to see that she has been like me recently a <a href="http://www.htw-berlin.de/organisation/?typo3state=persons&amp;lsfid=3344">lecturer for HTW.</a> I have though been in media informatics at HTW and she has been in car construction. You can't live on this lecturing though, so I hope she has some other income sources or someone who supports her. The job market theoretical physicists/physical mathematicians in Berlin is tight.... Anyways I know two of the authors, but I don't know much about their work. The paper seems to be an overview article for insiders, that is quite some notation and quantities are introduced without much or no explanation and definition. Like e.g. the quantity q isn't even introduced and you can only guess that it is probably some kind of heat density flux. Their approach seems only somewhat similar to John's variational approach. In particular it seems they arrive at the free energy condition from an entropy principle not via Lagrange parameters, but via making some assumptions on the involved quantities and dynamics (which may eventually be similar, as assuming a Lagrange constraint). However their assumptions are rather strict and I can't at all relate how your assignments: >rho T S rightarrow Temperature and Heat Capacity >rho epsilon rightarrow LOD as internal energy go together with their definitions. Like why is the length of day an internal energy? It's a time. Frankly it looks to me as that there are too many problems with your CSALT approach, that it can't be saved.
• Options
16.
edited November 2014

I don't know why the above text is not parsed, I get the replies:

## Error 27: Entity 'deg' not defined Line: 1, column: 123

Fatal Error 23: EntityRef: expecting ';' Line: 24, column: 336

but there is no deg in line 1.

(I fixed the above post. The main problem was using an <a> without a matching </a>. This tends to cause mysterious error messages. - John Baez)

Comment Source:I don't know why the above text is not parsed, I get the replies: >Error 27: Entity 'deg' not defined Line: 1, column: 123 >------------------------------------------- >Fatal Error 23: EntityRef: expecting ';' Line: 24, column: 336 but there is no deg in line 1. <hr/> (I fixed the above post. The main problem was using an <a> without a matching </a>. This tends to cause mysterious error messages. - John Baez)
• Options
17.

Paul's CSALT model is similar to what everyone here has been talking about, so I do not see what is the problem with his approach.

I am skeptic in using the linear regression for these sorts of data we have here, but save that his approach is IMHO is sound.

Basically Paul models an atmospheric phenomenon with some math and physics theory, then manually or via software fits a differential equation and then solves it, this the foundation of all known physical theories these days.

Dara

Comment Source:Paul's CSALT model is similar to what everyone here has been talking about, so I do not see what is the problem with his approach. I am skeptic in using the linear regression for these sorts of data we have here, but save that his approach is IMHO is sound. Basically Paul models an atmospheric phenomenon with some math and physics theory, then manually or via software fits a differential equation and then solves it, this the foundation of all known physical theories these days. Dara
• Options
18.

Basically Paul models an atmospheric phenomenon with some math and physics theory, then manually or via software fits a differential equation and then solves it, this the foundation of all known physical theories these days.

Ideally you "find a differential equation" or other mathematical descriptions via physical principles and insert missing parameters via measurements. You do that because in particular you want to understand "why" things work in a certain way, it seemed to me that Paul was using an inequality and interpreted it freely, without much regard for the original intention.

And there are also parts of mathematics which enter the foundation of physical theories, not just differential equations, so differential equations are "a" foundation but not "the" foundation, but maybe you wanted to say that, that is you seemed to have been in a haste when writing - even the "is" in front of the foundation is missing.

Comment Source:>Basically Paul models an atmospheric phenomenon with some math and physics theory, then manually or via software fits a differential equation and then solves it, this the foundation of all known physical theories these days. Ideally you "find a differential equation" or other mathematical descriptions via physical principles and insert missing parameters via measurements. You do that because in particular you want to understand "why" things work in a certain way, it seemed to me that Paul was using an inequality and interpreted it freely, without much regard for the original intention. And there are also parts of mathematics which enter the foundation of physical theories, not just differential equations, so differential equations are "a" foundation but not "the" foundation, but maybe you wanted to say that, that is you seemed to have been in a haste when writing - even the "is" in front of the foundation is missing.
• Options
19.

No I meant THE FOUNDATION and it was an indirect quote from Richard Feynman from his Lecture Notes on differential operators.

Obviously there are many theories which have no differential operators, but my meaning was clear, "just about" any theory dealing with dynamical systems ends up with some sort of differential equation as the model, many many of them use Lie Theory on Matrix Manifolds and at the end of the day end up with systems of differential equations. This is of course given my limited knowledge and limited mental capacity, best I fathom how the theories are stitched together. This is not absolute truth.

it seemed to me that Paul was using an inequality and interpreted it freely, without much regard for the original intention.

I suggest that we will leave Paul FREE to interpret, no one has any ideas worth noting or any computation worth mentioning about the planetary dynamical systems as it is related to El Nino and other similar weather systems. As a matter of fact Paul has REPRODUCIBLE work which I could recode and investigate and add something to, I could not say that for most of the papers posted here, I cannot reproduce any of them, I cannot even reproduce their original data or even their definitions! Therefore I conclude that Paul's work is sound and scientific, it allows the readers like me to LEARN and to REPRODUCE his work and ADD ON additional ideas and works to improve.

It took me a week for one little CDF addition for Paul's work, a day of one of the engineers at Wolfram Research Techsupport, and still we are not finished. So it requires many iterations and teamwork to produce something remotely useful. 99% of our efforts are waste, yet to produce a new thought that is what it takes.

Limiting Paul at the onset of his research to come up with an original idea is counter productive. I used the word productive, I tell my Self to be productive here and if I see someone producing something I rush to read their work see if I could lend a helping hand, if I could not contribute I try to say something positive and encouraging. And in some occasions I double check and ask if I was too critical in my language and write the person perhaps directly, because I have failings and I am sure others do as well.

Dara

Comment Source:No I meant THE FOUNDATION and it was an indirect quote from Richard Feynman from his Lecture Notes on differential operators. Obviously there are many theories which have no differential operators, but my meaning was clear, "just about" any theory dealing with dynamical systems ends up with some sort of differential equation as the model, many many of them use Lie Theory on Matrix Manifolds and at the end of the day end up with systems of differential equations. This is of course given my limited knowledge and limited mental capacity, best I fathom how the theories are stitched together. This is not absolute truth. >it seemed to me that Paul was using an inequality and interpreted it freely, without much regard for the original intention. I suggest that we will leave Paul FREE to interpret, no one has any ideas worth noting or any computation worth mentioning about the planetary dynamical systems as it is related to El Nino and other similar weather systems. As a matter of fact Paul has REPRODUCIBLE work which I could recode and investigate and add something to, I could not say that for most of the papers posted here, I cannot reproduce any of them, I cannot even reproduce their original data or even their definitions! Therefore I conclude that Paul's work is sound and scientific, it allows the readers like me to LEARN and to REPRODUCE his work and ADD ON additional ideas and works to improve. It took me a week for one little CDF addition for Paul's work, a day of one of the engineers at Wolfram Research Techsupport, and still we are not finished. So it requires many iterations and teamwork to produce something remotely useful. 99% of our efforts are waste, yet to produce a new thought that is what it takes. Limiting Paul at the onset of his research to come up with an original idea is counter productive. I used the word productive, I tell my Self to be productive here and if I see someone producing something I rush to read their work see if I could lend a helping hand, if I could not contribute I try to say something positive and encouraging. And in some occasions I double check and ask if I was too critical in my language and write the person perhaps directly, because I have failings and I am sure others do as well. Dara
• Options
20.
edited October 2014

First of all, CSALT has little to do with what I am doing with fitting the ENSO factors via differential equations, so I don't want to conflate the two.

CSALT is more of a phenomenological approach to explaining the global temperature record trends by composing via known factors, and one of these happens to be an ENSO index.

The LOD factor (the L in CSALT) is an interesting one, because we know that any changes in the earth's rotational speed has to impact the internal energy in some way. It was the idea of J. Dickey and others at JPL to associate those changes with long-term changes in the surface temperature. No one had tried incorporating that as a variate along with the other known variates, which is what makes it a bit different than what other climatologuists such as Foster/Rahmsdorf and Lean were doing with their multivariate approach.

J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.

And the reason that I started looking at ENSO was that I realized that CSALT had less of a predictive capability as long as we could not predict ENSO. So after figuring out this ENSO thing, perhaps I will try to look in to what is causing the LOD and whether that is in fact somehow related to the multidecadal variability in temperature.

Secondly, as far as the mystery of thermodynamics, this is what Peter Ván said

"The basic mystery in thermodynamics is the universality. The validity of thermodynamic equations and theories regularly exceed the expectations."


P. Ván, “Thermodynamics of continua: the challenge of universality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.3582, 2013.

Scientists routinely apply thermodynamics as a first-order approximation, and it seems to work ins spite of everyone's realization that much of the details are buried. Consider just the connection between entropy and heat capacity. I do think that nad's idea of applying the free energy of biotic activity in this formulation is a good one, unfortunately I don't have the measure for that, unlike the other factors.

Comment Source:First of all, CSALT has little to do with what I am doing with fitting the ENSO factors via differential equations, so I don't want to conflate the two. CSALT is more of a phenomenological approach to explaining the global temperature record trends by composing via known factors, and one of these happens to be an ENSO index. The LOD factor (the L in CSALT) is an interesting one, because we know that any changes in the earth's rotational speed has to impact the internal energy in some way. It was the idea of J. Dickey and others at JPL to associate those changes with long-term changes in the surface temperature. No one had tried incorporating that as a variate along with the other known variates, which is what makes it a bit different than what other climatologuists such as Foster/Rahmsdorf and Lean were doing with their multivariate approach. J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011. And the reason that I started looking at ENSO was that I realized that CSALT had less of a predictive capability as long as we could not predict ENSO. So after figuring out this ENSO thing, perhaps I will try to look in to what is causing the LOD and whether that is in fact somehow related to the multidecadal variability in temperature. Secondly, as far as the mystery of thermodynamics, this is what Peter Ván said "The basic mystery in thermodynamics is the universality. The validity of thermodynamic equations and theories regularly exceed the expectations." P. Ván, “Thermodynamics of continua: the challenge of universality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.3582, 2013. Scientists routinely apply thermodynamics as a first-order approximation, and it seems to work ins spite of everyone's realization that much of the details are buried. Consider just the connection between entropy and heat capacity. I do think that nad's idea of applying the free energy of biotic activity in this formulation is a good one, unfortunately I don't have the measure for that, unlike the other factors.
• Options
21.
edited November 2014

Limiting Paul at the onset of his research to come up with an original idea is counter productive.

I don't limit Paul. I just say that I see big problems here and I even don't feel like discussing them any further.

The LOD factor (the L in CSALT) is an interesting one, because we know that any changes in the earth’s rotational speed has to impact the internal energy in some way.

Yes could be in principle, but nevertheless the length of a day is no energy and what I understood from the article (where I don't understand how they came up with this) that the integral over rho epsilon dV is considered to be an energy, which relates to the internal energy. And the earth rotation might be one aspect but it would not account for the full internal energy of the earth.

Secondly, as far as the mystery of thermodynamics, this is what Peter Ván said

"The basic mystery in thermodynamics is the universality. The validity of thermodynamic equations and theories regularly exceed the expectations."

P. Ván, “Thermodynamics of continua: the challenge of universality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.3582, 2013.

Yes and he wrote sentences like:

The van der Waals gas body has a fold bifurcation at the critical point, and we can observe a slow manifold in Fig. 1 with the particular interaction parameters.

Paul, I would like to better understand what's going on here and thus tried to get a general look on the P. Van community - unfortunately it seems that the adresses in P. Van's: THERMODYNAMICS OF CONTINUA:THE CHALLENGE OF UNIVERSALITY seem outdated. That is there is no Dept. of Theoretical Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, but only a Department of Nuclear Physics or a Dp. for Particle Physics, in neither one I could find P.Van. There is also no Dept. of Energy Engineering at the Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics and that Link here is all I found about a Montavid research Group.

Comment Source:> Limiting Paul at the onset of his research to come up with an original idea is counter productive. I don't limit Paul. I just say that I see big problems here and I even don't feel like discussing them any further. >The LOD factor (the L in CSALT) is an interesting one, because we know that any changes in the earth’s rotational speed has to impact the internal energy in some way. Yes could be in principle, but nevertheless the length of a day is no energy and what I understood from the article (where I don't understand how they came up with this) that the integral over rho epsilon dV is considered to be an energy, which relates to the internal energy. And the earth rotation might be one aspect but it would not account for the full internal energy of the earth. > Secondly, as far as the mystery of thermodynamics, this is what Peter Ván said > "The basic mystery in thermodynamics is the universality. The validity of thermodynamic equations and theories regularly exceed the expectations." > P. Ván, “Thermodynamics of continua: the challenge of universality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.3582, 2013. Yes and he wrote sentences like: > The van der Waals gas body has a fold bifurcation at the critical point, and we can observe a slow manifold in Fig. 1 with the particular interaction parameters. Paul, I would like to better understand what's going on here and thus tried to get a general look on the P. Van community - unfortunately it seems that the adresses in <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3582v1.pdf">P. Van's: THERMODYNAMICS OF CONTINUA:THE CHALLENGE OF UNIVERSALITY</a> seem outdated. That is there is no Dept. of Theoretical Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, but only a <a href="http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/en/nuclphys/people"> Department of Nuclear Physics</a> or a Dp. for Particle Physics, in neither one I could find P.Van. There is also no Dept. of Energy Engineering at the Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics <a href="http://www.bme.hu/education">Budapest Univ. of Technology and Economics</a> and that Link here is all I found about a <a href="http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml">Montavid research Group.</a>
• Options
22.
edited October 2014

Hi Nad, The reason why the parser is choking on these posts is because the html anchor syntax that you are using isn't supported (at least directly).

But the Markdown syntax for links works fine.

This text:

Here is a link about the [Montavid research group](http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=6220)


Produces this result:

Comment Source:Hi Nad, The reason why the parser is choking on these posts is because the html anchor syntax that you are using isn't supported (at least directly). But the Markdown syntax for links works fine. This text: Here is a link about the [Montavid research group](http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=6220) Produces this result: Here is a link about the [Montavid research group](http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=6220)
• Options
23.

Hi Dara, Please don't use capitals except for abbreviations. Context is nearly everything and the convention I and I think most other netizens interpret is that capitals are shouting!!! I guess emphasis can be done with asterisks but I find out in a second. Cheers

Comment Source:Hi Dara, Please don't use capitals except for abbreviations. Context is nearly everything and the convention I and I think most other netizens interpret is that capitals are shouting!!! I guess emphasis can be done with *asterisks* but I find out in a second. Cheers
• Options
24.

Seems so.

Comment Source:Seems so.
• Options
25.

ok sorry, no one is shouting.

I capitalize so the reader might not want to read longer notes and with a lot of focus.

D

Comment Source:ok sorry, no one is shouting. I capitalize so the reader might not want to read longer notes and with a lot of focus. D
• Options
26.

Typing this:

I would like to _emphasize_ the following *slightly bold* and **very bold** ideas.

Produces this:

I would like to emphasize the following slightly bold and very bold ideas.

(Note, ignore the Source for this message, where I had to escape the askterisks and underscores.)

Comment Source:Typing this: > I would like to \_emphasize\_ the following \*slightly bold\* and \*\*very bold\*\* ideas. Produces this: I would like to _emphasize_ the following *slightly bold* and **very bold** ideas. (Note, ignore the Source for this message, where I had to escape the askterisks and underscores.)
• Options
27.

Thanx David, I try to get used to this etiquette.

Comment Source:Thanx David, I try to get used to this etiquette.
• Options
28.

I just say that I see big problems here and I even don’t feel like discussing them any further.

Sorry Nad this is not acceptable, if you see big problems specially given how friendly Paul is and how hard he works in this group, you must accept resistance to your criticism. This is a part of analytical discourse to hash out issues and problems, obviously sometimes it might even get heated but that is what engineers do all the time and it is not personal.

If you hold others accountable to their analysis and they have the right to reciprocate, responses should be accordingly rather than one way jab from grammar use to thermodynamics.

Dara

Comment Source:Nad wrote: >I just say that I see big problems here and I even don&#8217;t feel like discussing them any further. Sorry Nad this is not acceptable, if you see **big problems** specially given how friendly Paul is and how hard he works in this group, you **must** accept resistance to your criticism. This is a part of analytical discourse to hash out issues and problems, obviously sometimes it might even get heated but that is what engineers do all the time and it is not personal. If you hold others accountable to their analysis and they have the right to reciprocate, responses should be accordingly rather than one way jab from grammar use to thermodynamics. Dara
• Options
29.

The LOD is really shorthand for small changes in angular momentum of the planet. Many people realize that disturbances such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis can alter the moment of inertia of the earth enough that, together with the laws of conservation of momentum and energy that the length of day (LOD) will change slightly. If the LOD increases, then the earth has lost angular kinetic energy, and if it has decreased, then the earth has gained some.

Now, whether this is a real connection or just coincidence, what Dickey and others have observed is that the average temperature of the earth's surface will proportionally follow this change in LOD, with a slight lag. This is a JPL graph, where CAM represents an angular momentum

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-074

Whether this is poleward motion of water that changes both the angular momentum of the planet along with an average temperature, no one really knows but they think that may be too small an effect. More likely, Dickey indicated it still could be some internal mantle-related effects which then can have an effect on climate through changes in magnetic shielding. And I believe that nad brought that up on another thread.

Comment Source:The LOD is really shorthand for small *changes* in angular momentum of the planet. Many people realize that disturbances such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis can alter the moment of inertia of the earth enough that, together with the laws of conservation of momentum and energy that the length of day (LOD) will change slightly. If the LOD increases, then the earth has lost angular kinetic energy, and if it has decreased, then the earth has gained some. Now, whether this is a real connection or just coincidence, what Dickey and others have observed is that the average temperature of the earth's surface will proportionally follow this change in LOD, with a slight lag. This is a JPL graph, where CAM represents an angular momentum ![LOD](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/20110309/earth20110309b-full.jpg) <http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-074> Whether this is poleward motion of water that changes both the angular momentum of the planet along with an average temperature, no one really knows but they think that may be too small an effect. More likely, Dickey indicated it still could be some internal mantle-related effects which then can have an effect on climate through changes in magnetic shielding. And I believe that nad brought that up on another thread.
• Options
30.

Paul wrote:

More likely, Dickey indicated it still could be some internal mantle-related effects which then can have an effect on climate through changes in magnetic shielding. And I believe that nad brought that up on another thread.

Yes indeed, thanks for remembering what I said. This is quite unusual. I still sort of try to find out about this (what I think) is an exact biannual global temperature oscillation and I cautiously suspected that this might be an effect, which is eventually caused by some resonance of the magnetic fields of earth and sun. Sort of similar as one could suspect an electron around an atom. However before spending too much time with those speculations it would be better to check back on the temperature data (like look at other sets as well) and apart from that I have other things to do, which I should do for generating some income. Like soon I have a meeting, where business opportunities through handicraft (knitting and crotcheting) are evaluated. It is a 6 month project called "StrickWare" which is mainly adressed (as written in the project announcement) to the "russian speaking 50+" generation. (That is a lot of the female Aussiedler (germans from eastern Europe) have excellent knitting skills and in the project it is investigated wether those skills can contribute to a living. I am not an Aussiedler, but I am "russian speaking 50+" and my knitting skills are not so bad, so that I thought I should take the chance to find a way of how to make a living, as said above Lehraufträge are not so good for this purpose)

Your plots of the LOD made me though look at the data service of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, but unfortunately they use quite some unexplained acronyms like DX which is neither listed in the glossary nor in the table of acronyms.

Do you know what DEPS is?

Comment Source:Paul wrote: >More likely, Dickey indicated it still could be some internal mantle-related effects which then can have an effect on climate through changes in magnetic shielding. And I believe that nad brought that up on another thread. Yes indeed, thanks for remembering what I said. This is quite unusual. I still sort of try to find out about this (what I think) is an **exact biannual** global temperature oscillation and I cautiously suspected that this might be an effect, which is eventually caused by some resonance of the magnetic fields of earth and sun. Sort of similar as one could suspect an electron around an atom. However before spending too much time with those speculations it would be better to check back on the temperature data (like look at other sets as well) and apart from that I have other things to do, which I should do for generating some income. Like soon I have a meeting, where business opportunities through handicraft (knitting and crotcheting) are evaluated. It is a 6 month project called "StrickWare" which is mainly adressed (as written in the project announcement) to the "russian speaking 50+" generation. (That is a lot of the female <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussiedler_und_Sp%C3%A4taussiedler">Aussiedler</a> (germans from eastern Europe) have excellent knitting skills and in the project it is investigated wether those skills can contribute to a living. I am not an Aussiedler, but I am "russian speaking 50+" and my knitting skills are not so bad, so that I thought I should take the chance to find a way of how to make a living, as said above Lehraufträge are not so good for this purpose) Your plots of the LOD made me though look at the data service of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, but unfortunately they use quite some unexplained acronyms like [DX](http://datacenter.iers.org/eop/-/somos/5Rgv/document/pl14iers.0020h1/BulletinA_All-DX.jpg) which is neither listed in the [glossary](http://ww2.iers.org/EN/Service/Glossary/glossary_node.html) nor in the table of acronyms. Do you know what DEPS is?
• Options
31.

Dara said

you must accept resistance to your criticism.

I accept resistance to my critisism, but that doesn't mean that I need to discuss.

Comment Source:Dara said >you must accept resistance to your criticism. I accept resistance to my critisism, but that doesn't mean that I need to discuss.
• Options
32.

I think DEPS might be a celestial pole offset to describe a polar wobble

So DEPS = dEps and dPsi are the angular equivalents of using DX=dX and dY. These of course vary slightly over time.

Comment Source:I think DEPS might be a celestial pole offset to describe a polar wobble So DEPS = dEps and dPsi are the angular equivalents of using DX=dX and dY. These of course vary slightly over time.
• Options
33.

I accept resistance to my critisism, but that doesn’t mean that I need to discuss.

That is also true for the rest of us here, we do not need to discuss one criticism after the other. I prefer someone help me to produce something new than constantly criticize my every words.

To be very clear with you and everyone else here, with the exception of John's comments, the discussions here are opinions or experimental thoughts. These discussions are not laws of nature and most of what is quoted as fact or data need to be revisited again and again for their veracity.

Dara

Comment Source:Nad said: >I accept resistance to my critisism, but that doesn’t mean that I need to discuss. That is also true for the rest of us here, we **do not need to discuss** one criticism after the other. I prefer someone help me to **produce** something new than constantly criticize my every words. To be very clear with you and everyone else here, **with the exception of John's comments**, the discussions here are opinions or experimental thoughts. These discussions are not laws of nature and most of what is quoted as fact or data need to be revisited again and again for their veracity. Dara
• Options
34.
edited October 2014

I prefer someone help me to produce something new than constantly criticize my every words.

To be very clear with you and everyone else here, with the exception of John’s comments, the discussions here are opinions or experimental thoughts.

No my comment on this specific math problem which Paul had was not an opinion or experimental thought.

Dara, I can understand that you prefer producing than constant criticism, but this criticism is important.

It seems I left a rather monstrous impression with my comments, but usually I am in a rather average mood. Here you can see me in our knitting circle with our coach Silke Müller.

Comment Source:>I prefer someone help me to produce something new than constantly criticize my every words. >To be very clear with you and everyone else here, with the exception of John’s comments, the discussions here are opinions or experimental thoughts. No my comment on this [specific math problem](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1471/qbo-and-enso/?Focus=12484#Comment_12484) which Paul had was not an opinion or experimental thought. Dara, I can understand that you prefer producing than constant criticism, but this criticism is important. It seems I left a rather monstrous impression with my comments, but usually I am in a rather average mood. [Here](https://de-de.facebook.com/Frauenzentrum.Marie/photos/a.434101453311439.113679.374416069279978/730033897051525/?type=1&relevant_count=1) you can see me in our knitting circle with our coach Silke Müller.
• Options
35.

This is one of my Honey Bee hives:

Dara's Bee Hive in Dungarvan Ireland

These are the native honey bees, they last through ice and snow and very tough insects, tiny but produce huge amounts of honey.

In all honesty I do not think John needs any math problems! I think, and not speaking on his behalf, John could benefit from actual production of code, servers, data acquisitions, timely research reports and so on. These are all actual work to be produced.

It could very well be that those Bees might not be around next few years , therefore to help John is very important to do something novel to save the planet or at least find out what is happening.

Dara

Comment Source:This is one of my Honey Bee hives: [Dara's Bee Hive in Dungarvan Ireland](http://files.lossofgenerality.com/IMG_0674.JPG) These are the native honey bees, they last through ice and snow and very tough insects, tiny but produce huge amounts of honey. In all honesty I do not think John needs any math problems! I think, and not speaking on his behalf, John could benefit from actual production of code, servers, data acquisitions, timely research reports and so on. These are all actual work to be produced. It could very well be that those Bees might not be around next few years , therefore to help John is very important to do something novel to save the planet or at least find out what is happening. Dara
• Options
36.

New York Times serves often as a corporate tool for propaganda of multinational companies and their interests.

Comment Source:New York Times serves often as a corporate tool for propaganda of multinational companies and their interests.
• Options
37.
edited November 2014

A long time ago David wrote:

Hi Nad, The reason why the parser is choking on these posts is because the html anchor syntax that you are using isn’t supported (at least directly).

Actually the big problem is that she had a <a> without a matching </a>. This tends to cause lots of mysterious error messages.

I'm not sure what "html anchor syntax" is, but the current forum does allow links of the general type Nad was trying to use! You can write

> Here is a <a href = "https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/11/integral_octonions_part_7.html">post about the octonions</a> which John shouldn't have written, because he should be getting ready for his NIPS talk

and get

Here is a post about the octonions which John shouldn't have written, because he should be getting ready for his NIPS talk.

I found this very useful before I realized that the Wordpress blog also accepts Markdown. I believe the problem with Nad's

>Here is a link about the <a href = "http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=6220">Montavid research group</a>

is the ampersand in the URL, since this character plays a special role in html. Often you have to replace an ampersand by the html entity &amp; (which, ironicaly, contains an ampersand!). Let's see if this works:

> Here is a link about the <a href = "http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&amp;orgid=6220">Montavid research group</a>.

produces

Yes, it works!

However, this may change if we move to the new forum and decide not to implement HTML5. Right?

Comment Source:A long time ago David wrote: > Hi Nad, The reason why the parser is choking on these posts is because the html anchor syntax that you are using isn’t supported (at least directly). Actually the big problem is that she had a <a> without a matching </a>. This tends to cause lots of mysterious error messages. I'm not sure what "html anchor syntax" is, but the current forum _does_ allow links of the general type Nad was trying to use! You can write > Here is a <a href = "https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/11/integral_octonions_part_7.html">post about the octonions</a> which John shouldn't have written, because he should be getting ready for his NIPS talk and get > Here is a <a href = "https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/11/integral_octonions_part_7.html">post about the octonions</a> which John shouldn't have written, because he should be getting ready for his NIPS talk. I found this very useful before I realized that the Wordpress blog also accepts Markdown. I believe the problem with Nad's >Here is a link about the <a href = "http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=6220">Montavid research group</a> is the ampersand in the URL, since this character plays a special role in html. Often you have to replace an ampersand by the html entity &amp; (which, ironicaly, contains an ampersand!). Let's see if this works: > Here is a link about the <a href = "http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&amp;orgid=6220">Montavid research group</a>. produces > Here is a link about the <a href = "http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&amp;orgid=6220">Montavid research group</a>. Yes, it works! However, this may change if we move to the new forum and decide not to implement HTML5. Right?
• Options
38.
edited November 2014

It's interesting to read this thread and see you guys arguing. There's a special art to acting very calm in internet discussions, not expressing any emotions except a generally positive friendly attitude; without this people tend to get into fights, because everyone tends to interpret comments as being a bit more negative than they actually are. However, I suppose a few small fights are an okay way to get to know each other.

I'm very reluctant to study models of the Earth's climate that involve physics ideas that seem "radical" or "heretical" to ordinary climate scientists, because I don't know much climate science, and it seems dangerous to try wild ideas in a subject I'm still just beginning to learn. I don't mind doing wild and crazy things in subjects that I've studied for a long time. But it seems best to start out more cautiously.

Also there's the practical political aspect, that climate scientists won't take the Azimuth Project seriously if we do stuff they think is crazy!

So:

1) I'm reluctant to embrace Paul Pukite's models that couple the Earth's heat energy to its rotational energy.

2) I've been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz's theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth's temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun.

In both cases I'm happy (of course) to let you folks study these ideas, but I wouldn't want the "Azimuth Project" brand name to be attached to them.

On the other hand, pure data analysis (as opposed to model building) seems slightly less controversial. So, for example, if Nadja could get good statistical evidence that there is an exact biannual temperature cycle, that's the kind of thing I might be happy to investigate this further, by doing more statistics.

(Of course even data analysis is controversial in climate science, so my word "slightly" is important here.)

Anyway, I need to spend the next 30 days getting ready for my NIPS talk, so that's what I'll be concentrating on for the next month.

Comment Source:It's interesting to read this thread and see you guys arguing. There's a special art to acting very calm in internet discussions, not expressing any emotions except a generally positive friendly attitude; without this people tend to get into fights, because everyone tends to interpret comments as being a bit more negative than they actually are. However, I suppose a few small fights are an okay way to get to know each other. I'm very reluctant to study models of the Earth's climate that involve physics ideas that seem "radical" or "heretical" to ordinary climate scientists, because I don't know much climate science, and it seems dangerous to try wild ideas in a subject I'm still just beginning to learn. I don't mind doing wild and crazy things in subjects that I've studied for a long time. But it seems best to start out more cautiously. Also there's the practical political aspect, that climate scientists won't take the Azimuth Project seriously if we do stuff they think is crazy! So: 1) I'm reluctant to embrace Paul Pukite's models that couple the Earth's heat energy to its rotational energy. 2) I've been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz's theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth's temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun. In both cases I'm happy (of course) to let you folks study these ideas, but I wouldn't want the "Azimuth Project" brand name to be attached to them. On the other hand, pure data analysis (as opposed to model building) seems slightly less controversial. So, for example, if Nadja could get good statistical evidence that there _is_ an exact biannual temperature cycle, that's the kind of thing I might be happy to investigate this further, by doing more statistics. (Of course even data analysis is controversial in climate science, so my word "slightly" is important here.) Anyway, I need to spend the next 30 days getting ready for my NIPS talk, so that's what I'll be concentrating on for the next month.
• Options
39.
edited November 2014

Hello John

This is my note of apology to you apropos of your comment in #39, it is my wish to have more guidelines from you to continue this most important work, solely focused on computations on actual data and issuing engineering reports on findings, free of any inference or theoretical suggestions on my part. I actually have no interest in other people's theoretical considerations, it is an issue of trust for me, I have deep suspicions of theoreticians not just in climate but in most other related fields. Over most of my adult life I have come to trust Prof. R. Brown (groupoids), LA Levin (Kolmogorov student) and yourself as most honest theoreticians (and not to forget late Arnold VI), sadly the list ends here.

I do not know how else to express these words, this is my best, and views I express are that of engineering mentality.

I leave you with this comment: ODD Weather patterns have arrived in Ireland, in newspapers here they call them BIBLICAL WEATHER in terms of severity, while I was walking down the field in our farm and I was sinking in the grass land even my huskies were sinking, which should be more solid, as a result the cow ranchers had to remove the oxes. Past few years the grass was not enough due to this muddy situation and had to import from England at high costs.

It is very real for me to wake up one morning and we have no farming for 100s of kilometers around our place in Ireland.

Dara

Comment Source:Hello John This is my note of apology to you apropos of your comment in #39, it is my wish to have more guidelines from you to continue this most important work, solely focused on computations on actual data and issuing engineering reports on findings, free of any inference or theoretical suggestions on my part. I actually have no interest in other people's theoretical considerations, it is an issue of trust for me, I have deep suspicions of theoreticians not just in climate but in most other related fields. Over most of my adult life I have come to trust Prof. R. Brown (groupoids), LA Levin (Kolmogorov student) and yourself as most honest theoreticians (and not to forget late Arnold VI), sadly the list ends here. I do not know how else to express these words, this is my best, and views I express are that of engineering mentality. I leave you with this comment: ODD Weather patterns have arrived in Ireland, in newspapers here they call them BIBLICAL WEATHER in terms of severity, while I was walking down the field in our farm and I was sinking in the grass land even my huskies were sinking, which should be more solid, as a result the cow ranchers had to remove the oxes. Past few years the grass was not enough due to this muddy situation and had to import from England at high costs. It is very real for me to wake up one morning and we have no farming for 100s of kilometers around our place in Ireland. Dara
• Options
40.
edited November 2014

Dara - no need to apologize; let's all just try to be nice to each other.

I hadn't heard about the weather in Ireland. Here in California we've been in a severe drought for several years, and farmers are letting orchards die due to lack of water. The drought seems to be caused by unusual high-pressure systems that block storm systems. Nobody is sure whether this is caused by global warming, though some people have theories.

it is my wish to have more guidelines from you to continue this most important work, solely focused on computations on actual data

I'd love someone to do the following thing by December 1st:

Use some clearly defined, standard machine learning methods to predict the Niño 3.4 index from the average link strength at times $\ge m$ months earlier, and see how good these prediction are.

I have so far failed to get anyone to help me with this. It is not a completely well-defined task, but if someone asks me specific questions about what I want, I can answer them, to make it well-defined.

To begin with:

The Niño 3.4 index is one number per month. The data is available here. This is data from Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, from January 1950 to May 2014. The Niño 3.4 index is in the column called ANOM.

The average link strength, a quantity we've computed and put here. This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see Part 4 of the El Niño Project series.)

The first goal is to predict the Niño 3.4 index on any given month starting from the average link strengths during some roughly fixed-length interval of time ending around $m$ months before the given month.

The second goal is to measure how good the prediction is, and see how it gets worse as we increase $m$.

(Note: There is a certain technical annoyance here involving "months" versus "10-day intervals"! If every month contained exactly 30 days, life would be sweet. But no. Here's one idea on how to deal with this:

We predict the Niño 3.4 index for a given month given the values of $S$ over the $k$ 10-day periods whose final one occurs at the end of the month $m$ months before the given month. For example, if $m = 1$, $k = 3$ and the given month is February, we must predict the February Niño 3.4 index given the 3 average link strengths at 10-day periods ending at the end of January.

Ignore these details if you're just trying to get the basic idea. If you can think of a less annoying way to handle this annoying issue, it could be fine.)

Roughly speaking, I'd like predictions that minimize the time average of

|(predicted El Niño 3.4 index - observed El Niño 3.4 index)|${}^2$

Comment Source:Dara - no need to apologize; let's all just try to be nice to each other. I hadn't heard about the weather in Ireland. Here in California we've been in a severe drought for several years, and farmers are letting orchards die due to lack of water. The drought seems to be caused by unusual high-pressure systems that block storm systems. Nobody is sure whether this is caused by global warming, though [some people have theories](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-california-drought-20140929-story.html). > it is my wish to have more guidelines from you to continue this most important work, solely focused on computations on actual data I'd love someone to do the following thing by December 1st: **Use some clearly defined, standard machine learning methods to predict the Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index from the average link strength at times $\ge m$ months earlier, and see how good these prediction are.** I have so far failed to get anyone to help me with this. It is not a completely well-defined task, but if someone asks me specific questions about what I want, I can answer them, to make it well-defined. To begin with: The **Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index** is one number per month. The data is available [here](https://github.com/johncarlosbaez/el-nino/blob/master/R/nino3.4-anoms.txt). This is data from Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, from January 1950 to May 2014. The Niño 3.4 index is in the column called ANOM. The **average link strength**, a quantity we've computed and put [here](https://github.com/johncarlosbaez/el-nino/blob/master/R/average-link-strength.txt). This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see [Part 4](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/el-nino-project-part-4/) of the El Ni&ntilde;o Project series.) The first goal is to **predict the Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index on any given month starting from the average link strengths during some roughly fixed-length interval of time ending around $m$ months before the given month**. The second goal is to **measure how good the prediction is, and see how it gets worse as we increase $m$**. (Note: There is a certain technical annoyance here involving "months" versus "10-day intervals"! If every month contained exactly 30 days, life would be sweet. But no. Here's one idea on how to deal with this: We predict the Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index for a given month given the values of $S$ over the $k$ 10-day periods whose final one occurs at the end of the month $m$ months before the given month. For example, if $m = 1$, $k = 3$ and the given month is February, we must predict the February Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index given the 3 average link strengths at 10-day periods ending at the end of January. Ignore these details if you're just trying to get the basic idea. If you can think of a less annoying way to handle this annoying issue, it could be fine.) Roughly speaking, I'd like predictions that minimize the time average of |(predicted El Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index - observed El Ni&ntilde;o 3.4 index)|${}^2$
• Options
41.

I did these for QBO with NN earlier I posted the results, I will do so for NINO 3.4 index, over the weekend and report back.

let’s all just try to be nice to each other.

You are a good soul.

Dara

Comment Source:I did these for QBO with NN earlier I posted the results, I will do so for NINO 3.4 index, over the weekend and report back. >let’s all just try to be nice to each other. You are a good soul. Dara
• Options
42.

1) I’m reluctant to embrace Paul Pukite’s models that couple the Earth’s heat energy to its rotational energy.

Much as I would like to take credit for it, that is not my model. What Dickey et al observed [1] and Lambeck&Cazenave well before that [2] is that long-term variations in either the core angular monentum (CAM) or length-of-day (LOD) map well to variations in the global average temperature.

"The continued correlation of the corrected temperatures with Earth rotation variations after this time underscores the significance and size of the anthropogenic effect on SAT and implies that the observed temperature cannot be the cause of the correlated variation in Earth rotation but rather that both are instead influenced by an external cause (Lambeck and Cazenave 1976). Note an approximately 8-yr lag between the (negative) LOD and the corrected temperature; this lag agrees with the 8-yr lag between changes in Earth’s rotational speed and surface geomagnetic field perturbations found by Roberts et al. (2007)."


The following is a comparison to a temperature model, but a similar match occurs with the actual GISS temperature data.

The more rapid variation on top of the long-range variation is a combination of ENSO and volcanic activity.

So even though this is not my model, I will apply it as a proxy for the unknown origin long-range temperature variations that arise. I suppose that is aggressive on my part, but if nothing else, it works well as a heuristic. But this really has nothing to do with the ENSO or El Nino behavior which is of shorter term variability. The only reason that I engaged in the discussion is that nad brought it up.

[1] Dickey, Jean O., Steven L. Marcus, and Olivier de Viron. "Air temperature and anthropogenic forcing: insights from the solid earth." Journal of Climate 24.2 (2011): 569-574. [2] Lambeck, Kurt, and Amy Cazenave. "Long term variations in the length of day and climatic change." Geophysical Journal International 46.3 (1976): 555-573.

2) I’ve been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz’s theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth’s temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun.

The biannual cycle is a actually pretty straightforward to explain. The sun crosses the equator twice each calendar year. One time exposing the northern hemisphere with more solar energy , and the other time exposing the southern hemisphere more. This leads to a biannual harmonic in the temperature time series.

Comment Source:> 1) I’m reluctant to embrace Paul Pukite’s models that couple the Earth’s heat energy to its rotational energy. Much as I would like to take credit for it, that is not my model. What Dickey et al observed [1] and Lambeck&Cazenave well before that [2] is that long-term variations in either the core angular monentum (CAM) or length-of-day (LOD) map well to variations in the global average temperature. "The continued correlation of the corrected temperatures with Earth rotation variations after this time underscores the significance and size of the anthropogenic effect on SAT and implies that the observed temperature cannot be the cause of the correlated variation in Earth rotation but rather that both are instead influenced by an external cause (Lambeck and Cazenave 1976). Note an approximately 8-yr lag between the (negative) LOD and the corrected temperature; this lag agrees with the 8-yr lag between changes in Earth’s rotational speed and surface geomagnetic field perturbations found by Roberts et al. (2007)." The following is a comparison to a temperature model, but a similar match occurs with the actual GISS temperature data. ![dickey](http://imageshack.com/a/img674/6458/ryfIrA.gif) The more rapid variation on top of the long-range variation is a combination of ENSO and volcanic activity. So even though this is not my model, I will apply it as a proxy for the unknown origin long-range temperature variations that arise. I suppose that is aggressive on my part, but if nothing else, it works well as a heuristic. But this really has nothing to do with the ENSO or El Nino behavior which is of shorter term variability. The only reason that I engaged in the discussion is that nad brought it up. [1] Dickey, Jean O., Steven L. Marcus, and Olivier de Viron. "Air temperature and anthropogenic forcing: insights from the solid earth." Journal of Climate 24.2 (2011): 569-574. [2] Lambeck, Kurt, and Amy Cazenave. "Long term variations in the length of day and climatic change." Geophysical Journal International 46.3 (1976): 555-573. > 2) I’ve been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz’s theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth’s temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun. The biannual cycle is a actually pretty straightforward to explain. The sun crosses the equator twice each calendar year. One time exposing the northern hemisphere with more solar energy , and the other time exposing the southern hemisphere more. This leads to a biannual harmonic in the temperature time series.
• Options
43.

The average link strength, a quantity we've computed and put here. This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see Part 4 of the El Niño Project series.)

Does that mean the link strength data only goes to 1980? Can we get it to go to the present?

Comment Source:> The **average link strength**, a quantity we've computed and put [here](https://github.com/johncarlosbaez/el-nino/blob/master/R/average-link-strength.txt). This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see [Part 4](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/el-nino-project-part-4/) of the El Ni&ntilde;o Project series.) Does that mean the link strength data only goes to 1980? Can we get it to go to the present?
• Options
44.
edited November 2014

I have done some preliminary analyses on the data. The results are here. The same directory also contains the source as both an ipython notebook and a plain python script.

The main takeaway is in the scatter plot and the last cross correlation plot. The dependence between the anomaly and the link strength looks weak and the dependence of the crosscorrelation on the lag is erratic.

Comment Source:I have done some preliminary analyses on the data. The results are [here](https://googledrive.com/host/0B4cyIPgV_VxraU5pTVFjNkFtYmM). The same directory also contains the source as both an ipython notebook and a plain python script. The main takeaway is in the scatter plot and the last cross correlation plot. The dependence between the anomaly and the link strength looks weak and the dependence of the crosscorrelation on the lag is erratic.
• Options
45.

The average link strength, a quantity we've computed and put here. This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see Part 4 of the El Niño Project series.)

I think I am confused by the above definition. What is the date of first and last day for which data actually appears in the average-link-strength.txt file?

Comment Source:> The **average link strength**, a quantity we've computed and put [here](https://github.com/johncarlosbaez/el-nino/blob/master/R/average-link-strength.txt). This file has the average link strength, called $S$, at 10-day intervals starting from day 730 and going until day 12040, where day 1 is the first of January 1948. (For an explanation of how this was computed, see [Part 4](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/el-nino-project-part-4/) of the El Ni&ntilde;o Project series.) I think I am confused by the above definition. What is the date of first and last day for which data actually appears in the average-link-strength.txt file?
• Options
46.
edited November 2014

John wrote:

2) I’ve been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz’s theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth’s temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun.

I never called this a "theory", but it is just one possibility of a couple of working hypothesis. Like I had also mentioned a couple of times here (see e.g. here) that eventually e.g. a different radiation balance of the two hemispheres could play a role that was actually my first hypothesis and the reason why I had started to check the insolation formula. (I think I had commented on that change of the formula here on the forum too, but I currently can't find the comment).

Comment Source:John wrote: >2) I’ve been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz’s theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth’s temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun. I never called this a "theory", but it is just one possibility of a couple of working hypothesis. Like I had also mentioned a couple of times here (see e.g. <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/169/el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso/?Focus=11703#Comment_11703">here</a>) that eventually e.g. a different radiation balance of the two hemispheres could play a role that was actually my first hypothesis and the reason why I had started to check the <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Insolation">insolation formula</a>. (I think I had commented on that change of the formula here on the forum too, but I currently can't find the comment).
• Options
47.
edited November 2014

I have run an ExtraTreesRegressor, a random forest variant, to predict the anomaly directly from the whole raw temperature map 6 months before. the results are here. Out out of the 778 months available I trained on the first 400 and tested on the remaining 378. The sources for this are also in the same directory.

Comment Source:I have run an [ExtraTreesRegressor](http://scikit-learn.org/dev/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.ExtraTreesRegressor.html), a random forest variant, to predict the anomaly directly from the whole raw temperature map 6 months before. the results are [here](https://www.googledrive.com/host/0B4cyIPgV_Vxrb2wxUnFteXVwWHM). Out out of the 778 months available I trained on the first 400 and tested on the remaining 378. The sources for this are also in the same directory.
• Options
48.

Daniel which numbers are the errors or accuracy in percents?

Comment Source:Daniel which numbers are the errors or accuracy in percents?
• Options
49.

Daniel, Interesting plots. I don't know if I will be able to articulate this clearly; but it may be that the reason for the scatter plot going in all directions is that the correlations go in both the forward and reverse temporal directions.

By this I mean that it is hard to separate measures that are the result of a past ENSO disturbance from the ones that are an indicator of a future ENSO disturbance.

The xcorr plot is one of the most useful in trying to pin down the causality. But if I am reading that right, the cross-correlation has a peak of around 100 months as a lag or 250 months as a lead (or vice versa depending how it is defined). With leads and lags on that time frame, the causality becomes even more difficult to disentangle. Yet, since the correlations are still quite weak and erratic as you say, these could just as well all be spurious peaks.

So I agree with you that the scatter plot and the last cross correlation plot are the ones to further analyze.

Comment Source:Daniel, Interesting plots. I don't know if I will be able to articulate this clearly; but it may be that the reason for the scatter plot going in all directions is that the correlations go in both the forward and reverse temporal directions. By this I mean that it is hard to separate measures that are the result of a *past* ENSO disturbance from the ones that are an indicator of a *future* ENSO disturbance. The **xcorr** plot is one of the most useful in trying to pin down the causality. But if I am reading that right, the cross-correlation has a peak of around 100 months as a lag or 250 months as a lead (or vice versa depending how it is defined). With leads and lags on that time frame, the causality becomes even more difficult to disentangle. Yet, since the correlations are still quite weak and erratic as you say, these could just as well all be spurious peaks. So I agree with you that the scatter plot and the last cross correlation plot are the ones to further analyze.
• Options
50.
edited November 2014

Paul, the xcorr plot do run in both directions. In the notebook with the link strength the optimal lag times are as you describe, but I think that is because they the xcorr they are mostly random fluctuations. The xcorr peaks at about 0.1. That is no bigger than than the tails of the autocorrelation plot of the enso34 signal. The peak of the random forest xcorr is around 0.6 and that model is predicting 6 months in the future while the link strength is being compared with the present.

Comment Source:Paul, the xcorr plot do run in both directions. In the notebook with the link strength the optimal lag times are as you describe, but I think that is because they the xcorr they are mostly random fluctuations. The xcorr peaks at about 0.1. That is no bigger than than the tails of the autocorrelation plot of the enso34 signal. The peak of the random forest xcorr is around 0.6 and that model is predicting 6 months in the future while the link strength is being compared with the present.