dennislmay

Dyson is quite correct. Charles Krauthammer recently spoke of Dyson's views concerning climate modeling saying that Dyson had more brains in his little pinkie than all the climate modelers put together. I also consider that to be a correct assessment. Dennis

You are verify my prior claim that we really do not (yet) have a science of climate. Ba'al Chatzaf Correct, there is no science of climate at the present time - nor any plans to seriously address it as a valid science. Dennis

http://www.space.com/22875-alien-life-claim-space-microbes.html Just about every year for the last 10-15 years I've been reading story after story concerning life-forms being found where they should not exist according to conventional atmospheric transport models. This story is much like the others except involving a larger piece of biological remains. I am generally inclined to believe in panspermia as a theory but I also know atmospheric scientists have been extremely sloppy since I began following their research during the initial Ozone Hole scare days - mid 1980's. Atmospheric work is so incomplete and sloppy that it is actually surprising that anyone would take their work seriously in predicting what can or cannot be transported to various altitudes. It would be worth the effort to do a few thousand balloon sampling missions at various heights per year for a few decades to get a better understanding of how bad atmospheric transport modeling actually is. The results would directly impact Ozone Hole and Climate Change modeling claims so I suspect that is the primary reason we only hear from panspermia supporters in this regard. Yet another reason to suspect Climate Change advocates are engaged in fraud because they have not done their homework on the atmospheric transport of solids - among a hundred other variables they fail to correctly model in codes never validated. Dennis

All successful quantum theories are non-local theories of physics. Non-local means different things in different interpretations [as explained by Bell]. In orthodox quantum mechanics it means that a quantum object has no identity or causality associated with it - it does not exist in any particular location in reality until the quantum measurement occurs - QM is all about the interference and collapse of probability waves [how that happens is never actually explained] leading to the quantum object finally having a specific location. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation non-local simply means very fast. So beware of the term non-local, it is used incorrectly as often as not and many mistakenly act like it means the same thing in different interpretations - it does not. Dennis

I hope you don't take Feynman's description of the double slit experiment as the last word on the subject. The video of the lecture of 1964 was the same year J.B. Bell's paper was published on the "Bell Inequalities" which placed the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation [deterministic physics] on even footing with the interpretation Feynman lectures about [indeterministic physics]. Dennis

The entire question revolves around interpretations. If you have two or more equally valid theories [ability to make predictions] and/or mathematically identical but have different interpretations you have decisions to make. Do you embrace them all equally or do you take a philosophical stand and pick the interpretation(s) in line with your philosophical bent? Or do you have a sliding scale where you place the different interpretations in some kind of pecking order of probability for correctness - again based on your philosophical or personal preference of some kind? That is really the question at the heart of present day issues within modern physics. ***** In 1904/1905 the first important question of interpretation came up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory "Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment." When I had undergraduate Special Relativity it was taught by a professor who is a world class expert in Special Relativity. He taught both interpretations as equally valid approaches because there is no ability to distinguish between the two. I suspect this is not the normal approach to teaching the subject since he photocopied a long out of print book specially for our class. If you are not exposed to LET being equally valid you are likely to fall prey to a number of fallacies concerning relativity in general. If you are never exposed to LET you will certainly be hobbled in your ability to see alternative approaches in that and other subject matter. ***** In 1925-1926 modern quantum mechanics was born. It was in fact born 3 times right away - Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac all had versions eventually shown to be mathematically equivalent by Hilbert. Dirac having already shown that shown that “Matrix Mechanics” and “Wave Mechanics” were special cases of his theory. In 1924-1927 we had Louis de Broglie developing what eventually evolved into de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory "This theory results in a measurement formalism, analogous to thermodynamics for classical mechanics, which yields the standard quantum formalism generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation." de Broglie's work of 1924 could be seen as an early attempt at Gregory S. Duane's work of 2001 in hyperchaotic synchronization as an explanation of deterministic QM under the Bell Inequalities. There are in fact a number of quantum theories to choose among - all with differing interpretations. The first summary I found of the multitude of interpretations was by Nick Herbert: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-Beyond-New-Physics/dp/0385235690 Of course with Wikipedia and Internet searches to original sources you can now explore the maze of options in detail. In his book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy" J.S. Bell calls it a "scandal within physics" that de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics is not taught along side conventional quantum mechanics. http://www.amazon.com/Speakable-Unspeakable-Quantum-Mechanics-Philosophy/dp/0521523389 I share Bell's view of the scandal within physics. No text I had in undergraduate or graduate school had more than a one sentence throw-away concerning other interpretations of quantum mechanics. I was actively misinformed about the status of other interpretations of quantum mechanics by one undergraduate physics professor, plain lied to and misdirected by one graduate physics professor and blocked from pursing such interests as part of my education by that professor and another professor at another graduate school - so yes I have a personal interest in what Bell had to say on the subject. There are in fact many interpretations but the teaching portion of the educational system is vested in one interpretation or minor variations of that interpretation. There are researchers in the various interpretations at scattered universities throughout the world. They enjoy what I would estimate to be a 10,000:1 minority status. In journals specifically concerning the foundations of physics the status is much improved - perhaps a 20:1 minority status. In general physics journals the status would still be in the ballpark of a 10,000:1 ratio, hardly the equal status Bell thought deBB QM should have. As with LET if you are never exposed to alternative interpretations of QM you will certainly be hobbled in your ability to see alternative approaches in that and other subject matter. ***** In the time frame of 1904/1905 - 1916 the question of gravity and relativity was explored. http://www.amazon.com/History-Theories-Aether-Electricity-Classical/dp/0883185237 In his book concerning the development of modern physics Sir Edmund T. Whittaker notes that differential forms of Special Relativity to include gravitational effects were being worked on prior to the introduction of General Relativity. Basically in those theories you had 3-dimensional space plus variables to model relativity plus gravity. What Einstein did is a near perfect analogy to the question of modeling hydrodynamic systems as Eulerian or Lagrangian. In Eulerian systems you set up a 3-dimensional space plus variables. In Lagrangian systems you grid up the space then allow the grid to distort using tensor mechanics. The problem with having a distorting grid is the same as the issues General Relativity runs into. Distort the grid too much and you run into singularity problems, make the system too complex and you run into computational difficulties, decide to add other effects into the physics and you are pretty much out of luck [quantum mechanics] - unless you are willing to do so by Eulerian means. Hydrocodes work and use both types of codes and mixed versions. That is where General Relativity is stuck today - no Eulerian model because that would get you away from the fundamental assumptions of General Relativity - being a construct of distorting space versus 3-dimensions plus variables. Who knows about the alternative approaches? I figured it out on my own before reading about it in Whittaker. [i did Hydrodynamic modeling prior to reading Whittaker and doing 95% of my own physics work] I've never seen the subject Whittaker brought up talked about anywhere else - except by myself. As a result of interpretation virtually all gravity research has gone into one monoculture since 1916. The problem is GR entirely fails on the scale of galaxies. Dark Matter was brought in as a Band-Aid and that entirely failed as well. So now cosmology is in crisis because of several wrong turns into dead ends because of interpretation driving research in particular directions. ***** Why are certain interpretations in physics de facto forbidden by our state controlled educational systems until after tenure? And even then dying on the vine for lack of funding? That is the literally multi-billion dollar question. I know the reasons are philosophical and political. You will have to decide for yourself if you believe that or the various and ever evolving reasons and excuses given by those supporting the orthodoxy. I don't think you can really understand the enormity of the problem unless you really understand the degree to which the work of J.S. Bell was undermined, distorted, misinterpreted, and sabotaged [as he documents in his book mentioned above] and again even in a conference celebrating his life - after his death where he couldn't defend himself. After his death it was said he was about to get the Nobel Prize. Dennis

No, I do however believe it is a fundamentally flawed theory. The cult of personality surrounding Einstein has a lot to do with why it continues to have any credibility. Those who worship beauty in mathematics are among others at fault. Any hope of GR being saved by Dark Matter entirely died in 2010/2011 with the work of Stacy McGaugh among others. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf The philosophies and politics at play in the 1904-1927 time frame [also before and after] in Europe set the course for many mistakes in physics. Dennis

With de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics you don't have to throw out causality and identity as orthodox quantum mechanics attempts to do. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has been in the news a lot the last year and a half or so - things are not as simple as the Heisenberg relationship attempted to make them. It is not in fact a fundamental principle at all - rather shorthand for a belief system. Going back to "Newtonian Physics" is a false premise implying that questioning the correctness of orthodox quantum mechanics or the abandonment of causality and identity means the abandonment of all modern physics. That is not the case at all. Rather modern physics would be corrected using theories which obey causality and identity. Dennis

The correct explanation behind all other explanations. Dennis

And I just love this paragraph in the FoxNews article: And you know that they are "concerned scientists" because it is in their name! Concerned about what? Beats me. Maybe their jobs and grant monies? http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/ Though interesting the articles miss the point by assuming that going back to the drawing board or improving the models is going to fix the problem. The error is in assuming that climate modeling is even being approached as a science or is doing any valid modeling. Real Eulerian mixed material hydro-codes are validated by experiments in the field for each and every component of the model - absolutely none of that is being done for climate modeling. The one proposal I saw a year to two ago to begin such experiments was immediately defunded. In other words there is no basis in validated code for any of the climate modeling and there is no intention to ever develop validated codes. Now even if we were to assume they were doing the real work required in legitimate modeling the next questions become the grid size, the data supporting the grid size, the quality of the experiments supporting the non-linear models for each and every component and the range of their validity and interaction with other components, the range of external variables not subject to experimental validation, and the validity of the time horizon of such modeling based on the degree of non-linearity involved. I did Lagrangian hydrocode modeling full time and Eulerian modeling occasionally [trained in it] for 2 years back in the day. I did that plus other simpler non-linear modeling for another 5 years for what is now called the Air Force Research Laboratory. Climate modeling has zero validated experiments done in the field. As a counter example - in Lagrangian hydrocode modeling a guy I worked with would do runs of 1,200 samples for each and every material over the non-linear range of interest - Lagrangian being the simpler code. In Eulerian code validation hundreds of experiments in the field for each and every mixed material assembly were done - besides the thousands done for each material separately. Given all that preparation the highly non-linear modeling was only valid for a limited time range. On the scale of mixing you would encounter with climate modeling the best validated codes would certainly give you no more than a month of good modeling. From what I can see we are more than eight orders of magnitude away from having the grid size and data to do climate modeling out one month much less an entire lack of validated code or any of the experiments to support a validated code. Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief. Dennis The counter arguments from climate modelers to what I have said above seems to be: we have discovered statistical ways to get around grid size, data density, and the time range of validity. The question then becomes if you are so clever why don't validated hydrocodes take all the same kinds of shortcuts? Why don't your results match observation - not even close? What would still remain is why won't you do experiments in the field [they don't feel the need to]. How do you justify models of your non-linear interactions individually and between components without experiments [they don't feel the need to]. How do you justify excluding external variables that are just now being studied [they don't feel the need to]. We have two worlds here - experimentally validated modeling developed for specific purposes knowing their limits, climate modeling breaking all the rules and getting the answers wrong.

And I just love this paragraph in the FoxNews article: And you know that they are "concerned scientists" because it is in their name! Concerned about what? Beats me. Maybe their jobs and grant monies? http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/ Though interesting the articles miss the point by assuming that going back to the drawing board or improving the models is going to fix the problem. The error is in assuming that climate modeling is even being approached as a science or is doing any valid modeling. Real Eulerian mixed material hydro-codes are validated by experiments in the field for each and every component of the model - absolutely none of that is being done for climate modeling. The one proposal I saw a year to two ago to begin such experiments was immediately defunded. In other words there is no basis in validated code for any of the climate modeling and there is no intention to ever develop validated codes. Now even if we were to assume they were doing the real work required in legitimate modeling the next questions become the grid size, the data supporting the grid size, the quality of the experiments supporting the non-linear models for each and every component and the range of their validity and interaction with other components, the range of external variables not subject to experimental validation, and the validity of the time horizon of such modeling based on the degree of non-linearity involved. I did Lagrangian hydrocode modeling full time and Eulerian modeling occasionally [trained in it] for 2 years back in the day. I did that plus other simpler non-linear modeling for another 5 years for what is now called the Air Force Research Laboratory. Climate modeling has zero validated experiments done in the field. As a counter example - in Lagrangian hydrocode modeling a guy I worked with would do runs of 1,200 samples for each and every material over the non-linear range of interest - Lagrangian being the simpler code. In Eulerian code validation hundreds of experiments in the field for each and every mixed material assembly were done - besides the thousands done for each material separately. Given all that preparation the highly non-linear modeling was only valid for a limited time range. On the scale of mixing you would encounter with climate modeling the best validated codes would certainly give you no more than a month of good modeling. From what I can see we are more than eight orders of magnitude away from having the grid size and data to do climate modeling out one month much less an entire lack of validated code or any of the experiments to support a validated code. Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief. Dennis

I'm not sure of the extent to which carbon trading is still "working" as a rip-off the way it did. Financial traders as a class aren't complete idiots, and the participation of other countries besides the U.S. is needed with carbon trading. There's an undercurrent of rebellion against environmentalism (among other things) in Europe, with the European Union falling apart. The Russians and the Chinese have never been gung-ho. Seems to me the carbon-trading is losing ground, but this is just an impression. I'd welcome figures if you have such. Ellen The carbon trading scheme is indeed losing ground but it is still being pushed at every opportunity. It will be the biggest payday for socialists there has ever been if they can pull it off. Those involved will keep pushing the idea no matter how long it takes and they have a growing religious cult backing them [Green is the new Red knee-jerk environmentalists]. So far they gambled on the short term climate going their way [apparent warming] and lost - but if there is even a 3-5 year warming spell down the road they will be right back on it saying "see I told you so" demanding immediate action. If there are crises in government going on at the same time they may well enact their scheme with or without popular support. Of course developing nations will be exempt - only the rich West will have to be robbed. Dennis

It isn't just politicians getting money from it. Billions total of grant money. Subsidization of "green" industries and projects. Ellen The carbon tax credit trading schemes are the trillion dollar payday. Dennis

I don't think that the hysteria is "entirely political," or even entirely venal - i.e., motivated by perceived practical gain of one form or another (power, money, prestige). I think that there's also a strong element of secular substitute religion - and religious beliefs do tend to be resistant to counter-evidence. I've suspected for years that one of the appeals of climate alarmism for some persons of a secular leftist persuasion is the opportunity afforded for indulging in guilt-free apocalyptic thrills. Apocalyptic prophesies can provide an excitement, complete with lots of cataclysmic imagery. Secular leftists who are debarred by self-perceived sophistication from placing any credence on Biblical-based doomsday expectations can find an alternative - complete with the idea of punishment for human sins - in climate catastrophe scenarios. More widely, as a lot of commenters have noticed, for some people "the environment" has become a modern deity, a kind of holy entity to be revered and ceremonially honored. There are even environmentalist groups who hold facsimile Protestant-style worship services. Larry went to one of these services conducted by a local group. He didn't realize what he was getting into. He thought that there was just going to be a lecture, so he went to do a bit of nudging in the Q&A. Turned out, there was a whole ritual: a call to congregate, a reading, singing of environment hymns, the lecture in the sermon slot, a meditation, an offering, a benediction. I figure that most of those who attended consider themselves atheists or at least agnostics tending toward disbelief - Skeptical Inquirer readers. Among prominent climate "denialists," on the other hand, a notable number are staunchly Christian. They already have their religion. A few even argue against alarmism on grounds which bring to mind the saying, "With friends like these...." For instance the Cornwall Alliance, members of which argue that climate alarmism has to be wrong because God wouldn't have given us so fragile a planet over which to hold dominion. Ellen I guess I should say the primary reason Global Warming/Climate Change has thus far been immune from the evidence is political. The politics includes factors other than just wealth redistribution - Green is the religion of the Reds. Dennis

If you question political correctness - the reply is always: its George Bush's fault and you're a racist, that is after you've been called a Flat-Earther. Dennis And then the Republican response (McCain, Romney, etc.) is to implicitly accept the accusation that it's Bush's fault but to explain how they're different from Bush, and then to praise Obama and his attempts at fixing global warming, and to sheepishly suggest that he failed even though he's a super nice guy, and that we should try a new, Republican approach to fixing it (which is the same approach as Obama's, but just implemented slower). J Obama and McCain are both hardcore Progressives - which is to say they are on the same side on many issues that are against the interests of the people of the United States. One should not equate Progressive Republicans [RINOs] with Republicans generally. Around 20% of elected Republicans are supportive of freedom and the rule of law, much more % wise in the electorate itself [perhaps approaching 40% of Republicans]. RINO Progressive Republicans are much more common in elective office % wise than in the populace. The rest of Republicans in elective office are go-along-to-get-along without a clue generally. Hardcore Progressive RINOs are often simply undercover Democrats more useful to the Democrats and the media because the word bi-partisan has clout among the clueless in swaying outcomes. Dennis

If you question political correctness - the reply is always: its George Bush's fault and you're a racist, that is after you've been called a Flat-Earther. Dennis

I do not know the size of the currently available pool of researchers with validated Eulerian mixed material code experience. I know that at the height of spending on R&D during the cold war [1983-1989] there were about 25 full time people in DOD involved in unclassified Hydrocode modeling at any given time. Of those 25 I personally only knew of 1 full time Air Force guy and 2 full time contractors doing validated Eulerian mixed material code modeling. I know that a larger number [perhaps 25?] were doing classified validated Eulerian mixed material code modeling full time - over half of those would have been contractors or civilian DOD. There has been a number of people doing academic work on various aspects of modeling all along - very very few of those people actually get involved in much hands on modeling or writing code for any length of time. What is going on today? A good question since DOD spending on all R&D sank like a rock starting about 1991 and has remained at a very low level ever since. What is the available pool of people with validated Eulerian mixed material code experience - very small I suspect - probably not enough to keep DOD happy much less allowing themselves to get involved in climate modeling unless they are true believers to begin with. Dennis

Of course real science is not a democracy - voting does not bring about a correct view of reality. Consensus has no ability to make a science valid. It would be interesting to see how many climate modeling people have worked in validated code modeling in other fields in the physical sciences [outside of weather and climate modeling] - Eulerian hydrocode modeling of mixed materials in particular. Since there are no validated [feedback from experiments in the field] codes for mixed material Eulerian hydrocodes in weather or climate modeling the weather and climate modeling people can only have gained experience working in other fields [such as done by DOD]. Most of the work I did was in Epic [Langrangian] and Hull [Eulerian] plus hybrid modeling using both. https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/Rider_CSRI_June27_2007.pdf Unless you believe Eulerian modeling based weather predictions have reached a mature state you cannot believe climate modeling has done so. More than 8 orders of magnitude in required modeling detail and data [realistically much more] separates present climate modeling from its ability to model climate one month in advance at the detail climate change proponents claim to be able to do years and decades in advance. That doesn't even count the entire lack of data concerning experiments done in the field about sources, sinks, and non-linear mechanisms of the actual components involved in the climate. Throw in unknown factors involving the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, [cannot be validated from experiment] and all you can do is give very short term approximations at best. Dennis

Show of hands - who supports the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria as valid science? I knew it is junk science from the start because such a large highly non-nonlinear system cannot be modeled beyond a very short time span and even then the present data available and models are not good enough to even begin to do such modeling [and they have done exactly zero code validation experiments in the field - whereas valid codes do thousands of experiments per component of the model over a range of conditions] - I did Hydro-code modeling and non-linear electronic materials modeling in the Air Force. It is obvious BS to anyone who has done any such modeling. The Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria is entirely political and has thus far been immune from the evidence of their wrong predictions. Real science is very different than the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria - the coming mini ice age has a real basis in orbital mechanics and historical records. Dennis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html Ocean current related global cooling starting up about the same time real scientists in Russian predict the start of the next mini ice age which will last well beyond the ocean current related cooling [the same mini ice age predicted in the 70's]. Dennis

If we remain stranded on Earth helium will get more expensive over time assuming it continues to have economic uses. It is used in industrial processes [welding], as a coolant in scientific equipment used in electronic testing/processing, for toy balloons, for blimps, for a mixing gas in aquatic systems and many other uses I'm sure. The cost of helium is one of the reasons interest in heavy lift airships has gone away again right after several major breakthroughs in design came about. The cost will affect the cost of many items using helium during processing. Dennis

Helium is a problem for a technological culture stranded on the Earth. Unleash the shackles of government preventing space industrialization and helium will never be a problem again. Dennis

In the hard sciences - primarily engineering aspects of experiments done in support of physics I am aware that there have been problems related to the materials involved not being well characterized - thus making experimental replication difficult. High power/current electrode design was a big subject about the time I got out of the Air Force - it is a kind of black art involving some propriety processes and a long learning curve to do it well. Many experiments involving the crystal structure of metals can give results all over the place if you don't have the exact same material from the same batch with the same temperature history to deal with. When it comes to replicating controversial experiments there is almost never a real attempt to do exactly as described - thus the controversy is never actually resolved. The failure mechanism in some high power experiments is never actually explained because the materials involved may not have been well characterized before hand. The problem is real but the solutions are not simple and not one size fits all. Dennis

Scientific Reproducibility Is Hampered by a Lack of Specificity of the Material Resources http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130905085904.htm "The stories we tell in scientific publications are not necessarily instructions for replication." Peer review with little ability to replicate experiments - journals ignore the issue. Dennis

The paper being discussed: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5894.pdf As you know MOND is a curve fitting exercise which is not at all involved in the red-shift adjustments to GPS. The curve fitting exercise [as well as at least 4 other theories] can predict velocity rotational curves in galaxies - General Relativity plus Dark Matter does not correctly make such predictions - not even close. General Relativity as such is a failed gravitational theory in the general sense - though it can be applied to get good numbers in the local area - such as GPS. As a failed theory General Relativity continues on as a legacy theory until it will eventually be replaced - that process is underway. McGaugh is a leader in providing observational evidence and alternative modeling showing why General Relativity is a failed theory. He does not claim to have a final replacement theory. Dennis I expect every theory we know and love will either be discarded or substantially modified. Ba'al Chatzaf In regards to cosmology, QM and gravity - I agree. Dennis