by Judith Curry
There are some climate-relevant stories associated with the 2011 Nobel Prize winners in Physics and Chemistry.
Nobel Prize in Physics
From Fox News:
Three U.S.-born scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for discovering that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, a stunning revelation that suggests the cosmos will eventually freeze to ice.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said American Saul Perlmutter would share the award with U.S.-Australian Brian Schmidt and U.S. scientist Adam Riess. Working in two separate research teams during the 1990s — Perlmutter in one and Schmidt and Riess in the other — the scientists raced to map the universe’s expansion by analyzing a particular type of supernovas, or exploding stars.
Brian Schmidt
The Australian Conversation reports Brian Schmidt’s statements in a press conference:
“I think that [the carbon debate] has, maybe in the short term, diminished in some people’s minds the standing of science but to my mind it is part of the scientific debate,” he said at a press conference in Canberra this morning.
“I think that science should inform public policy. Public policy needs to take it as an input. It doesn’t mean it’s the only input.”
Professor Schmidt’s comments follow fierce public debate around the science of global warming and an emboldened climate change skeptics movement. Australian climate scientists said earlier this year they have been the target of hate mail and death threats.
“Science is never absolute, that’s the problem. You have different levels of assurity. I have won the Nobel Prize with my team today for discovering the accelerating universe. We are pretty certain that’s correct but you are never absolutely certain. The carbon debate is centred around the science, is the science right? Well there are uncertainties in the science,” said Professor Schmidt.
“I think the evidence is quite strong that change is happening,” he said. “The science behind climate change predicts there should be a little change right now but in future, the prediction is it will be much more. I think we are going to do that experiment, so in 20 years from now we will see how good those models are.”
Saul Perlmutter
The Daily Californian has a big write-up on Saul Perlmutter. The climate-relevant angle is that Saul Perlmutter is a member of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Team. So I have the rather unexpected honor of sharing coauthorship with a Nobel Prize winner on several papers (which are of course totally unrelated to his Nobel Prize).
A quick update on the Berkeley project: papers have been submitted and are under review, and plans are underway for making the data set public. So, coming soon (I don’t know exactly when).
Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Dan Shechtman
Yahoo News reports:
Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday for a discovery that faced skepticism and mockery, even prompting his expulsion from his U.S. research team, before it won widespread acceptance as a fundamental breakthrough.
“The main lesson that I have learned over time is that a good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman, 70, told a news conference Wednesday at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel.
“Only later did some scientists go back to some of their own inexplicable findings and realized they had seen quasicrystals but not realized what they had, Jackson said.”
More of Big Brother’s Outline Emerges:
Thank you for posting this story.
The outline of Big Brother’s pseudo-science became more clear yesterday with publication of news stories on the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of accelerated expansion of the universe.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/10666472/__Nobelprijs_Natuurkunde_voor_supernova-onderzoek__.html?sn=binnenland,buitenland
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-perlmutter-schmidt-riess-nobel-physics.html [Note negative comments by Red Ethel and Pink Elephant]
Accelerated expansion of the universe agrees with neutron repulsion as the source of energy that powers the Sun [1], the universe, and causes the universe to expand [2].
The news stories instead suggest that the accelerated expansion of the universe confirms “Big Bang” and “Dark Energy.”
Neutron repulsion negates the need for either propaganda story:
i. ) A “Big Bang” origin of the universe, or
ii.) “Dark Energy” to keep it expanding
If the two cycles of the cosmos are exactly reversible and separated by ~20 Gyr in a cyclic universe [2], then in another ~20 Gyr you and I will be here again repeating the journey of life, perhaps wiser from the lessons learned in this life.
I.e., the supposed conflict between religion and science is just another part of Big Brother’s manufactured garbage.
Thanks to yesterday’s stories on the Nobel Prize in Physics for accelerated expansion of the universe, we now have reason to believe that Big Brother’s collection of pseudo-science now includes:
a.) A “Big Bang” origin of the universe
b.) “Dark Energy” to make it expand
c.) “Oscillating solar neutrinos”
d.) “Conflicts with religions”
e.) “God particles” and
f.) “CO2-induced GW”
These six of an unknown number of scientific propaganda stories apparently grew out of secret agreements between Henry Kissinger, Chairman Mao, Leonid Breznev and Richard Nixon in ~1971 [3] to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by
g.) Adopting the Bilderberg model of the Sun as a steady H-fusion reactor, “in equilibrium” [4]
h.) Proclaiming that humans cause global climate change (warming, cooling, etc)
i. ) Ending the space race [5] and nuclear arms race
j. ) Uniting nations under one government
References:
1. “Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
2. “Is the Universe Expanding?”, Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html
3. “Deep roots of the Climategate scandal (1971-2011)”
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
4. “The Bilderberg solar model,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G
5. “No More Dreams, Mr. President”
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Nomoredreams.html
We live in interesting, perhaps dangerous times! As Gandhi learned in his struggle to free India, Big Brother’s source of power is our fears.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
At last, Oliver – a thread in which one of your postings is truly relevant. Don’t think I’m being mean or too censorious, however; you are unfailingly polite and I’ve grown used to you. I’d miss you if you went away.
Thanks, Michael, for your patience.
Sometimes I am too stressed to communicate well.
For example, I should have mentioned above that neutron-emission from the core is the process that powers the Sun and other stars.
Then neutron-decay generates hydrogen that accumulates as an incandescent cloud (photosphere) before the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields eject the hydrogen into interstellar space by flares, eruptions, and the quiet solar wind.
Changes in deep-seated magnetic fields are the key to understanding changes in Earth’s climate and in Earth’s magnetic poles.
The distinguished Professor of math, physics and chemistry at ANU, Dr. Barry Ninham (ANU), provided the missing key to understanding climate change in 1963 [1].
Professor Ninham helped Professor Stig Friberg and I use that key to explain solar eruptions and climate change in 2002 [2]:
Expulsion of magnetic fields by the Meisner effect, driven by the rotating superconducting, super-fluid of iron-rich material that surrounds the pulsar core [1,2]
1. B. W. Ninham, “Charged Bose gas in astrophysics”, Physics Letters 4, 278-279 (1963)
2. “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
You may want to scan other news stories on 2011 Nobel Prizes:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-perlmutter-schmidt-riess-nobel-physics.html
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/10/universe-getting-colder-new-noble-laureates/comment-page-1
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/
Oliver,
Here is something to consider….
The suns and planets all have positive and negative poles lined up so that the sun repels planets into a line. A flat planed solar system.
Todays concept of night and day is by rotation to a specific time on the suns corona by our planet.
The corona rotates at a faster speed than the suns outer core. The outer core’s rotation is within a single day faster than all the planets but the first two. Planets and suns have NEVER been in a stopped state.
The sun helps to boost the rotational fields of planets to stay in sequence. Any drifting of planets are negated by the effect of positive to positive repulsion and negative to negative repulsion.
The real fun is when you flip a sun and generate an attraction.
Yes, Joe, Earth is coupled with the Sun’s powerful pulsar core.
Scientific uncertainties about Earth’s heat source – the Sun – have been understated for four decades (1971-2011) and the Bilderberg model of a stable H-fusion reactor “in equilibrium” [1] has been falsely advanced by advocacy scientists on behalf of world leaders [2].
Today on my 75th birthday – with liberals blaming conservatives and occupying Wall street while conservatives blame liberals and organize Tea Parties – I weep for future generations and the role that leaders of the scientific community played in betraying Thomas Jefferson [3]:
“I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it” [3].
References:
1. “The Bilderberg solar model,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G
2. “Deep roots of the Climategate scandal (1971-2011)”
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
3. “Thomas Jefferson letter to John Holmes (22 April 1820)”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=461
Here is the internal structure of Earth’s heat source:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Sun's_Internal_Structure.pdf
Earth is probably magnetically and gravitationally coupled with the Sun’s tiny (about the size of Chicago), massive, energetic pulsar core.
The “Sun’s Internal Structure”,
The mix of politics and science
In AGW and in the Bilderberg, and
Neutron repulsion in the solar core
Are all coming unexpectedly together in a discussion on PhysOrg.com, “Galaxy mergers not the trigger for most black hole feeding frenzies.”
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-galaxy-mergers-trigger-black-hole.html
I will be traveling today, so I posted the above sketch of the internal structure of the Sun for another feeding frenzy.
All is well,
Oliver
I appreciate Schmidt’s assurance on this, but I don’t believe assurity is an English word. Google reveals a number of commercial firms in Australia of that name, however. Schmidt goes on to say:
I think he’s right about that.
It not just the time, its the way the oceans and solar cycles have set up as well. You already have a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and in 20 years that may be up another 10% so the GHG predominance for control of the earths thermostat makes a pretty clear prediction. At the same time the sun seems headed for a quite spell, the Pacific Ocean is in the cold phase of the PDO and in 15 years the AMO may just join it. If the GHG effect is predominant mechanism for temperature control it will warm, if the natural factors of ocean, sun and clouds are on the other hand it should cool. Get your popcorn, I can’t wait to see how it turns out.
America is the big exception in all of the world’s history: Americans compise the first society to live as a representative democracy with enumerated powers who then purposefully throw that system away for one that is a proven failure: adopting instead a secular, socialist, tyranny of the masses, which according to the Left is humanity’s socio-economic-psychic Utopia.
Stupid. Try to understand the world about you.
Wagatholn,
Sadly, we are proving ourselves to be all too typical.
The Founding Fathers warned of this, and their voices have grown dim and weak with time.
We are not anywhere near the first.
Best recent evidence is the hatred poured on the tea party, an authentic grassroots and civil movement, compared with the respect and support given to Occupy Wall Street, an astroturf Soros backed mob calling for killing and thieving.
I’m not trying to start a political ruckus here, but there are two sides to this story. You can report that Soros has backed this Occupy movement, and thereby discredit its authenticity. One can easily do the same to the Tea Party by pointing out how Fox news gave it constant coverage during its infancy, and also contributed anchors to both cover and speak at Tea party events at a time when it couldn’t generate widespread interest on its own.
A pathognomonic irony in there.
=============
Brad,
Did Fox put money on the Tea Party? No.
Did the Tea Party play a significant role in the Mass. Senate special election and in the 2010 election?
Has the Tea Party had much larger rallies (and with zero lawlessness or threats to hang or expropriate property and little to no trash), and yet been falsely accused of calls to violence, been called terrorists, racism, insanity, etc. etc. etc.?
I am not pointing out the reality that Soros supported groups are behind the OWS to discredit it. Only to accurately describe it.
If that happens to discredit OWS in your eyes, so be it.
I think it is fascinating that a mob calling for violence and a free ride is able to proclaim themselves as agreat patriots, whiel the Tea Party is accused of being terrorists by the VP of the US and of hostage holding America.
There are actually people who think the Tea Party (of which I am not an activist) is made up of unemployed welfare bums on crack, while the OWS group is that in reality.
Again, there are two sides. I spoke to someone who was at an OWS meeting in L.A. and he reported that it was completely peaceful. They were in fact debating how to organize their own committees as a collective. Doesn’t sound like a mob to me.
I could then turn and point the finger at tea party signs that compare Obama to Hitler, or take snippets of Tea Partiers bellowing at the camera in indignant rage.
I’m just saying, you are presently a deeply biased perspective on these two movements. There is enough variance in the behavior at these various rallies to compile whatever kind of dossier you want. I generally admire your posts, but I think you’re off the rails on this point.
The arrestee to demonstrator ratio is higher in one group than the other. So is the sense/nonsense ratio.
================
Not that I want to get involved in this food fight, but the Obama with a Hitler mustache pictures? Those were ALL LaRouchers. Every one of them. Proudly.
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2009/12/02/20091201-222431-pic-103635558_s640x853.jpg?0a308be25d5590544cfc90232a6304b92e2aa22a
Yes PE, I understand that the Hitler comparison is not part of the tea party movement, and yet you can point to that as a data point that the Tea partiers are fascist thugs. In the same way you can point to some people getting arrested at early OWS rallies (which are also not characteristic of most OWS rallies) as indicative that the OWS are an unruly mob.
However even interpretation of the most troublesome OWS rallies is not as clear cut as one might think:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/more-arrests-after-occupy-wall-street-march.html
For me, the best part about the AGW skeptic movement is that it shines a harsh light on potential confirmation bias within the climate science community. It’s important to shine that spotlight both ways, and when I see statements writing the OWS movement off as being “backed by Soros”, the parallels with the AGW proponents writing off skepticism as being “backed by Koch” are compelling.
Let me tag in Jon Stewart to comment further on the comparison:
http://gawker.com/5847184/jon-stewart-on-the-wall-street-protesters-how-are-they-not-like-the-tea-party
I’d always kind of casually wondered what Ben F. meant by, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Now we know.
?????
From Prof. Schmidt “I think we are going to do that experiment, so in 20 years from now we will see how good those models are.”
We dont have to wait 20 years. Smith et al Science August 2007 provides a specific prediction for 2014. We already know that part of this prediciton has a 75% chance of being just plain wrong. In 3 years or so, I predict it will be obvious that the use of this particular model was very ill advised indeed.
Too many scientists mix up principles of science with principles underlying assumptions about behavioral psychology. The former is man’s best attempt at objectivity while the latter is an attempt to make some sense out of the subjective nature of man.
Let’s look at the science: “Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.” ~ Andrew Orlowski
Now, let’s look at the psychological aspect of the matter: “Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.” ~ Shunichi Akasofu
Behavior psychology tells us that those in a position of power who should know better (supposed to understand the concept of the ‘null hypothesis’) who purposefully collude and engage in the activity of substituting their opinion for fact to knowingly deceive others are corrupt.
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an improvable hypothesis.” ~ Kanya Kusano
Very interesting post! Congrats to all three winners. I think we have some future climate skeptics among them.
Its too bad it takes the prestige of a Nobel Prize to allow someone to speak his mind. That leaves 99.9999999999999% of scientist muzzled in fear for their career (error bars omiited per IPCC rules).
First, as an Israeli, I am proud “one of us” has received the Noble prize (for science, not politics…).
But more to the point, Prof. Schechtman’s case is the best answer to the “settled science” meme.
He was ridiculed, even expelled from his research group for standing on his own notion of truth – in odds with the then current scientific consensus.
Science is never settled.
Congratulations to all the winners!
It helped that he had scientists from the National Bureau of Standards, now NIST to back him up:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/shechtman-100511.cfm
Which research group was expelled from?
WHT – in which sesnse was he supported by NIST?
“On April 8, 1982, while on a sabbatical at the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, D.C. — now called the National Institute of Standards and Technology — Shechtman first observed crystals with a shape most scientists considered impossible.
It had to do with the idea that a crystal shape can be rotated by a certain amount and still look the same.
A square contains fourfold symmetry, for example: If you turn it by 90 degrees, a quarter-turn, it still looks the same. For crystals, only certain degrees of such symmetry were thought possible. Shechtman had found a crystal that could be rotated one-fifth of a full turn and still look the same, which was thought to be impossible.
“I told everyone who was ready to listen that I had material with pentagonal symmetry. People just laughed at me,” Shechtman said in a description of his work released by his university.
For months he tried to persuade his colleagues of his find, but they refused to accept it. Finally he was asked to leave his research group, and moved to another one within the National Bureau of Standards, Shechtman said.
He returned to Israel, where he found one colleague prepared to work with him on an article describing the phenomenon. The article was at first rejected, but finally published in November 1984 — to uproar in the scientific world. Double Nobel winner Linus Pauling was among those who never accepted the findings.
The Medium is the Message. Should Nobel now ask Al Gore to give his prize back so they can give it to George Bush?
The Peace Prize Committee is separate and autonomous and disciples of Yassar and Henry.
Congratulations to the 3 astronomers and the Israeli chemist – Nobel prizes well deserved. So why astronomy and not climate science?
Hints: When the ‘deficit’ in predicted solar neutrino flux was discovered, particle physicists modified their theory. When Type 1a supernovae were found to be fainter than predicted by theory, astronomers looked critically at the data, seriously considered possible alternative explanations, and then modified relevant theory. The standard model of Type 1a supernovae at the time posited a close binary system in which mass transfer from a companion star onto a white dwarf detonated the explosion when the Chandrasekhar limit (1.4 solar masses) for a white dwarf was exceeded. Interestingly, that model has recently been abandoned because a search for companion stars of known Type 1a supernovae came up empty! The underlying physics of supernovae are still a mystery and astronomers are happy to admit that fact.
In climate science, when the data disagree with the computer models, the theory is not revised but the model parameters are tweaked to fit the data. Witness the recent invoking of aerosols to explain the last decade of temperature data.
“Witness the recent invoking of aerosols to explain the last decade of temperature data.”
Uh that IS revising the theory
Sounds more like plucking phantoms out of the ‘ether’ in the absence of confirmatory data. All they did was to twiddle the dial for ‘aerosols’ in their models. They cling to their GHG theory and shout repeatedly “The science is settled.” Selection bias, confirmation bias and publication bias are the main tools of the IPCC.
Off topic: on the other hand, the supernova data is considered so strong as to posit that most of the mass-energy in the universe is of unknown nature. I doubt it. Science has a human tendency to go off the deep end, as with CACW.
I don’t think any of the recent Nobel Scientists are saying anything different to the IPCC reports. Yes there is uncertainty, no-one is saying there isn’t.
I was listening to a lecture by Prof Barry Marshall recently, who received a Nobel prize for discovering the true cause, bacterial infection, of stomach ulcers. He was saying that for about $1000 anyone can have their genome sequenced which will enable them to quantify the future risks of various diseases.The link between genetic information and disease isn’t direct, there is still lots of uncertainty, but anyone can now find out that they’ll have, say, a 10% chance of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, a 90% chance of becoming diabetic or a 50% chance of serious heart disease.
So, individuals will soon have to make exactly the same choices as society has to make about CO2 emissions. The more intelligent of us,I would suggest, would look at the above figures and perhaps not worry too much about the Alzheimer possibility. Nevertheless the 50% and 90% chances are not ones that look attractive, but of course there are many courses of action that can be taken to reduce those figures.
It certainly wouldn’t make any sense to argue that uncertainty means nothing should be done.
How about continue to gather more data? Consider all alternative hypotheses? Listen to skeptics and critics of the “established wisdom?” Repeat the experiments and check the existing data for errors and misinterpretstions?
What’s thre track record of those “doctors” who claim to have 50% or 90% certainty about their diagnoses? Do any other doctors have different views about the credibility of those doctors?
What are the details about the control groups in their studies? All the data and work is out in the open for any other scientist to challenge?
Everything in their research and published results, including “peer-reviews,” was properly double-blinded, right?
Just a few questions about objectivity of the scientific process!
John Kanaar,
I don’t think you’ll need to rely on doctors. You’ll be able to get your genome sequenced by sending in a sample to a lab through the mail. You’ll then get a file back by email which you can then have analysed on the net and print out the results.
As more statistical information becomes available the uncertainties in these results may decrease over time but, of course, they will never be zero. In other words you’ll never know that you will either definitely, or definitely not, suffer from a heart attack at some later stage of your life.
That whole idea falls apart as soon as you add in epigenetics, which vastly change genetic responses and expressions to drive phenotypes not detectable through looking at direct genes. Environment and life history can override your base genetics, even in inheritable ways.
And on Alzheimer’s, there’s new research suggesting it’s actually a transmittable disease, much like prions (injections of Alzheimer’s material into mice gave them Alzheimer’s, while injections of healthy material did not).
So, the whole idea you can send out a report of your genetics and get confidence back on what it means is rapidly falling apart. For most things it’s snake oil. Where once you could say you had 50-90% confidence, the continuation of science has shaken that and lowered that number with every discovery, not increased it.
And that’s the lesson to learn.
Lysenko used a hammer to inspect the sickly gene.
============
Where is the uncertainty? “Climate’ + “change” is an oxymoron. Facts are facts: it is 100% certain that climate embodies “change” and it is 100% certain that climate will never stay the same.
a lecture by Prof Barry Marshall recently, who received a Nobel prize for discovering the true cause, bacterial infection, of stomach ulcers.
Yet another triumph for ‘consensus science’ NOT
Barry Marshall does have a theory about why he discovered the truth about stomach ulcers. You won’t like it!
He was working for the government at the time and had a free rein to pursue in what he calls “curiosity research”. His colleagues at the pharmaceutical companies had much more commercial constraints. Their companies were making lots of money, $billions, supplying drugs which successfully managed the condition. The good thing about them, as far as the companies are concerned, is that each patient needs a lifetime supply.
It just wasn’t in their interests to look for a cure. A cure may be one course of antibiotics bringing the company $50! Not the $50,000 they may make over a 30 year period of disease management
tt Thanks for that background. Well before that discovery I had a patient (in general practice) whose recurrent episodes of abdominal pain/dyspepsia (diagnosis uncertain despite rigorous investigation) responded to antibiotic treatment. That was based on the patient’s own empirical observation.
The messages about Helicobacter (or is it Pylorobacter?) reinforce
(a) that ‘consensus’ is not proof of underlying truth
(b) that practically useful results often come serendipitously from self-directed research by competent scientists.
Gyptis,
You’re right ‘consensus’ isn’t proof. On stomach ulcers the new consensus on stomach ulcers may well be incorrect as well. Its unlikely. But it’s possible.
The consensus in science isn’t a fixed thing. It’s likely that a small percentage of all the current consensuses (is that the right plural?) will be changed in the next 20 years. It won’t be a large percentage. Less than 1%. But who knows which 1%? If you need to make a decision you’d be a fool to go against the consensus on any particular issue just because there is that small possibility it may be wrong.
I hope Marshal said someday not today. Otherwise he is a quack. As for the climate hoax, never.
Barry Marshall certainly isn’t a quack. Incidentally, I might just say he was asked in the lecture for his opinion on climate change, and other scientific topics, but he refused to be drawn outside his area of expertise.
The technology that Prof Marshall refers to is currently available, the price having dropped rapidly in the past few years and he’s predicting a boom in the field. Buying shares in the right companies will be a good bet IMO
I can’t find a full transcript of his lecture but this is a report:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/genome-power-is-about-to-sweep-world-nobel-laureate-20110608-1ft6m.html
tempterrain: My problem with medical-to-climate-science analogies is that medical doctors have treated thousands to billions of people for various conditions with various treatments. Doctors can monitor people’s bodies with practically Star Trek technology, albeit clunkier, and understand very deeply, sometimes to the molecular level, just what is going on in the human body.
Climate science is at a far more rudimentary level of understanding the planet and has not successfully treated a single planet yet.
I’m willing to accept the recommendations of medical doctors because of the level of their understanding and their track records.
I’m willing to address climate scientists as “Doctor” and listen to what they have to say, but until they have a proven track record of predicting climate conditions and a much better record of scientific transparency, I won’t accord climate scientists the same trust as I do medical doctors.
I consider it a fallacy when the climate orthodox insist that if skeptics trust medical doctors then they should trust climate scientists or be guilty of being anti-science or deniers.
“medical-to-climate-science analogies”
A Warmer who resorts to the Dreaded Doctor Analogy has admitted defeat. Normal people eventually say something like “You know, I was wrong” or “Sorry for the mistake. Warmers are trained to regurgitate Global Warming and don’t know how to go about communicating that they have accepted new information that replaces the old. A little patience is required.
Andrew
If the witchdoctors of climatology were held to the same standards as medical researchers they’d all be in prison. Having been likened to the ancient science of astrology, being an AGW True Beliver means never having to admit any fact that conflicts with your faith.
“but until they have a proven track record of predicting climate conditions”
The problem of course is that it will be too late by then.
As I previously said, the technology exists now to inform us all just what our life chances are of diseases like prostate or breast cancers. No doctors need be involved. A computer program can read our genome sequence and generate a list of potential ailments , each with an assigned risk.
We can make of it what we will. We can argue that there is so much uncertainty there is no need to do anything, if we like. It will be our choice.
The problem of course is that it will be too late by then.
tempterrain: The other problem, of course, is that the cures recommended by the climate change orthodoxy are quite expensive and risky in themselves, and not guaranteed to work.
Also, you are repeating the same medical/climate science fallacy as before. Climate science does not have a track record for informing us what our life chances are for increased CO2.
It is sad but true that climate science is still in its infancy and can’t give us the answers or even the reliable odds that we need. But that’s the way it is.
IMO increased CO2 is a dilemma that humanity currently lacks the resources to resolve and make a clear best choice.
My compromise: I’m for further research into climate to understand the problem better, more research into energy sources for alternatives, and building more nuclear power plants now.
“Not guaranteed to work”
I could say no medical procedure is guaranteed to work either. But you don’t like medical analogies, right?
OK I had to work on my computer recently, by pulling it all apart to look for the problem. That wasn’t guaranteed to work either but it did!
tempterrain: That’s such a weak response that I’ll take it as “No, I don’t have a decent counter-argument.”
Maybe not too late.
See (which also references Santer and Wigley’s versions);
Michaels, Patrick J. 2011. The Current Wisdom: Imitation, Flattery and More Bad News for Climate Models | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary. Opinion. CATO Institute. September 28. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13721#.
Note the difference in periods covered by the comparisons of observations to model predictions. Santer and Wigley appear to have included the model tuning period in their analysis.
Give as much (no, more!) scrutiny to all the effects and possible “unintended consequences” of the proposed remedies as was done to the original demands for action? (Is the cure worse than the disease?)
And the intended consequences. Then weight them by probability, to come up with the “Expected Return” (net present cost).
Mitigation is virtually certain to pauperize and thereby murder huge numbers. Warming is very unlikely to do anything urgent or seriously negative, and even its worst consequences are less than mitigation’s.
The choice is obvious and mandatory: avoid mitigation like the plague, in fact like the sum of all the plagues that ever were.
I remember reading many years ago that the universe could go either way, expanding forever or eventually coming back on itself…in perhaps a never ending cycle of expansion and rebirth. Of course the second option sounded much better, but I remember thinking, a cynic even at 20, that “it would be just my luck” when they find it’s the dark, cold, dead option. A tad narcissistic too, now that I think of it, to take the universe so personally.
Judith, I hope you will go to RC and see Schmidt’s (I am not using first names for someone who I do not respect) response to my latest query about numerical errors in climate models. It is snide, personal, and assumes that I am not honest. Just pure unscientific personal attack of the kind that I shouldn’t be surprised at from the team.
By the way, Steven Mosher’s link for the Paul Williams talk from Cambridge on this topic of numerical errors in climate models is well worth your time. It looks a lot worse than I stated in previous posts.
David Young
David Y: That was an unpleasant response, but par for the course with Schmidt. Your debate with him was outside my wheelhouse, but I had the impression that you were respectful and polite throughout, though insistent on answers to your concerns. When Schmidt could not provide such answers, he resorted to a snide, personal attack. Typical.
That was my experience of Schmidt after Climategate. He couldn’t address my points so he censored my comments and got snide. I was shocked by his abruptness and dishonesty. That’s when I flipped to skepticism. My take is that Schmidt and many of the spokesmen for the climate orthodoxy have gone to the bunker. They will answer when they have answers but if they don’t, they will do whatever it takes to win or at least shut others up.
If the climate change orthodox were truly concerned about their “messaging” as they keep saying, they would take Schmidt and the Team off the front lines and put up some new faces for climate change, because Schmidt & Co. are strictly “Meet the Old Boss, same as the Old Boss.”
Maybe Gavin isn’t the kind of guy to suffer fools gladly?
Have you viewed Williams video and do you understand the issue of time stepping errors.
I will pose a question.
Suppose you are modelling climate and the physics model says:
Here is the response in sea level to raining temperature 2C: ->1 meter.
Then suppose some smart assed mathematical came along and said, hey try this better method for time stepping. And this better method is a method that is known to better, but its 10X slower and requires a ton more memory.
So you try the better method and your answer is 2C -> 2 meters of sea level rise. WTF?
In effect your choice of time stepping changes the answer by a figure AS LARGE as the physical effect itself.
That is the kind of problem Williams is talking about. Observed in a climate model. The point is this. We have so many machine hours of computing available for AR5 or Ar6 or Ar7 etc Doesnt it make sense to use the best models and best methods to get the best answer. The planet is at stake.
It’s worse than that. Look at Williams’ chart for the simple sine wave. The standard method damps the amplitude by 50% in 10 periods. That tells me that the climate doctrine that “the models always have stable statistics and patterns in the long term” could be just a numerical artifact.
This is malpractice.
Steve, I had several of my posts on RC censored. These were the responses to Schmidt’s personal attack. I’m starting to loose all confidence in RC as a blog worth reading. Judy’s blog is much more open to real discussion.
The best part of RC is the Bore Hole.
It’s never been more than a echo chamber. I’m only surprised, that the usual array of the cheerleaders haven’t joined in with their usual insults.
Their “Borehole” is probably the only part worth reading,it shows the mindset of the blog’s writers & backers quite clearly.
yes, they even turn people who believe in AGW off.
I never would have read CA ( climate audit) and never would have helped Anthony at WUWT ( in the early days) But for the crappy treatment I got at RC.
I see some gardening, er climate change communications research, in Gavin’s future.
==============
Dvid,
RC is one of the reasons I came to doubt AGW claims.
Their behavior is unprofeesional, unscientific, unethical, and uninformed.
They are clearly hiding the truth and pushing an agenda that profits the RC princiapls directly.
“The planet is at stake.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Judith, I hope you will go to RC and see Schmidt’s (I am not using first names for someone who I do not respect) response to my latest query about numerical errors in climate models. ‘
Dr. Young, perhaps you could be persuaded to take a look at a small sign error that appears to have been amplified by a factor of 4 due to the T ~4F relationship on a rather iconic graphic?
My way I have to prove a relationship before I can address what is a fairly obvious error in atmosphere absorption of OLR. The error is totally obvious when compared to a NASA graphic.
Fred has helped me clear up a lot of things, but I am still have problems communicating the validity of the approach.
http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/10/call-for-mathematicians-greenhouse.html
You probably know a much faster method if you see the issue.
I hope that nobody is confusing Brian Schmidt with Gavin Schmidt?
Gavin hopes otherwise
Well, well, I know this is forum where credentials are not public. With all due respect, I know these issues very well. I know, its a blog, but I’m using my real name. You can look up my publications if you want to check my knowledge of the subject.
David, perhaps you could tell us a bit more about yourself in the ‘denizens’ section of this blog. I find it rewarding to know a little about those that take the time to make courteous and seemingly knowledgable contributions to the threads.
Best wishes
“tempterrain” is an anagram of my real name so I’m not that anonymous! See my listing under denizens for the solved version.
Maybe you’re really rain tempter?, or perhaps emptier rant?
Judith How about asking Richard Muller to make 2% of the data available now so we can at least work out data input issues
Dr Brian Schmidt Interview from the ABC’s 7:30 Report-
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3333200.htm
LEIGH SALES: How have you viewed the climate change debate and the way science has been politicised around that?
BRIAN SCHMIDT: Well, I think it’s kind of unfortunate how we’ve been mixing the science and the politics, and I think we can look at science to blame for that and we can look at the politicians to blame. I think it’s a lot of problems there that can be shared across. From my perspective, I really want to see science ask the hard questions: is the science right, how can we improve, what are the uncertainties, what do we know? And have that within a scientific forum. And then we need to… science is never absolute, there’s never absolutely an answer. Everything we do always has uncertainties. But on the policy side, I think it’s really important for the politicians and the policymakers to look what the scientists come up as a consensus. So, I offer up the Australian Academy of Science, who’s gone through and tried to summarise where we are in the climate change science debate, and I think that’s a very good document that the Academy of Science has put out. I think the politicians and policymakers need to reflect on that and make sensible policy based on that.
Orkneygal,
Yes, I listened to this and I’m pretty much in agreement. I’m not sure if you are though?
Brian Schmidt is “offer[ing] up the Australian Academy of Science, who’s gone through and tried to summarise where we are in the climate change science debate”
“I think that’s a very good document”
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html
Are you sure you agree with all this? You’ve read it all? If so I’m delighted to hear it!
I believe Dr Schmidt’s comments reveal his concerns about the “uncertainty” aspects of some climate science projections. I believe that puts his views closer to Dr Curry’s than the IPCC cabal. However, far be it to me to put words in the mouth of a Nobel Prize winner.
In any case, here is a quote from Chapter 7 of the report Dr Schmidt refers to. I find it quite sensible, even if other parts of the document are not.
“Some aspects of climate science are still quite uncertain. The exact amount of warming that will result from any particular trajectory for future greenhouse gas emissions cannot be projected precisely, because it depends on details of processes that reinforce or dampens disturbances in the climate system.”
So you don’t agree with Brian Schmidt after all. He’s saying the Australian Academy of Science document is very good.
You are saying that parts of it aren’t sensible? So what proportion would you say is good and what proportion isn’t sensible?
I’d say it was all sensible , even the part you’ve quoted and it isn’t at all at variance with what we read in the IPCC reports.
I would have liked Leigh Sales to have asked Dr Schmidt just what he meant by “political”. I don’t think he would have meant that climate scientists should sit in their ivory towers saying nothing in public. He certainly seems very good himself at explaining his science in straightforward terms. One problem for climate scientists is, in the minds of some, just to say that human activity has increased CO2 levels significantly and this in turn has caused the planet to warm and it will warm further with increased CO2 levels is a political statement. There is no reason at all why it should be, of course.
What do you think?
I think you don’t have a clue about the reasons for my original posting and I also think you are a lonely, sad person searching for ways to bring meaning to your life.
Ouch.
Can someone please explain the significance of this result? What prevents a crystal to look the same when rotated by 72 (=360/5) degree?
What prevents a crystal to look the same when rotated by 72 (=360/5) degree?
A fair question, Girma. The answer is that while a regular pentagon in isolation is no problem, how would you tile a plane with them? A crystal is not just one polygon, or polyhedron, but a tiling of 2D or 3D thereof.
It’s easy to tile the plane with regular polygons with 3, 4, and 6 sides, because their internal angles are respectively 60°, 90°, and 120°, all of which divide 360°. However the internal angle of a regular pentagon is (180 − 360/5) = 108° which does not divide 360°. So on the face of it, it would seem impossible to tile the plane with regular pentagons.
Linus Pauling was so convinced of this that for years, to his dying day, he continued to mock Shechtman with “there are no such things as quasicrystals, there are only quasiscientists.” Naturally Pauling’s view of the matter did not look great on Shechtman’s CV, especially to believers in vitamin C as the cure to everything. (My own theory of megadoses of vitamin C is that beyond 2000 mg its only curative value resides in the large quantities of water needed to get the megadoses down.)
For more on quasicrystals see the relevant Wikipedia article.
Pauling’s thesis (intravenous Vitamin C) was never tested.
No washing down required.
Girma, you can’t fit together a regular lattice of pentagons to cover a 2D plane, in the same way that you can with squares or hexagons. Try to draw a regular crystal structure with 5-fold symmetry and you’ll see the problem. What Shechtman found was that these things can exist in nature but they are not periodic, in other words there are no two points in the lattice that look exactly the same. google ‘quasicrystals’ and click on ‘images’ to get lots of pretty pictures. Theoretical existence of such things had been shown by mathematician Roger Penrose.
Thank you Vaughan & Paul.
It is clear now.
Atomic structures were thought always to be arranged in regular arrays but it seems that quasicrystals will give the appearance of regularity through refraction effects even when the atoms themselves are not arranged in any predictable pattern. Its an interesting application of Penrose Tiling theory which has been proved and just now recognised by the Nobel award.
That’s diffraction, not refraction.
My mistake WHT thanks for pointing this out. So it would be true when looking at the light of the stars, what the observer sees after diffraction has occurred due to influence of the relative gravities of the the bodies between the light source and the Earth would be the same as if no diffraction has occurred. Whereas in the case of refraction, the image may be physically distorted due to the influence of different media through which an image is viewed by an observer?
Judith,
This planet will be bone dry long before expanding to be solid ice.
There is an excellent description of Shechtman’s quasicrystal by the BBC:
http://bbc.in/mTYDAC
Judith.
A present for you! :-)
Brutal winter ahead for Midwest
“People in Chicago are going to want to move after this winter.” said AccuWeather.com Long-Range Meteorologist Josh Nagelberg.
Judith,
You know my research into salt?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/06/comet-water-discovered-to-be-nearly-identical-in-composition-to-earths-oceans/
tempterrain, are you Matt Preiner?
http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/advanced.html
This is cheating!
marchesarosa, I’ll address this as I haven’t had my Times cryptic fix today, The Australian printed clues which didn’t match the grid. tempterrain does not have an unusual surname, he’s Peter Martin, whether or not he’s “the” Peter Martin, I can not say.
In a reply to David Young at RC Gavin Schmidt said:
“This kind of forecast doesn’t depend too much on the models at all – it is mainly related to the climate sensitivity which can be constrained independently of the models (i.e. via paleo-climate data),”
Is he refering to the hockey stick and other tree ring “paleo-climate data”?
DCA: I asked Gavin about his sources for that statement. He referred me to the following:
Kohler et al (2010) (doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.026 ) and
Annan and Hargreaves (2006) (doi: 10.1029/2005GL025259).
Also to his own RC post on the Annan and Hargreaves paper (24 March 2006). I haven’t followed up the refs yet. I don’t think the hockey stick is central, though. Ocean core proxies come into it, plus some assumptions about albedo changes.
DCA
“Paleo-climate data” as a “constraint” on climate sensitivity? (Sounds like a sales pitch from Richard Alley).
What is referred to here are the sometimes rather subjective interpretations of questionably accurate reconstructed data series taken from carefully hand-picked periods of our geological past.
These may (hopefully) be slightly better than model simulations based on purely hypothetical considerations and inputs, but they remain highly subjective, i.e. you can get almost any answer you are looking for.
Much better than either of these two are empirical data based on actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
And these data “constrain” 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to somewhere between 0.8 and 1.5C, depending on the assumption made on past natural forcing, with the higher value based on IPCC assumptions (attributing only 7% of past forcing to natural causes and the rest essentially to CO2) and the lower figure based on several solar studies (which attribute roughly half of the 20th century warming to the sun).
Max
.
.
There’s a lucid 10 minute video talk by chemistry prize winner Dan Shechtman linked from Lubos Motl’s blog. Recommended. Shechtman describes what he found and the difficulty he had overturning the consensus paradigm. An impressive scientist.
More impressive than Shechtmann is Richard Smalley who discovered another strange crystal which he called Buckminsterfullerene. I consider Smalley’s Nobel prize work as equal to the work he did alerting the scientific world to fossil fuel depletion. I saw him give a talk on the subject and he worked on that until he died of cancer.
We should not forget that Nobel has a lot of work to do recapture its credibility. The way the Left has taken over many institutions is quite revealing (the `Medium is the Message’), the result of which, we all have been witness: the clinging to dogma and a failed secular, socialist ideology and the means that the Left employs–e.g., the tactics of denial and dominating discourse as a means to achieve a political agenda, and the Left’s eager willingness to trample the liberties of others, and the triumph of superstition over reason that their actions exemplify—all are pretty much what we have seen them do to the culture and to society that we see has led to the corruption of science and is leading to the fall of Western civilization.
Wag, I think that you comment is more applicable to the Nobel “Peace” prize than the Nobels awarded in the physical and medical sciences. The laureate for the former is chosen by a small committee selected from IIRC the Danish legislature, a noticeable left-leaning body.
Awarded in Oslo, by Norwegians.
Peter Martin?
Martin Peter?
Looks like the models were wrong again.
Abstract… “We therefore conclude that the deep northeast Pacific was apparently not old enough to be the source of deglacial radiocarbon anomalies found shallower in the water column.” ~Lund, DC, et al., Increased ventilation age of the deep northeast Pacific Ocean during the last deglaciation, Nature Geoscience, (2011)
“Frankly, we’re kind of baffled by the whole thing,” says co-author Alan Mix, a co-author of the study: “The North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn’t match up. At least we’ve shown where the carbon wasn’t [and] now we just have to find where it was.”
Judith,
There is an excelent article in Nature by Daniel Sarewitz entitled “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree”. He says, ‘Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful.’
Here is the link ( Not paywalled ):
Here
/ikh
Given an Ice Age in the future, any anthropogenic cooling is insanely foolish in comparison to anthropogenic warming.
==========
Even without an Ice Age. The LIA was not really an ice age, but killed millions.
Good. Paradigm is trembling.
Thanks for the link.
The irony: Although I subscribe to Nature and published several key findings there in the 1970s, I am now banned from posting any comments there because I objected to absolute rubbish published in Nature about climate change and the role of Earth’s heat source the Sun:
1. Its origin
2. Its composition
3. Its source of energy, and
4. Its influence on Earth’s changing climate!
To begin to understand Earth’s changing climate, I recommend the 1963 paper [1] by ANU’s Distinguished Professor of math, physics and chemistry – Dr. Barry W. Ninham – and the 2002 paper he co-authored with Distinguished Professor Stig Friberg and me [2].
Banning dissenting opinions, and publishing editorials on the need for dissenting opinions is, as Kim notes above “insanely foolish.”
1. B. W. Ninham, “Charged Bose gas in astrophysics”, Physics Letters 4, 278-279 (1963)
2. “Super-fluidity in the sun: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, JFE 21, 193-198 (2002).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441
“Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making” is simply pointing to the tactics of politicians like Al Gore who clothe all manner of ill-conceived laws in the outward trappings of legitimacy.
ikh
The essay, which you linked, by Daniel Sarewitz.on the pitfalls of consensus reports is excellent.
Thanks for link.
Max
The discovery of the LGMs (pulsars) resulted in a Nobel Prize but not for either of the two women mentioned here (wiki):
“Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered the first pulsar PSR B1919+21 in 1967, relates that in the late 1950s a woman viewed the Crab Nebula source at the University of Chicago’s telescope, then open to the public, and noted that it appeared to be flashing. The astronomer she spoke to, Elliot Moore, disregarded the effect as scintillation, despite the woman’s protestation that as a qualified pilot she understood scintillation and this was something else. Bell Burnell notes that the 30 Hz frequency of the Crab Nebula optical pulsar is difficult for many people to see.”
A lot seems to depend on the artefact rate in a particular field of study. Lots of strange, interesting and sadly often never to be seen again observations are made and passed over. Jocelyn Bell’s blip on one of many dozens of yards of paper chart from her radio telescope was considered by her supervisors to be just that, a blip. Yet she peristed despite them, the tale got stranger and stranger, she maintains that they called in the spooks just in case it had an intelligent source and he wanted the charts burnt, she had to find another Little Green Man in a hurry and she did, one LGM was an existential threat, two was just too funny to be true. Her supervisors came around to her position and bagged the Noble for themselves.
Alex
Governments subverted government science into a tool of propaganda and destroyed the credibility of both
a.) Science, and
b.) Governments.
Breaking the bottleneck to communications is the key to restoring:
a.) Citizen control over governments and
b.) Integrity to government science!
As mentioned in the Preface to the 1999 ACS Proceedings on the “Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations”, Noble Laureate Glenn T. Seaborg and I wanted those Proceedings to “include all points of view and let history judge their validity.”
I just learned that the entire book is now freely available to all:
http://ebookee.org/Origin-of-Elements-in-the-Solar-System-Implications-of-Post-1957-Observations_202099.html
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
It is surprised to hear that the three U.S. physicists had won the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering through the study of supernovae that the universe is accelerating expansion.
The Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler Effect are the facts. It doesn’t mean the universe is expansion or universe is accelerating expansion.
The expansion of the universe is based on the true of the Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory is not true. Even though the Hubble’s redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts. The expansion or accelerating expansion of the universe is not supported.
The Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not just a crazy idea, it is nonsense. Is anyone believe the “dark energy” able to create the real energy to push the supernovae accelerating expansion? If you do believe it. You may believe “dark human” can turn spirit to a real person.
In Scientific community , the Big Bang and ”dark energy” issue had been argue for so many year, And now act rashly to award the Nobel Prize in physics for the universe is accelerating expansion .I believe that someday will be proved the 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics turn out to be a joke.
The expansion of Universe should not true. If it is true, the Big Bang theory and “dark energy” will be true.
Now raise a big question. If he Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not true. Also the Hubble redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts, How could be proved the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion?
The space of the universe has only three kind of possibility. One is Euclidean space, one is elliptical space and the other is hyperbolic space. These three kinds of space can only be hypnosis to be one of the three only, And, it cannot be identify by proved.
1. If the universe is a Euclidean space, due to the Hubble redshift, and the facts of the Doppler Effect, There must be the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang also true. This is contradiction to the Big Bang is not true. So, the space of the universe may not be a Euclidean space
2. The space of the universe will never be an Elliptical space. If the space of the Universe is an Elliptical space. When we see anything from the east, can be seen from the west too. Obviously, it is not so
3. Remaining space is The Hyperbolic space.
Let analyze, if supernovae happen in Hyperbolic space.
Hubble’s laws are derived from Euclidean rules and Euclidean formulas. However, assume the Universe is in Hyperbolic space. Very logically, we must derive its rules and formulas from Hyperbolic rules and non-Euclidean formulas.
The rules and formulas of Hyperbolic space are quite different from Euclidean space. Hence, the results derived from utilizing these two systems must be different. These differences may be the keys to unveil the mystery of the Universe.
“Now we try to prove, the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler effect are the facts”
A. LIGHT SPHERICAL WAVE FRONTS
When photon travel a distance of r. The equation of a light spherical front in Euclidean space is
x2 + y2 + z2 = r2 ————– (1)
From Hyperbolic geometry, the equation of the light spherical front is
tanh2 x/k + tanh2 y/k + tanh2 z/k = tanh2 r/k —— (2)
Where k is the constant of the space curvature. （cosmological constant）
(From page 298 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)
Comparing equations (1) and (2), we can see very obviously that the area of the light spherical fronts is very much different. Even though they have the same radius. Therefore, the Doppler Effect should not be the same between Euclidean space and Hyperbolic space.
The area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr2.
What is the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hyperbolic space?
Let us determine the circumference of a circle in Hyperbolic space first:
Let PQ be the chord of a circle of radius r, which subtends an angleθ, M be the midpoint of the chord, and O be the center of the circle.
See
fig 1.
From the formula of the right-angle in Hyperbolic trigonometry, we have (page 143 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)
sinh PQ/2k = sinh r/k sin∠POQ/2
If angle θ 0
We have ds/2k = sinh r/k dθ/2
or ds = k sinh r/k dθ
Integrating both sides, we have
Circumference = 2πk sinh r/k
Then, let ds are the length of the arc of the spherical circle, and r be the radius.
By same formula, we have, see
fig 2.
ds = k sinh r/k dθ
The area of the circle strip is
d (area of circle strip) = 2πk sinh AM/k ds
But
sinh AM/k = sinh r/k sinθ
Therefore
d(area of circle strip)=2πk[sinh r/k sinθ][k sinh r/k dθ]
= 2πk 2 sinh2 r/k dθ
Integrating both sides, we have
area of sphere = 4πk 2 sinh2 r/k
B. DOPPLER EFFECT OR “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”
When a photon travels a distance r, the area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr2.
area of sphere = 4πr 2
But the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hperbolic space is
area of sphere = 4πk 2 sinh2 r/k
Compare the two Spherical Areas in the two different spaces with the same r. We easily to see that, if we are in Hyperbolic universe, Light Spherical Front stretch from 4πr 2 to 4πk 2 sinh2 r/k. We temporary called this stretch by “Liou’s stretch effect”.
The Spherical Front of photon may only travel a distance r in Hyperbolic space. But in Euclidean space, it appears to travel a distance of k sinh r/k.
From the difference of r and k sinh r/k in Euclidean space, it looks like the object moves from point r to point k sinh r/k, but the object actually stays still in Hyperbolic universe.
When we use Redshift of Doppler Effect in Euclidean space to calculate velocity of galaxy from point r to point k sinh r/k. Actually, there is no movement from point r to point k sinh r/k. It only cause by the stretch of curvature of Hyperbolic space (“Liou’s stretch effect”).
I will use the velocity to calculate the space constant (cosmological constant). Use redshift of frequency the result is the same.
D. CALCULATION OF SPACE CURVATURE (OR COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT) IN HYPERBOLIC UNIVERSE
Let s = k sinh r/k – r
Where s is the distant of galaxy moving from position r to the position k sinh r/k.
Taking the derivative of both sides, we have
ds/dt = cosh r/k dr/dt – dr/dt
where ds/dt =v (the velocity of galaxies at the remote distance of r), and dr/dt is the speed of light c.
Therefore
v = cosh r/k c – c
v = c[cosh r/k – 1] = 2c sinh2 r/2k ———- (3)
There are several versions of the Hubble’s constant. We will select the one most popular one. In which, the velocity of galaxies at a distance of six billion light-years move away at a velocity of roughly 90,000 kilometers/sec.
Hence v=90,000 kilometers/sec and r=6 bly.
Hence we have
v = 90,000 kilometers/sec and r = 6 bly.
Therefore
90,000 = 2c sinh2（6bly/2k ）
∴ 0.3c = 2c sinh2（3bly/k ）
∴ k = 3bly/ sinh-1√0.12
∴ k = 7.931965828 bly
Where bly is billion light-years.
C. DISCUSIONS
1. Hubble’s constant was not constant.
From equation (3), v = 2c sinh2 r/2k , the velocity of galaxies and the remote distance of r were not exactly linear proportions in Euclidean universe. The velocity is more likely in slightly acceleration observed in Euclidean universe.
Here, the cosmological constant, k = 7.931965828 bly was based on the Hubble’s Law at 6 bly. If we based on a difference distance, like one on a distance of 1 or 2 bly, the k value should be slightly different. If we use different versions of Hubble’s Law, the cosmological constant k will be even more different. We really need an accurate data to determine the constant k
Assuming k = 7.931965828 bly is correct; the Hubble’s diagram in Euclidean space should look like the following diagram.
From this chart, we should call Hubble’s accelerator instead of Hubble’s constant.
2. Is Universe’s redshift cause by DOPPLER EFFECT or “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”?
From Hubble’s Law, the speed by which a galaxy moves away is proportional to the distance to the galaxy. A galaxy with distance of 6 bly has a velocity of 90,000 km/s. For a galaxy 30 bly away, its speed will be 450,000 km/s. This is beyond the speed of light a lot. It is contradict to the fact of the speed of light is constant.
In recent year, astronomer’s observed that Hubble’s constant is not constant. The galaxies actually moving away accelerated, like supernovae.
From this two facts, the Universe’s redshift is more likely to be caused by the “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”.
. And Doppler Effect caused by the STRETCH of the Hyperbolic space (“LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”) not by the speed of velocity in Euclidean space.
So, the universe is not expansion nor accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler effect are the facts.
In other words, the universe is still in Hyperbolic space. We can forget about Big Bang Theory, dark matter, dark energy, block hole, white hole etc.
By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.