Posted by: graemebird | July 7, 2009

Viscosity, And The Structural Break In Climate

From elsewhere:

” it is plain that 20thC temperature is not a linear trend and a structural break approach [ie a step-up] is statistically verified.”

I like that wording. A structural break approach. A step-up. Thats the sort of wording I need to use when I’m trying to explain next time how I think the Holocene maximum was sustained so long. The Holocene optimum defies alarmist models. But this step-up, structural break-talk…………

Thats the way to describe it when I bring my idea of viscosity into it. The simplified model is where the equilibrium imbedded joules is reliant mostly on resistance to circulation. Resistance to mixing. But then warmer water has lower viscosity and so less resistance to circulation. Hence if you have other things going for you. If you have other causes that can keep your momentum going, the viscosity factor might lead to this structural break. This step-up.

I saw this article by Goddard I think, about the holocene optimum. You know the attitude;

“It didn’t happen. We know all about it. It was only in the Northern hemisphere. And even then only in Summer. The computer has spoken. You weren’t there. You cannot know. I work for NASA and you don’t….”

You know how they are. They ignore the evidential record and go with whatever their computer says.

But it stands to reason. It went from 8000-5000 years ago I think in traditional estimates. It turns out that proxy evidence gives 8000 years ago as being when there was a burst of even more powerful solar action than the twentieth century. I’ve heard 6000 years ago being thought of as the most optimal from a Milankovitch point of view. And the holocene optimum stood for another thousand years after that.

It all seems to hang together as far as I can see. I don’t see it necessary to do anything else but follow the evidence. But Goddard seems to see things differently.

As far as I know I’m the first person to bring up the factor of viscosity changes due to water temperature. And I think I was the first person to deal with stefan-boltzmanns insofar as what that means when you dissaggregate into different areas of territory. Although I think Lubos went into this but no-one seems to have worked with this all that much. They waste so much money but they don’t tell you what you need to know. Also the idea that Stefan-Boltzmanns leads to some measure of “resistance-to-circulation” being the best determinant of how many joules will be imbedded in some implied equilibrium.

But IF it was ONLY Stefan-Boltzmanns, that would be a pretty powerful equilibrating mechanism in my view. If it was only Stefan Boltzmanns the planet would be like a pretty good thermostat.

But you throw in regional serendipity and VISCOSITY EFFECTS you have the potential I think, for this structural break you are talking about. This step up. This step down. This step up and step down and stay down effect. I think VISCOSITY plays a part here.

And I think its going to be a case of step-down and stay down a long time. And I think this sort of thing will be happening pretty soon.



  1. logged moderated post:

    No the banks didn’t perform well. Asset growth is simply monetary creation for banks. All that is is watering down the currency. Thats not performance. Performance is wealth creation. You create wealth with debt only when you lend for the purpose of increasing cash flow. They have not lived up to that and they have been destroyers of wealth for the most part.

    We see this when we consider what would happen if the loans weren’t made. If the loans were not made then the same resources would be there. But they would have gone to people IN PROPORTION TO THEIR EXISTING CASH FLOW.

    So without banks resource allocation is already very good. If they just get out there and start loaning willy-nilly as they do under current socialist arrangements, then they can only be destroyers of wealth.

    Its critical that we get a banking system that actively creates wealth. We can only get that with both banking and monetary reform.

  2. Mr Bird,

    It has been some time since we last corresponded. I have been busy attending my affairs but have kept up with your researches from time to time.

    However I would note that the Usurper has gone to see his neo-communist Puppet masters and on their recommendation stripped bare the American nuclear shield. If there was ever anymore evidence needed that the Usurper was a communist plant then this is it.

    I suspect that McCain, Bush and other such patriots must be regretting that they bowed to the threats of the hidden briefcase bombs in their cities and let the Kenyan be elected. Surely the loss of one or two cities was worth it in the greater scheme of things than letting your entire nation be slaves to the Evil Empire reincarnate.

    I morn for our children and note that Rudd has also gone over to Europe to take his orders. I suspect he is not getting them from the Russians but the Chinese instead. I suspect that we will increasingly see the seperation of foreign policy between the US and Australia as we begin to follow the Chinese communists while the Usurper falls in line with his KGB masters.

  3. It just looks like straight-line cripple the US to me. Just looks like Gramscian or Saul Alinsky putting strategy into action. I don’t see any deviation from this behaviour where Barry is concerned.

    Yeah you would wonder about it wouldn’t you. Nuclear plants. Too easy to do so you would expect that they’ve done it already.

  4. Oh, speaking of vicious I also have another blog dedicated tp fighting fascism. Y9u are most welcome to visit Mr Bird.

  5. Very good. This being nice technique. Is it some sort of crafty ruse to maintain access to the fascist sites hey?

    Wow. Thats pretty bloody crafty alright.

  6. Right. I’ll think about it. What we want to avoid is the ghastly consultants view of things. The consultants have only bigshot corporations as one wing of their client base. The other wing being blood-sucker-central. Hence our consultants have developed a concept of privatisation manifestly unfair and against the interests of the public. Although in many cases they could argue a slight utilitarian points decision over the former socialist run industry. They will call you a socialist if you question the particular FORM the privatisation takes.

    One day I heard an extreme version of the consultants consensus on privatisation. This was with regards to Iraq in the early days of the war. One of the consultants was talking about what he reckoned was “best practice” with regards to privatising the oil. He reckoned you bundle it all together and have this almighty auction. Like a trillion dollar auction.

    Note what this achieves. It leaves the government awash with cash which they will promptly waste. And since the auction bundles together so many resources it is only open to the deepest of pockets and therefore:

    1. The price will be too low.

    2. The winning bidder will now be up to his eyeballs in debt.

    3. The government will fritter the money away in an almighty splurge of vote-buying, cronyism, corruption and in all likelihood violence.

    4. Since the winning bidder will be in massive amounts of debt value will tend to gravitate to the deepest pockets around which is at the moment the Chinese communists.

    This is what our neoclassical economists have arrived at as a result of all their thinking being skewed by their paymasters.

    Note it was this sort of advice that really screwed around Russia after the fall of communism. Most of her large-scale industry wound up being auctioned off to a few Jewish blokes who were former black-marketeers. The pull of stolen money finance is a strong one. And so despite the manifest failure of this sort of resource allocation our consultants have not changed their minds one inch.

    They always do things in such a way as to:

    1. Get a massive lump sum for the politicians of the day to vote-buy, waste, and to defer the reality that the only right thing for these politicians to do is to close down a host of government departments.

    2. Cut out small and middle sized businesses from the opportunities and just line the pockets of bigshots.

    3. Leave a tangled mess of a market afterwards. A frankenstein market full of poorly stiched-together zombie-like companies. This is a market where ongoing consulting work can be virtually guaranteed.

    See in this regard the absolute hash of how they handled the telstra privatisation. Now telstra has to be eternally arm-twisted into letting her competitors sub-let her network under reasonable arrangements. Only consultants could create such a tangled mess as to guide things to the impasse where your supplier is also your competitor.

    And you know they hire their mates and build these Frankenstein companies. And then they wonder why the companies so built are not dynamic. After all they set up more than 3 competitors right? Several indeed. Enough numbers so we don’t have to call it names like “oligopoly”. Surely thats in accordance with the Frank Knight models right?

    So not seeing that competitiveness must be in the DNA of the company……. Not seeing that big business ought to come out of small business success they then say GO FRANKY. Go franky. Get out there franky and compete.

    And all franky does is sit there bleeding into his bandages and occasionally lifting up some pot or other and showering gold over himself.

    This sort of problem is all over the world so much is the group-think of the consultants.

    Its become so bad that Amy Chua, probably without knowing it, wrote a book that to my mind is really about the consequences of this sort of hobgoblin-skewed privatisation. This sort of privatisation just leads to a few elites taking over rigged markets, and sometimes they do so getting up to their eyeballs in so much debt that value is basically transferred to overseas interests.

    Now I believe in privatisation. I think we ought to privatise a lot more. But we have to go for a sort of privatisation that is just a little bit more righteous. A little bit smarter. And one that leads to a functioning market…. A functioning market being one which creates noticeably better value-for-money each year thereafter.

    And I believe in big business. But its gotsta-come from small business success and no exceptions.

    So sea-steading and the like has to be done with this better thinking in mind. No vast auctions of large sea territory. Upfront trying to minimise usage of the sea bed and particularly the sea surface. Intensive improvement of a small area is what ought to give one ownership rights to be recorded, legally recognised, bought, sold, and borrowed against.

    And we don’t have to have every last centimetre in private hands. Let the speedboats be free. Let the feral fish swim by in peace.

    But we DO NEED to get started with this. Because one thing builds on another and you would want a lot of small business out at sea to more cheaply develop the vast resources that the oceans contain.

  7. “Oh god Flying Ninja, you just freaked me out with that link. Given that the topic is on Viscosity I thought for a moment that one of the smartest scientists/engineers in Australia was losing his marbles.”

    Josh you fucking moron. So you are contesting the above speculations are you?

    Well lets see you then you fucking dumb cunt?

    How about that?

    You tell me where I’m coming off the beam you fucking useless lying cunt.

    So you are claiming that colder water is not more viscous?

    That this won’t lead to more resistance to circulation you useless fucking moronic cunt?

    And that this has no implications when combined with Stefan-Boltzmanns law you useless stupid fucking moronic cunt.

    You are pathetic mate. Just typical leftist with his fingertips writing cheques that his brain cannot cash.

    Josh hey?

    What a cunt hey?

    What a stupid cunt hey?

    Fucking hell man. Viscosity and Stefan Boltzmanns law. They are pretty standard stuff.



  10. logged moderated post:

    The thing is he’s right in every last respect. And Cambria has no answer to his righteous complaints but to gloat at him.

    Lets even take an aspect where some authentic libertarians might not agree he’s right: The purchase of silver ounce bars. Well its true that gold and silver is seldom a good investment. But the reason for that is that they cannot be lent out at interest. The fractional fiat cartelisation cutting this good way to maintain purchasing power off from us.

    But even having said that this fellow is even right in that respect. Since while the Australian dollar may hold up there is no question at all that the American dollar has to collapse. No-one here can even so much as invent a scenario where the USD DOESN’T collapse. For the USD not to collapse the Americans would have to embrace mass-sackings and a steadily rising Reserve Asset Ratio. And since thats not going to happen the USD will collapse.

    So the fact is this fellow is right in every respect. These are dark days that the Cambria’s of this world have lead us to. The fantasy-economics never works, but sometimes it can take a long time for its failure to be fully realised.

    Comment by graemebird | July 12, 2009

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Then why are you supportive of largest movement towards nuclear energy and large wind turbines that you have spoken quite positively about?”

    See you are being irrational. Wind is a good power source but only in a tiny minority of places. And nuclear is a good electricity source. Why would that make one in favour of taxing a positive externality.

    Its irrational to tax a positive externality. Always and everywhere.Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Hang on a minute.

    My claim is that CO2 is a positive externality and that no evidence exists that it isn’t. You press-ganged Richard Lindzen into it and are as we speak claiming that he disagress with me.

    But you are lying. Since Richard Lindzen has never once said or implied that CO2 is not a positive-externality.

    Lets go over it again. It is irrational always and everywhere to tax a positive externality. CO2-release is a positive-externality. Lindzen doesn’t disagree with this. You are lying.

    So we are back to this problem of lunatics like you wanting to tax a positive-externality.

    So what are you talking about dummy. You are getting yourself confused.

    Now if you STOP LYING….. you stupid bootnigger….

    Maybe you won’t be so confused.

    12 Jul 09 at 6:58 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Looks like we are just going to have to go over and over and over it again until this stupid bootnigger gets it.

    Do you now agree that Richard Lindzen has never described or implied that Industrial CO2 release is bad for the biosphere.

    If you claim that you are a liar.

    Is this what you are claiming?

    12 Jul 09 at 7:01 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    So are we clear now that you are lying.


    Since no evidence exists that CO2 release has any negative effects. And since it has many positive effects. And since for Cambrias information Lindzen agrees with both those last two statements…. we see that it is uncontroversial that Industrial-CO2 release is a POSITIVE EXTERNALITY.

    So can Cambria, stupidest of all boot-niggers tell me why he wants to tax a positive-externality?

    12 Jul 09 at 7:04 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “What a stupid wog bootnigger cunt.”

    Even taken literally this is no slight to the Catholic religion.

    12 Jul 09 at 7:05 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I guess we are just going to have to keep on circling over this problem until this stupid wog bootnigger cunt “clicks” as it were.

    12 Jul 09 at 7:06 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “It’s a lie is it, Bird. Okay then please show me where Lindzen says man made warming is not happening as a result of AGW and that CO2 is not just benign but a good thing that we ought to be promoting like you do.”

    I didn’t say anything of the sort. Now try and stay focused will you you stupid wog bootnigger cunt.

    Now are we now clear that CO2-release is an uncontested positive-externality?

    Are we clear on THAT????

    12 Jul 09 at 7:08 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Perhaps it would be helpful if someone explained to this stupid wop what “benign” means.

    Now Cambria. Are we clear than that Lindzen DOES NOT disagree with me about the fact that CO2 is a positive-externality????

    Have you got that sorted yet?

    Sorted Cambria?

    Yes or no.

    YES OR NO.

  12. Great post, I found it useful where did I need this information…thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: