A simple example of resonance

In the climate change debate there is a faction that claims that the global warming we have experienced since approximately 1900 is due to changes in the sun's irradiance. The conventional wisdom among climate scientists is that since the solar irradiance varies only by 0.1%, solar irradiance variations are not powerful enough to bring about the observed temperature increases. However, Scafetta, West, Grigolini and others claim to have identified a stochastic resonance phenomenon that allows small variations to grow over time. Scafetta et. al.'s papers and analyses are quite challenging to follow. I am not convinced the climate change community is taking into account the resonance phenomenon. To demonstrate the potential of resonance to build up a large response from a small input I have put together a simple example using Mathematica. The example consists of a spring-mass system excited by a sinusoidal force at the resonant frequency. A small amount of damping is employed to keep the solution from growing too fast.

The system dynamics are given by
x'' + 2.0*delta*omegan*x' + (omegan^2)*x =b*omegan^2 +a*(omegan^2)*Sin[omega*t]

where x'' is the second derivative of x with respect to tim, and x' is the first.

Two runs were made. For both runs
omega = omegan = 10.0
delta = 0.001
b = 1.0
x'[0] = 0
x[0] = 1.0

For the first run a = 0.0. Thus the excitation is just a constant 1.0.

Here is a plot of the results of the first run



Note that since the excitation is the constant value 1.0, the output is the constant value 1.0
For the next run I set a = 0.001 - 0.1 percent of 1.0. Here are the results of the second run:


The addition of a 0.1 percent variation of the excitation makes a huge difference in the output.
A few comments are in order:

1. This is the simplest possible example. In no way do I intend to claim that this is what's going on in global warming. The point of the example is that a resonance in a system can lead to large swings of the system variables
2. Obviously for the resonance to occur, energy storage is required (the spring in our simple example) In the earth/sun system the energy storage may be in the oceans, the atmosphere, or eaven the earth itself
3. Scafetta suggests that one possible source of cycling of the earth' temperature is the wobble of the sun's position caused by the gravitational pull of the Jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn)
   

References

1. Scafetta Talk at EPA:
   http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
2. Various publications on Scafetta's web site:
   http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/index-publications.html
   

Keep fighting

Well, we didn't stop Obamacare on this vote. But that doesn't mean it's sure to become law. There are many disagreements among Democrats on what the bill should contain, and a number of Red-state Democrats are anticipating tough reelection battles. Even if Obamacare passes, there are sure to be challenges over the constitutionality of a program that requires every person to purchase health insurance. So hang in there. The battle is still raging.

Medicare for everyone

Medicare for everyone is what Obamacare looks like to me. And that’s not good news. Several events in my life and the lives of those close to me will illustrate.

I turned 65 in September 2007 and my wife and I moved from Rochester, MI to Austin, TX in April 2008. Shortly after we moved I developed a swelling on the left side of my face. We must have called a dozen doctors trying to get an appointment. Each doctor, when he/she found out my primary insurance carrier was Medicare, wouldn’t see me. Finally we saw a physicians assistant at a clinic attached to hospital. He correctly determined that it was an allergic reaction to enalapril, a blood pressure medication I was taking. A few days later we were able to see an internist at the same clinic and he concurred with the PA’s opinion. He prescribed another blood pressure med and the problem hasn’t reoccurred. Our former physician in Rochester agreed with the diagnosis and new prescription and remarked that the reaction I had had could have been life-threatening. But doctors don’t like to take new patients who are on Medicare because of the poor reimbursements, the time required to get reimbursed, and the paperwork.

My mother has used a walker for several years, since she had a hip replacement. A few months ago I noticed a chunk missing from the tire of one of the wheels. The walker was made in China and wheels weren’t available for it. The nurse practitioner who looks after my mother told me that Medicare would pay for a new walker, but that seemed extravagant. I eventually found a wheel that fit perfectly at a local hardware store for $9.95. That’s where your tax money goes: $275 for a new walker instead of $9.95 for a wheel.

You would think that an organization like Medicare, with millions of subscribers, would use the clout of numbers to negotiate the best deal for its subscribers.
This may be true with health care practitioners, but not with vendors.
Billy Eberle’s column from GOPUSA (October 6, 2009) documents how Medicare overpays for equipment they pay for.

• $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.
• $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.
• $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.
• $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.
• $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web

Under ObamaCare you will have government bureaucrats looking over your shoulder as you fill out your tax forms. It’s bad enough that they’re watching, but watch out when they draw the wrong conclusions. I retired in 2006 at age 63 and went immediately on Social Security. In the next few months my employer paid me $4000 in “Invention Awards” – awards for inventions I had submitted for patents prior to retirement. In September 2007 I got a letter from Social Security stating that since I had earned money following retirement, I was not entitled to the $12075 they had paid me. An envelope was enclosed in which to send my check for the $12075. Alternatively, if I chose not to reimburse them, they would stop Social Security payments until they had recovered $12075. I contacted my employer and they wrote a letter to Social Security explaining that the $4000 was for work I had done prior to retirement. However, they cautioned me not to get my hopes up. They had recently had a similar case and Social Security had required a form to be filled out that required signatures from officers of the company. And that would take considerable time. Apparently the letter worked. I say “apparently” because in January 2008 I got a letter from Social Security that said, in part

“We used $12075 of your benefits to recover all of your overpayment.
We have recovered all of the money you owed because of an overpayment.
In your next check we will pay you the difference between the money we have already paid you and the money you are now due.”

Huh? Perhaps they were thinking in terms of the fiction that everyone has a Social Security account with a fixed amount of money in it. In any case why was it necessary to “recover” their overpayment? They are the ones who made a mistake. They need to back out the claimed overpayment in their records, not “recover” it. We did receive a check for $368 from Social Security that month, in addition to the regular payment. Apparently it was for a cost of living increase they had withheld while my appeal was being decided. I complained to my Congressman that Social Security needed to train their letter writers to write more clearly, but I doubt that will do any good. Do you want to deal with letters like that on a regular basis? You will have to if Obamacare becomes law.

Several years ago my younger son was denied health insurance because he had a mild case of diabetes. I suspect that was due to government regulations limiting how much premiums could vary based on preexisting conditions.

The upshot of all this is that a government-run healthcare system will enormously complicate your life, with government bureaucrats looking over your shoulder as you fill out tax returns, frequently drawing the wrong conclusions, which you are then obligated to straighten out. In addition there will be no rhyme nor reason to how money is spent. Millions will be laid out to replace walkers that need only a new part, while you will be denied a medication or procedure because it costs $100.

We need a Constitutional Amendment

A scary event is about to take place in Copenhagen in December . Nearly 200 nations are meeting to approve a treaty to replace the Kyoto accord on climate change. The scary thing about this treaty is that, according to people who have read it, it will establish world government. If President Obama signs it and 2/3 of the Senate concur, it will become the “supreme law of the land” according to Article 6 of the United States Constitution. The President and 2/3 of the senate can supersede the Constitution.

This is obviously a dangerous provision. The framers probably put it in the Constitution to reassure nations we conduct relations with that the United States’ signature on a treaty is binding. But the power is too broad. We need a Constitutional Amendment that says something like

Any treaty signed by the President and approved by 2/3 of the Senate must be approved by ¾ of the state legislatures.

An alternative might be

Any treaty commitment signed by the President and approved by the Senate which is found to conflict with this Constitution as amended, shall be declared null and void

Getting on message

Good for the Republicans. More and more I hear Republicans saying that the best way to reduce medical costs is by tort reform. Tort reform makes it more difficult to bring a frivolous lawsuit against a doctor or a hospital, and this in turn reduces the cost of malpractice insurance. Texas has implemented a review panel that reviews lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. To go forward a lawsuit must have the review board's stamp of approval. This in turn has reduced the cost of malpractice insurance, and has attracted more doctors to Texas.

Will this gain traction in Congress? It's questionable because the trial lawyers are big givers to Democrats. So keep pressing your congressman and senators.

I smell a rat

After weeks of fighting to include a “public option” in the health care bill the Obama administration suddenly backs off, saying the public option “is not the heart of the health care bill”. This may be good news, but there is still much to dislike in the health care bill:

• Funding the health care system in part by taking $500 billion from Medicare over 10 years. Many doctors already refuse to take new Medicare patients, as I found out when I moved from Michigan to Texas last year. Currently Medicare pays 80% of the amount Medicare has established for a procedure (not 80% of the price the doctor quotes). If this reimbursement goes down to 60% or lower, fewer doctors will be willing to take Medicare patients. Seniors beware if you are contemplating a move.
• Not only does the bill cover the 48 million Americans who allegedly lack health insurance, it extends to illegal aliens – upwards of 20 million people. With the bill’s stringent limits on how much doctors can be paid for their services, the number of doctors in the U. S. is likely to decline, leading to rationing of health care.
• The so-called “Insurance coops” proposed by the health care bill can serve the same purpose as the public option: Giving the government control over coverage and treatment, eventually squeezing private insurers out of the health insurance business.
• The public option is still in the House version of the bill and could be reinserted in conference.

At the end of the day the health care bill is not about health care at all. It’s about the Federal government taking control of health care decisions that ought to be made by private individuals and their doctors

Town Hall Meetings

With the arrival of the August Congressional recess, lawmakers are back in their districts holding town hall meetings. This year many of the meetings are experiencing large turnouts of not always polite participants. Conservatives, especially, are deeply concerned about the program President Obama is pushing:

1. Will it increase taxes?
2. What will happen to Medicare, with partial funding of the program coming from Medicare?
3. Will it result in long waits for treatment and rationing of treatment?

Unfortunately, feeling is running so high that meetings have degenerated into shouting matches. As a conservative, I sympathize with the protesters. But are they accomplishing anything? I wonder. And the liberals are beginning to react with counterprotests. This is a recipe for violence, which no one in his right mind ought to want. Vigorous debate in a democracy is desirable. Disruption of meetings which ought to be forums for vigorous debate is not, and is destructive to democracy.
A month remains until Congress reconvenes. That’s enough time for Congress to hire a polling organization to sample every legislative district to find out what the electorate thinks of President Obama’s healthcare proposal and what reforms they advocate in health care. Then Congress can proceed with good information about what the public supports and does not support.