Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc. – October 2011
This post has no introduction, per the author’s request, start with the graphs. A PDF of a more complete paper is linked at the end. – Anthony
Motivation
One purpose of this article is to direct the attention of sensible observers to a serious oversight in the mainstream quest for understanding of multidecadal solar-terrestrial relations (section I).
Another is to ask the community to start thinking carefully about what can be learned from rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations shared by Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) and terrestrial climate records, while seizing the same opportunity to highlight critical omissions in “classic” works on alleged solar-barycentric terrestrial influences (section II).
These data exploration notes are volunteered in support of ongoing publicly collaborative multidisciplinary research.
Audience
The diverse audiences addressed might not be the ones preferred by some readers. Addressing rotates priority across a spectrum of functional numeracy & orientation.
Format
Volunteer time & resources are limited, so presentation is skeletal & informal.
Conclusion
The majority of recent multidecadal terrestrial variability is due to natural spatiotemporal aliasing of differential solar pulse-position by terrestrial topology over basic terrestrial cycles including the year.
It’s not the deviation of solar cycle frequency from average solar cycle frequency that’s of practical significance from a terrestrial perspective. Earth, the receiver, has no clock locked to the average solar cycle length, so the pulse-position modulation is differential.
These observations depend on neither the success nor failure of CERN’s CLOUD experiment.
Details
Vaughan, P.L. (2011). Shifting Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies, Beats, & Biases.
Vaughn Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies Beats Biases (1MB 25pp PDF)
Best Regards to All,
Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
Just as an aside – the real experts in all this are the people in the major oil and seismic data processing companies who have been working on signal to noise analysis of 3D seismic data and using wavelet processing for many decades, The result is a truly unbelievable improvement in seismic interpretation which enables eg the drilling of wells to oil and gas accumulations under salt and to drill wells with tremendous accuracy for long distances horizontally through oil shales deep underground.
Norman Page says:
October 19, 2011 at 7:30 am
Just as an aside – the real experts in all this are the people in the major oil and seismic data processing companies who have been working on signal to noise analysis of 3D seismic data and using wavelet processing for many decades
The same is true of ‘mainstream’ science, where wavelets are used extensively. An example:
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric%20Rosenberg-Coleman%20Effect.pdf
That mainstream science is is dominated by ‘lapses in human cognition & judgement’ is not true and the notion may be rooted in simple ignorance.
Leif @ur momisugly 19/8.42
Your link provides an excellent ,nicely illustrated example of the value of wavelet analysis for those unfamiliar with it. Thanks.
“lapses in human cognition and judgement” are common in all fields of human endeavour — In the oil business the mind is concentrated because someone is going to very soon bet tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on the output of this type of analysis. I would submit however that such lapses are more prevalent in the IPCC climate science than in many other scientific fields.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:13 am
Perhaps some of those ‘rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal’ thingies are showing themselves…
I certainly hope not.
Norman Page says:
October 19, 2011 at 9:43 am
I would submit however that such lapses are more prevalent in the IPCC climate science than in many other scientific fields.
I think Paul meant that in general, across the board. But since he is mistaken, his opinion here really doesn’t matter.
Leif: What should we expect to happen when magnetic polarities/groups approach/cross the Solar Equator?
SUN, MOON AND EARTHQUAKES
V. G. Kolvankar
Abstract
During a study conducted to find the effect of Earth tides on the occurrence of earthquakes, for small areas of high-seismicity regions, it was noticed that the Sun’s position in terms of universal time (GMT) shows links to the earthquake-lunar distance together with Sun-Earth-Moon angle. This paper provides the details of this relationship after studying earthquake data for over forty high-seismicity regions of the world. It was found that nearly 98% of the earthquakes for these different regions, examined for the period 1973-2008, show a direct relationship between the Sun’s position and the earthquake-moon distance together with the Sun-Earth-Moon angle. As the time changes from 00-24 hours, the sum of the earthquake-moon distance and the Sun-Earth-Moon angle changes through 360 0 , and plotting these two variables for different earthquakes reveals a simple 45 0 straight-line relationship between them.
New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter
Issue: 60 – September 2011 – Page:50
http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php
New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter
_____________________________________________________________________________
ABOUT NCGT NEWSLETTER
This newsletter was initiated on the basis of discussion at the symposium “Alternative Theories to Plate Tectonics” held at the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in August 1996. The name is taken from an earlier symposium held in association with 28th International Geological Congress in Washington, D. C. in 1989.
Aims include:
1. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of Plate Tectonics.
2. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or discrimination.
3. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the earth and planetary and galactic effects, major theories of development of the earth, lineaments, interpretation of earthquake data, major times of tectonic and biological change, and so on.
4. Organization of symposia, meetings and conferences.
5.Tabulation and support in case of censorship, discrimination or victimization.
_____________________________________________________________________________
In other words, more pseudoscientific gibberish.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Advice for authors: The NCGT receives many manuscripts written in such poor English that they are barely comprehensible. It is a difficult and time‑consuming task to assess whether they merit publication and to turn them into reasonable English. We would urge all non‑English‑speaking authors with little knowledge of English to have their articles translated into English by a professional translator or at least to have them checked by somebody with a good command of English before submitting them to the Newsletter. This is in the interests of authors and readers alike.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note, the above sounds kind of familiar in the context of this thread’s originator.
In other words, write something so obtuse and backwards, such that no person could possibly understand it, including the original author(s) themself(s).
That way, it has no scientific merit, as it can’t be falsified, or tested, or reproduced, or make any type of prediction whatsoever.
But appearently, even if the original post had been published in Chinese, even the Chinese would not understand it, as it would first have to be written out right-to-left and back-to-front.
rbateman says:
October 19, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Leif: What should we expect to happen when magnetic polarities/groups approach/cross the Solar Equator?
They will not cross the equator and there is actually a zone of ‘avoidance’ of about 8 degrees at the equator where the spots don’t go. That said, the Sun is messy enough that some small random fluctuations can always occur.
Paul Vaughan says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:21 am
Special thanks to Ninderthana for contributing to the discussion.
Assuming sampling’s uniformly balanced across all forms of symmetry isn’t remotely sensible. No “energy” ‘s needed to misinterpret the effect of shape, size, orientation, magnification, & aggregation on perception of spatiotemporal pattern, only lapse in human cognition & judgement. For the most obvious example, continents are hemispherically symmetric neither meridionally nor zonally.
Current mainstream models are at best a topological distortion of reality, as they are based on data misinterpretation, laced with untenable assumptions, and contextually ignorant of spatiotemporal constraints.
Best Regards.
=========
I dare you to repeat that statement in polite company, and explain it to same.
If you can’t easily explain it, you don’t understand it.
Or, so I’ve heard.
So, my thought now, is how would you, if space/time permitted escape from a Grossmann-Morlet wavelet, slow down to re-enter a world ?
As noted above by many, not everything is explained well enough to form a proper judgement. However there are some intriguing things shown that create further interest.
Specifically, a bit more detail of what Morlet 7*pi means and what the original data looked like would be useful. Morlet is defined in wikipedia as a wavelet filter. It would be nice to have a list of all the acronyms used with their meanings, such as AAM, LOD, CR and so on. You do appear to be preaching to a wider audience, so please recognize that each may be familiar with only some of the terms used.
I am an interdisciplinary cycles researcher, and well aware that cycles may be used to study cause and effect in complex systems, as well as the existence of astronomical connections between planets, sun, moon and climate/weather and other things on earth. These things are properly demonstrated only with long times series (many cycles) and reasonably consistent phase throughout. Some of your graphs certainly seem to satisfy this test.
It is worth mentioning that some often quoted papers in the past do NOT satisfy this test, such as Jose’s relationship between solar cycle and motion of Sun relative to COM (centre of mass) of the solar system. Jose introduces an arbitrary sign reversal in the middle of the data because he is trying to force am 11.86 year cycle to match an 11.1 year cycle. That paper is a giant fiddle. I see no obvious similar cases in this paper, but I have only skimmed it really.
@Septic Matthew (October 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm)
Thanks for your comments. The extra digits are supplied as a diagnostic tool for readers of Ninderthana’s caliber.
Janice (October 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm) “Glad that you expanded your research from Earth to the Solar System.”
That’s not quite what happened. It started with a data exploratory audit of claims of solar system influences on Earth and curiosity about what asymmetries were fouling the conceptions of those authors.
As indicated, Gross, Corbyn, & Wilson helped me out where other physicists could not. Corbyn was impressively efficient: one succinct, precisely-targeted e-mail where other physicists had either dismissed my inquiries as unworthy of attention, responded politely without offering anything helpful, or – in the worst case – rambled on rudely ad infinitum in protracted unhelpful exchanges (which I eventually cut off) that weren’t even civil.
The hardened barycenter enthusiasts have to understand that due to the manner in which Earth’s asymmetries alias solar & lunisolar pattern, there will patently NOT be a direct LINEAR mapping to terrestrial climate.
Paul Westhaver (October 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm) asked:
“In the Month normalized SOI- Integral plot, why did you plot 18 months on the vertical axis,”
A quarter-cycle extension on either end facilitates visual interpretation. Without it, interpretation near the arbitrary cutoff is tediously demanding. Some authors opt to show 2 full cycles.
Caution: Many authors (perhaps unconsciously) truncate the 12-1 (December-January) interval and are only showing 11 months where they intend to show 12.
Since cognitive abilities vary, data visualization principles & preferences can be the subject of lively discussion. For anyone who prefers different formatting, they’ll easily achieve it with Excel in mere minutes.
More generally: All of the calculations and graphs presented in the PDF can be done easily in Excel. To reiterate emphatically: NO ‘fancy’ statistical software is needed.
davidmhoffer (October 15, 2011 at 5:53 pm) wrote:
“Paul, I’m very interested in what you’re trying to do here, but not even someone studying the precise same thing as you are is going to be able to understand all the graphs and explanations unless you define the terms and units and sources of data. Lots od people would like to help you with whatever it is you are trying to show, but even for PhD’s in physics, your explanation is nearly sanscrit.”
David, as previously indicated in other threads here & on other sites:
This is going to take years, perhaps decades – or more. The common background required for efficient communication of the cross-disciplinary subject matter is absent in the broader population and even amongst most of the scientifically literate. If so few as 3 people understand, that triples the awareness pool and (very loosely speaking) reduces to 1/4 the communications burden on any one volunteer. While I’m capable of building a sequence of simplified courses to foster a common background, I most assuredly will not have time for this. Also, since few others are stepping up with the combination of functional numeracy & non-assumptive intuition required to further the research, I both want & need to stay focused in that area. I do the research because I love nature and want to know nature as well as I can. If others understand, that’s possibly a bonus, but not necessarily. I’m willing to share research notes publicly, but without a lifelong secure, sufficient contract and access to additional resources, I don’t foresee any future inclinations to write formal articles and cater to specific needs of specific audiences.
I genuinely appreciate your interest in nature.
@ur momisuglyAgile Aspect (October 18, 2011 at 3:22 pm)
Thanks for contributing.
As I’ve explained to you before (apologies if I wasn’t clear enough), I’m not constructing decompositions based on a dyadic basis.
What I’m doing is more like tuning a resonator.
Rather than rely on popular methods & the algorithms of others, I develop my own from scratch. Part of the problem with mainstream applied research is the adoption of black-box statistical computing constrained by overly-narrow conventional desires for standard procedure & protocol.
In the worst cases, this is like insisting that screw-drivers be used to hammer nails.
Although it has its value for some audiences, commenters including Lucy would be even more upset if I presented something like the exposition you applaud from p.5-9 here [ http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~jjpark/parkmann00.pdf ].
I can suggest that you take a look at the methods applied here (optionally disregarding the subject matter explored):
Donner, R.; & Thiel, M. (2007). Scale-resolved phase coherence analysis of hemispheric sunspot activity: a new look at the north-south asymmetry. Astronomy & Astrophysics 475, L33-L36. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078672.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/45/aa8672-07.pdf
Figure 4 was an important awareness trigger (but nothing to do with north-south solar asymmetry specifically) on 2 fronts:
1) It made me aware that I should look for and see (something which followed effortlessly) these:
a. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png
b. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn3.png
2) It further reinforced my already-clear awareness that many researchers rely on anomalies (in this case phase anomalies) where they should work with gradients.
There’s no substitute for the intuitive exploratory flexibility that comes with sound conceptual understanding. In nature, variance isn’t blindly partitionable, as many foolishly delude themselves into unconsciously assuming. My interest is more in human misconception of fundamentals than in artificially elevated academic minutia.
If you have time, I’m genuinely curious to see some of the wavelet references you’ve found influential &/or helpful from the perspective of your research & interests.
I do wish there was more time for exchange, perhaps in another context and via a more efficient medium.
Regards.
—
@ur momisugly Ray Tomes (October 20, 2011 at 5:09 pm)
The wavenumber is (loosely speaking for economy of words) simply the number of waves under the gaussian envelope. See technical note #5a here [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ ].
This is another parameter beyond frequency. Say frequency is analogous to magnification, then wavenumber is analagous to focal length in a loose analogy (for economy of words) with microscope or telescope visualization.
This second parameter, used in concert with the first (which is usually the only one considered in mainstream applications) can be used to measure beat periods where there are envelopes arising from aliasing [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/#comment-771252 ] or from whatever other natural phenomena.
Part of the reason why Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010) have been misunderstood is that they did not explain this explicitly (if they are lucidly cognizant of it at all). My instinct (I could be wrong about this) is that they were adjusting their “microscope” using suboptimal ad-hoc manual adjustments, not realizing that there are parameters adjustable by optimization procedures to achieve SHARP focus.
Present mainstream conceptualization assumes uniform spatial leveraging of statistical summaries despite zonal & meridional terrestrial ocean-continent heat-capacity asymmetries, evidenced by spatial multivariate fractal dimension differentials.
If the preceding paragraph is hard to understand:
1. Watch the animations here [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/#comment-768741 ] with an eye for contrasts (“spot the differences” game) of north-south & west-east “spatial waviness” vs. “spatial straightness” of lines.
2. Carefully go through the notes on “thermal wind” (& jet streams) here [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/#comment-769231 ]. Those notes link to the animations to expedite learning.
Reminder:
“The strong, high altitude wind centers indicate the location of the Jet Stream!” — [ http://www.mit.edu/~predawn/jetstream/thermalwind.html ]
AnimPolarWind200hPa:
http://i52.tinypic.com/cuqyt.png
AnimWind200hPa:
http://i52.tinypic.com/zoamog.png
Again:
It may take years, decades, or more before there’s a critical mass of leaders who understand the generalizability emphasized in section I.10 [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png ], particularly given the deep misconceptions which already had root and the newer ones continually taking root.
There’s opportunity here for math education experts with a specialty in the psychology of perception to do an interesting parallel study as events unfold over the years.
Thanks for stopping by.
Best Regards.
—
Something for layman readers:
Asymmetric braking.
Spun the car around when it hit a patch of ice (WWI to WWII).
All the Best!
@Stephen Fisher Wilde (October 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm)
The idea was to sketch a concise visual collation of scattered materials. Included were several new graphs that I had not previously shared. As Richard Holle & others probably noticed, I left out the volcano & earthquake stuff. My notes on those phenomena need a rework in light of my maturing awareness of spatial phase reversals that appear to the untrained eye as temporal evolutionary features. Time travels in only one direction, but spatial gradients can turn around in time. If someone with a similar background to my own comes along and finds the document, it will save them about 2 years worth of work (i.e. half of the time I’ve spent in total, a 100% boost).
@davidmhoffer (October 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm)
Yndestad’s stuff is stimulating. I owe him big time for introducing me to EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters). Although his decompositions are largely arbitrary and unmindful of spatial phase reversals & solar cycle deceleration, I hasten to add that Harald, who has a solid background in signal processing, is WELL aware that something fundamental changed in the 1920s – (he calculates 1923 with rock-solid confidence that the change was fundamental in nature). We all build on the clues we share with one another. I am deeply thankful for Harold Yndestad’s stimulating contributions. I hope he will be able to find time to make more contributions in the future. [Technical note: Yndestad & I are using wavelets in quite different ways. Wavelets are malleable tools that, with the right conceptual handle, can be fashioned for all sorts of jobs. (Tip for those contemplating use of canned routines such as those outlined in SAS online doc v8: You’re on the wrong track.)]
@rbateman (October 15, 2011 at 11:27 pm)
Even when data are quite messy, complex wavelets applied carefully can “see down over” the event series Piers & Ulric talk & write about, making it possible to treat those event series as true cycles for efficient exploratory purposes (but not for forecasting purposes). I did consider presenting material in a series. Along with some pros, there would also have been some quite unworkable cons (the details of which I’ll skip). Best Regards.
@Bernie McCune (October 15, 2011 at 11:54 pm)
Thanks for your comments.
—
@Jennifer Hubbard (October 15, 2011 at 8:23 pm)
The animations are of climatologies (average annual cycles). Since their solar & lunisolar modulation is spatiotemporally heterogeneous, anomaly-think is inadvisable.
@WillR (October 16, 2011 at 5:43 am)
Thanks for your comments.
—
@EFS_Junior (October 16, 2011 at 7:22 am) http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-40760.html
If a crisis can be predicted in time & space with confidence, bright organisms might avoid it, so while Sidorenkov’s claim about wars is stimulating, there are good reasons for political leaders to publicly regard it as “wrong”.
—
@Bernie McCune (October 16, 2011 at 9:44 am)
Thanks for your additional comments.
@E.M.Smith (October 18, 2011 at 10:37 am)
I’m using complex Morlet wavelets (i.e. with both “real” & “imaginary” parts, in math lingo). Basically it’s a cos & sin wave put through a gaussian (bell-shaped) envelope. Cos pulls x & sin pulls y info (1/4 cycle apart). With that you can transform to polar coordinates – i.e. get radius & angle. Radius is power. Angle is phase. You can do this at any scale. You can oversample the whole timescale spectrum or fine-tune at a resonant frequency. And there’s lots more you can do (e.g. coherence). It’s all simple for anyone who understands complex numbers (high-school math) & correlation fundamentals (from an intro-stats course) – i.e. it’s accessible […but unfortunately most academics explain it using symbolic algebra that baffles layman audiences].
–
E.M.Smith (October 18, 2011 at 10:37 am) wrote: “The final graph shows a near identity between ocean temps (all of them, in two sets) and the “solar cycle acceleration”. Done as Morlets, it’s comparing the power at a point in time in the ocean changes to the power at a point in time in the solar cycle changes and finding that “they all go together when they go”.”
You’re seriously misinterpreting here. It’s not a graph of power at all. Cycle length is a function of rate of change of phase (not to be confused with functions of power).
–
E.M.Smith (October 18, 2011 at 10:37 am) wrote: “Maybe then we could check the assumptions […]”
I do data exploration, not statistical inference, so there aren’t any assumptions. I regularly comment at WUWT & Climate Etc. about patently untenable assumptions that underpin mainstream “reasoning”. In the future when the shifting spatiotemporal framework is fully appreciated & understood, meaningful inference will be feasible, but NOT before.
–
I note from your comments that you haven’t looked at the PDF. I’m interested in hearing your further comments once you have.
Thanks for your comments & interest. Much appreciated.
@RAYQ MCMULLEN Tomes (October 20, 2011 at 5:09 pm)
Lucy linked to a list of acronyms:
http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Glossary_of_Acronyms
Also: If you follow links from the PDF, you’ll find details on data sources in my earlier WUWT articles – e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ .
And don’t forget about KNMI Climate Explorer.
Feel welcome to inquire further if you have trouble finding data for specific variables (a rare occurrence – they’re easy to find using google).
At some point in time I’ll probably volunteer a compilation of my scattered data source notes. That’s probably at least months out. In the meantime, I wanted to get the informal skeletal presentation out to researchers like Ninderthana now without causing such a superficial delay just because I’m busy with work.
Best Regards.
Paul, please accept this as a heart felt suggestion and not as a criticism. My intent is to show how to be better, not critique the person.
Paul Vaughan says:
October 21, 2011 at 10:24 am
davidmhoffer (October 15, 2011 at 5:53 pm) wrote:
“Paul, I’m very interested in what you’re trying to do here, but not even someone studying the precise same thing as you are is going to be able to understand all the graphs and explanations unless you define the terms and units and sources of data. Lots od people would like to help you with whatever it is you are trying to show, but even for PhD’s in physics, your explanation is nearly sanscrit.”
David, as previously indicated in other threads here & on other sites:
This is going to take years, perhaps decades – or more. The common background required for efficient communication of the cross-disciplinary subject matter is absent in the broader population and even amongst most of the scientifically literate. If so few as 3 people understand, that triples the awareness pool and (very loosely speaking) reduces to 1/4 the communications burden on any one volunteer. While I’m capable of building a sequence of simplified courses to foster a common background, I most assuredly will not have time for this. Also, since few others are stepping up with the combination of functional numeracy & non-assumptive intuition required to further the research, I both want & need to stay focused in that area. I do the research because I love nature and want to know nature as well as I can. If others understand, that’s possibly a bonus, but not necessarily. I’m willing to share research notes publicly, but without a lifelong secure, sufficient contract and access to additional resources, I don’t foresee any future inclinations to write formal articles and cater to specific needs of specific audiences.
I genuinely appreciate your interest in nature.
In essence, Davidmhoffer says “Maybe you could make this more understandable with some honing of language used and direct English rather than semi-custom jargon. Or at least provide a translation table.”
To which Paul responds with a large block of text that, to my eye, seems to say “I’m too busy.”
Yes, it has some justifications wrapped into it. Yes, it has much more flowery terms. “While I’m capable of building a sequence of simplified courses to foster a common background, I most assuredly will not have time for this.” is different from “I’m too busy.” in that it includes a statement of capability and a focus on math courses. It’s still, in the end, “I’m too busy”.
“but without a lifelong, secure, sufficient contract and access to additional resources, I don’t foresee any future inclinations to write formal articles and cater to specific needs of specific audiences.” is different from “I’m too busy” via the inclusion of a plea to resources.
OK, “I’m too busy and need money”.
Paul, I really do want to understand what you think you’ve found. Someday I may read the PDF. (I still haven’t as the prospect is not pleasant…) WHY is it not pleasant? You have a tendency to excess in verbiage generation. I know the illness. I had it once. In high school I was prone to “too many big words”. I thought it meant I was smart. What it really meant was I was out of touch with my audience. Since then I’ve simply put a minor focus on verbal economy.
Don’t use two words where one will do. Don’t use a 4 syllable word where 2 x 2 syllable ones will do. “Level” the language at the lowest level that can carry the message. You have a focus on “efficiency” (as evidenced by some of your comments). BUT, you often cast that efficiency in the garb of obtuse jargon and math. Then you wrap it all in a lot of flowery speech and “puff”.
I got especially good at this simplification in my field of employment (computer science) that is notorious for speaking in jargon riddles. Sometimes to the point where my staff would think me of lower competence for not speaking in jargon. But I interacted with the VP and President level, so needed to be able to de-jargon my speech. (I took great fun in sporadically shifting to full on jargon mode in staff meetings when I’d see “the look” that said someone was doubting me.. 😉
The point?
It doesn’t take a lot of time, nor effort, to build in yourself the ability to ‘translate’ from the ‘economical and efficient’ but highly specialized and symbolic internal thinking symbols and phrases you use (or that I use for professional purposes) into more approachable English representations.
Yes, sometimes ‘something is lost in translation’ and sometimes it can take a long circumlocution to get it back. But it is worth the effort. “IP.v6 is sub-optimal for our routing paradigm vs IPv4 as we ad-hoc communicate IPs in verbal mode during debugging episodes” can just as easily be “We’re staying with the older network addressing scheme as it’s easier to use in day to day things.” And it’s far more likely to be understood. What’s lost? The specific of IP.v6 vs v4 as the standard. If that’s essential, you can put it in a parenthetical reference. “We’re staying with the older addressing scheme, IP.v4, as it’s easier”… That embeds the translation in the communications in a relatively painless way.
“You’re seriously misinterpreting here. It’s not a graph of power at all. Cycle length is a function of rate of change of phase (not to be confused with functions of power).”
Could just as easily be “Close, but I was talking about phase instead of power”. A very easy mistake to make when trying to read graphs with sub-optimal definitions and lacking sufficient accessible axis markers for coherent assimilation of content. (i.e. Bad labels lead to poor interpretations).
So please try to think of it as a game: “How much content can I put in the minimum number of words, of the simplest sort, at the most attainable level?” It can become a much more fun game than “How much can I aggrandize by maximally expanding the word count metric and leveling at the highest educational level of attainment of the minimal percentage of target audience while applying an admixture of selected shorthand jargon and argot seasoned with omitted definitions of specialized terms and assumptions of non-attained background.”
It doesn’t take much effort, though it does take time for the habit to end up changing the bulk of your daily speech. It can be very rewarding (though some of your ‘stuffier’ workmates may start to wonder at your lower leveling of speech). It is, in the end, rather like putting that final smooth finish on a statue. All the skill and work that goes into the cutting of the stone to make a David or a Venus is rather wasted if the work is not polished at the end. It ought to be smooth to the touch, and easy to caress. Not coarse at all. And a statue of merit ought to be attainable to the masses who look at it (or touch it – they were intended as tactile art) even if they have no hope of ever understanding how to carve one…
OK, I’ll eventually read the PDF. But it will take a while…