Dan Pengburn has been commented several times, so I think that he deserves a post of his own. 
anom(Y) = calculated temperature anomaly in year Y
N(i) = average daily Brussels International sunspot number in year i
Y = number of years that have passed since 1700 (or any other year where the net summation is approximately zero such as 1856, 1902, 1910, 1938, or 1943)
T(i) = agt (average global temperature) of year i in °K,
ESST(c,Y) = ESST (Effective Sea Surface Temperature) in year Y calculated using an ESST range (magnitude) of c
CO2(Y) = ppmv CO2 in year Y
CO2start = ppmv CO2 in 1880
Dang, his equation is just too big to fit the image.
However we could simplify his equation and tidy it up a bit.
In the first summation, N(i) will always be positive, since N(i) >= 0 (you cannot have negative sunspots).
It is also dimensionless. For dimensional analysis Dan has to change this to degrees, but doesn’t say how it does.
In the second term, 6.52×10-9T4 is quoted.
Dan did not state how this was derived, or cited. Is it based on science, or has Dan just made it up?
It is vaguely reminiscent of the Stefan Boltzmann law, but he is certainly not using the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (which is more than 10 times larger than Dans). Besides which the the Stefan Boltzmann equation is in units of Watts per square metre. We need to derive the anomaly in degrees Kelvin, so somehow Dan needs to define his constant.
Using Dan’s value at 288K, term 2 results in ~ 45. So (according to Dan) we should be warming whenever the “average daily Brussels International sunspot number” is more than 45 then we should result in warming (e.g. 2000), and a lower number should mean cooling (e.g. 2007).
Check any of your favourite datasets and see if how many years agree with Dan’s figures. I don’t know how many that you might find in agreement with Dan’s, since I gave up looking after seeing 2000 and 2007.
But there are more terms – perhaps we need to look at them to see if this makes more sense further along.
(Or maybe not. )
ESST(c,Y) = ESST (Effective Sea Surface Temperature) in year Y calculated using an ESST range (magnitude) of c
I haven’t got a clue what this means, since Dan does not say how he derives it. But I don’t think it means the Sea Surface Temperature. Perhaps he meant the anomaly?
The last term does makes sense – that CO2 will warm logarithmically.
Then we have Dan has four “coefficients”, a, b, c and d.
Usually are coefficients are constants without dimensions (e.g. π). I know that some engineering terms use coefficients with units, but if they are they quoted in units. Since Dan doesn’t explain the units for his terms the equation , there is a real problem with a, b & d when looking at dimensional analysis (I can’t comment on c since I don’t understand the term). Possibly he meant that a and d were in units of K and b was in K-1 it might make more sense – but he didn’t say this.
But wait – Dan earlier stated that the coefficients are “to be determined” (i.e. not known).
They are not coefficients or even constants – he selects his terms according to the year (and even offers different versions for the same year).
His “coefficients” are variables! He even it states that the “coefficients” are adjusted to get the “best fit” of R2.
If I’m reading this correctly, then there is no supporting science of his coefficients. His “coefficients” are nothing more than pattern matching.
Since the coefficients were determined using all available data, some reviewers asserted that the equation may have no predictive ability in spite of it being formulated from relevant physical
phenomena and a known law of thermodynamics.
(My emphasis)
Of course I would expect Dan as an engineer would understand “a known law of thermodynamics”. In fact I would expect him to know at least three of them.
Which one has he selected? It would help.
Dan has however predicted the temperature for the next 25 years or so (and, surprisingly enough, we see that it will be cooling).
He is assuming that the sunspot variability over the next years is the same as the pattern between 1915 to 1941 – which is fair enough, since that he knows that it is a guess.
If sunspots do resemble then Dan predicts a cooling of about of between 0.2 K and 0.4 K (depending on his variable “coefficients”, despite that he has no idea what almost all his terms are unknown).
The beauty of it is that his own graph shows substantial warming between 1915 to 1941.
Shot in the foot? I think so.
Finally, Dan “shows” that the temperature has been declining between 2005 and 2011 (despite that the 2011 isn’t yet known yet).
He draws a straight line between 2005 and 2011(using UAH).
This is just sloppy. If Dan knows how to calculate R2 then he is perfectly capable of working out an OLS trend.
Over to you, Dan.
Image Credit:
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
-
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
At this point, it might be more accurate to state that the equation was artistically inspired by the laws of thermodynamics.
– frank
And you missed the most hilarious aspect of Dan’s “analysis”: his use of SST to determine global temp — which is determined primarily by SST!
In other words, the entire thing is mostly circular reasoning.
Explanations are distributed over the several pdfs that can be accessed at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . I added some in the following.
The time-integral of sunspot numbers is a proxy for energy into the planet. First paragraph of pdf made public 3/10/11. Units e.g. W sec/m^2.
Energy out also has units of W sec/m^2 so the difference between them also has units of W sec/m^2. This difference (energy change) is divided by ‘b’, the effective thermal capacitance (page 1 of the pdf made public 9/24/11), which has units of W sec/m^2/K resulting in units of degrees. The approach is also described in detail starting on page 12 of the pdf made public 4/10/10 although the data used there have since been updated. Yup, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.
The method of arriving at 6.52E-9 is described on page 13 of the pdf made public 4/10/10. Its rational basis and its connection to the SB constant are described on page 6 of the pdf made public 3/10/11.
The slight year to year warming and cooling associated with the solar cycles is apparent in the calculated temperature anomaly trajectories as shown e.g. in the graph on page 4 of the pdf made public 3/10/11 (and the graph on page 2 of the pdf made public 9/24/11). The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 30 times everything else) prevents from being valid for the planet the rapid (monthly) temperature changes that are indicated by the measurements. This is discussed further starting on page 3 of the pdf made public 9/24/11. Reality is revealed in the trends.
You are right about ESST being the Effective Sea Surface Temperature anomaly. ESST is discussed further under ‘Measurement Artifacts’ starting on page 3 of the pdf made public 9/24/11. The 32 year duration (64 year period) of the trends was estimated by observation of the measured temperature trajectory and also by a study of ENSO and PDO. The magnitude of the ESST was initially estimated to be 0.45 (assumed no influence from CO2) as described starting on page 14 of the pdf made public 4/10/10. This was later refined to 0.343 if CO2 was assumed to have influence and 0.385 if CO2 was assumed to have no influence. There is no net energy change associated with the full cycle of ESST. The small change to surface temperature comes from the net effect of upwelling/down-welling of all of the oceans as further discussed under ‘Measurement Artifacts’.
The coefficient ‘a’ (°K) is just an offset, much like the derived constant (the one that is not multiplied by the independent variable) in a linear regression, it merely shifts the location of the curve on the chart without changing its shape. The influence of CO2 is either discovered or selected by the value of ‘d’ (°K). The influence of CO2 is eliminated by setting ‘d’ to zero. Note that assuming that CO2 has no influence has no significant effect on the coefficient of determination. The Effective Sea Surface Temperature oscillation range is given by ‘c’ (°K) and is between 0.34 and 0.39. That leaves only ‘b’ (effective thermal capacitance, units W sec/m^2/°K) the factor that indicates the influence of the sunspot number (a proxy for energy retained by the planet), to be determined. The result is an equation that calculates temperatures for over 115 years with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. You may or may not know that is better than anyone else has done.
The over-all concept behind the work may be best expressed in the second paragraph on page 1 of the pdf made public 3/10/11.
The ‘known law of thermodynamics’ is the first law, conservation of energy.
As to prediction. The equation was ‘calibrated’ using measured anomalies prior to 1990 and, thus calibrated, used to predict the temperatures after 1990 (20+ years). The graph on page 2 of the pdf made public 9/24/11 shows that it did an excellent job of this. Of course the future is speculation. I expect the decline trend to be between 0.13K/decade and 0.22K/decade. The solar experts are expecting a solar grand minimum so the decline trend may be closer to 0.22K/decade.
The graph that you linked to shows all of the measured and calculated cooling and warming trends since 1880. The prediction, when further calibrated through 2010 is graphed on page 4 of the pdf made public 3/10/11.
The graph on page 5 of the pdf made public 9/24/11 clearly shows the number of months of 2011 that apply. I have added through September for all and even October for UAH and RSS. The graph still looks pretty much the same. The ‘straight line’ is simply to show the -0.13K/decade slope.
OLS has no ability to predict the future.
—-
Dan Pangburn is on my list of persistent denier commenters as well.
—-
As Milan said
Hahahahahaha.
Crackpots-gotta love ‘em.
Oh wow, it looks like Dan Pangburn imagines he’s creating new scientific paradigms every few months, and that he’s on his way to writing his very own Principia. That’s the sure sign of a crank.
And that’s not taking into account the way he butchers the laws of physics, by picking the parts of the equations he likes and then substituting fudge constants for the parts he doesn’t like…
What a weak excuse, Dan. You’re trying to compare temperature estimates (from your half-baked formula) with temperature estimates.
That is, you’re comparing estimates of not just two different “correlated” quantities, but the exact same underlying quantity.
Instead of using a weak “correlation” metric, you should be calculating root mean square deviations and the like. You fail.
– frank
Dan spreads his “knowledge” widely… He decided that my coverage of WUWT’s claim that the number of snowplows at Heathrow airport was proof that global warming was over was a perfect opportunity to educamacate me.
I never realized, until reading Dan’s “analysis”, that when the Sun has no spots, the Earth gets no solar energy.
Amazing.
Very odd also that Dan uses units of Watt-seconds per square meter, i.e. Joules per square meter, rather than the standard Watts per square meter. No justification for this, of course.
—-
The equation calculates temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%. Including or not including the change to CO2 level made no significant difference.
When calibrated by temperature measurements prior to 1990 the equation accurately predicted the temperatures since 1990.
The temperature trend has been approximately flat for a decade. In that same decade (through September 2011) the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 23% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. I wonder how wide this separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize that they must have missed something.
No, as explained at least twice, you’re using a correlation metric, not an accuracy metric, so the most you can say is that your equation calculates “something which is sort of correlated with temperatures since 1895″ with a “correlation” of 88%.
The number series A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … is strongly correlated with the number series B = 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, … But clearly A is not an accurate estimate of B; it’s way off.
– frank
Pangburn, keep writing your stupid equations, it just shows how lacking in mathematical, statistical and scientific skills you and other deniers are.
Good for a laugh but not much else, heck I can write an equation relating global temperatures to numbers of elephants in Africa, polar bears in Antarctica and idiots like you who think they know everything but, alas, know nothing.
KAP,
You got it wrong. With no sunspots the planet slowly cools like it did during the Maunder minimum (near zero sunspots for 70 years) which is associated with the LIA. The predicted temperature anomaly trend until 2037 is shown on page 4 of the pdf made public 6/27/10.
The equation uses the time-integral of sunspots (the method is described on page 12 of the pdf made public 4/10/10). The time-integral of W/m^2 becomes W sec/m^2.
Ian,
Yet no one else has done better.
“…heck I can write an equation…” Great, let’s see it. Will it predict?
Pangburn asks:
No, but neither will yours.
Ian, If you could understand the pdf made public 9/24/11 you would discover that mine already did … since 1990.
Pangburn, you are just plain stupid. How can you claim to make a prediction since 1990 when you only published it in 2011? Do you know what dishonesty means? You are a prime example of dishonesty in science.
Ian, actually I’d give Dan a pass on this. He did explain above that he was using a hindcasting approach.
– frank
Ian,
Try to keep up.
This is from my post at 6:38 on 11/10:
“When calibrated by temperature measurements prior to 1990 the equation accurately predicted the temperatures since 1990.”
None are so blind as those who choose to not see.
Pangburn said:
Ian Forrester has now revealed that he has not understood (and may not even have looked at) any of the documents that have been referred to even though links were provided.
It probably would not do him any good to look because he apparently does not have the ability to challenge or even comprehend what the documents disclose.
The complete procedure is described in detail with links to all of the source data so anyone that is competent with a spread sheet can challenge any findings that they doubt.
Lacking any technological ability Ian Forrester resorts to vacuous ad hominem attack.
Pathetic.
Pangburn, I definitely wont waste any of my time on your stupidity. You may be able to convince stupid AGW deniers that by putting a whole lot of scientific and mathematical gibberish together that you have understanding in the area. Those of us who actually know a bit of science and maths will not be fooled.
Go back to your goldfish bowl where the stupid AGW deniers will worship you and tell you how great you are. You wont get that sort of treatment where intelligent and knowledgeable people congregate.
If you think you have solved the AGW problem why are you not publishing in the scientific literature instead of in some fantasy denier site? Looks like you can’t even get it published in that AGW denier fish-wrap E & E. Laughable as always Pangburn.
Ian, you have already been fooled by the ‘consensus’. Or perhaps, you are one of them and your real objective has little to do with carbon dioxide or with climate.
Your lack of knowledge becomes apparent when you assert that fairly simple science and math is “gibberish”.
Einstein said “the only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance”.
You, Ian Forrester, have revealed that you are both ignorant and arrogant. And your arrogance prevents you from becoming more knowledgeable. Perhaps you are one of these. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/new-study-proves-many-left-wing-environmentalists-are-clueless-sheep
You have made the fundamental mistake of assuming that I am arguing for or against something. That is not the case. My intent is and always has been to discover the truth. I have made some of what I have discovered available to the public and welcome technical challenge even the somewhat antagonistic challenge as made above by S2.
More than 3 years ago I determined that “…carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change.” This was disclosed in a document made public at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html.
Later (initially in a pdf made public 6/1/2009, refined to as shown in the pdf made public 3/10/11 and as shown above) I discovered what DID cause the temperature run-up, and in fact the entire average global temperature trajectory of the 20th century and since then. This finding corroborates that the change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has had no significant influence on temperature.
I have made public a detailed description of how to do something and what you will discover if you do it. You have revealed that you lack the ability to understand it and have declared your refusal to try. Thus you may continue to wonder why the CO2 keeps going up while the average global temperature does not; or perhaps you will refuse to notice.
Pangburn, you made a typo in your post. It should read:
Why are you so stupid that you cannot see how intelligent people are mocking you and your childish attempts to show your ignorance and contempt for science?
You are a pitiful crank as a number of people on this blog have shown. Have you no self awareness? Do you like being shown to be stupid and a crank, because that is what you are? Don’t you find it strange that the only people willing to support your nonsense are other cranks like Pierett. He has a long history of showing his ignorance and contempt for science, just like you, on this blog.
Einstein was describing idiots like you when he said:
You have been fooled by a well funded PR campaign which has got nothing to do with science but everything to do with trying to convince people that it is OK to burn as much fossil fuel as we can so they can make more and more money. You, and people like you, are dangerous because if we do what you are suggesting (based on your faulty and dishonest science) we will inherit a world that is far different to what we need to continue our existence on this planet. People like you are driving us to a planet where food supplies, clean water and livable conditions will not be what we need or want.
You are a despicable and ignorant person by doing this. You, and all the other AGW denier cranks, have no science to back you up, only the pseudo science gibberish which you try and confuse people with.
Get a life.
Ian,
I can understand your frustration and anger. And I am certainly not free of ranting and rage myself so don’t mean to sound high and mighty.
But, please consider once in a while folks who are not familiar with the history or details peek in on these posts. You don’t come across very good.
Your tone probably does more to reinforce denialist’s preconceptions and might well scare away folks who are open to investigating their preconceptions.
It would have been much more helpful for me (and the innocents out there) had you included specifics a ten year old could understand.
As it is Dan’s stuff is left dangling. And that really sucks, since I’m trying to find more layperson {that is stuff a ten year old can understand} level explanations for why Dan’s mesmerizing is invalid reality wise.
Sincerely,
Peter Miesler
Sorry Peter but I cannot agree with your comments. When deniers threaten climate scientists and their families with death threats and threats to rape their children it is time the gloves come off.
Appeasement didn’t work in the 1930′s and it wont work now. These despicable people must be shown up as to their true character which is not pleasant thus discussing them will not be pleasant either but they must be shown up for what they really are.
Yips, apparently I’ve missed a bunch of this story.
Care to fill me in, or suggest where to find the rest of the story?
Since I don’t see any threats in the above exchanges.
I was after a bit of better exposure of the shady math and logic being used by Dan, I am a layperson so don’t have the mathematical background to unravel it with the ease folks with higher education can.
My interest was sparked by a comment to a post at my modest blog
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/01/wsj-claims-theres-no-need-to-panic_29.html
Please visit the post I’ve linked and look at the comment that waves Dan’s work in my face along with my reply – I invite you, I encourage you to add more to the story.
I’m wanting to do an entire post on this and although this thread and the next has helped inform me, like I said earlier it still leaves me danging with too little to work with.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS as for your rage, it might be justified, but I know if someone screams in my face my instinctive reaction is just as base, and ugly, and it all goes downhill from there… and I don’t like it and believe a tempered approach will get me further unless a war is what we’re after to begin with.
I’m afraid that you have not been exposed to the obnoxious behaviour of many of the deniers. There are a number of posts on both Climate Progress and Deltoid and probably others on the threats of violence to climate scientists and their families.
I personally have been threatened by e-mail after a letter i wrote to the local newspaper was published. There was also a case on this very blog where a nasty AGW denier posted my personal information including phone numbers, employer, my address, photos and a map to my house. This is certainly unsettling and is not behaviour which can be ignored.
There are a lot of very nasty people involved in AGW denial. I can assure you I am being very restrained compared to the vitriol which flows on denier blogs when anyone shows up to show that they are both wrong and dishonest.
OK, ok, I’m just a little guy, with limited time though forty years worth of paying attention to the developing science from my street level perspective.
I am only vaguely aware of various threats and the ugly ruthlessness of what’s out there. Were I to concentrate on it more the hopelessness…
{of struggling to bring greater awareness to those who are too trapped in their ideology and fears to engage in a good-faith effort of learning}
…I’d be overwhelmed and give up altogether which does happen, but so far I pick myself up again. And though my effort is rather pathetic… we all do the best we can, with what we got.
So peace please, I appreciate you have damned good reasons for feeling as you and the last thing I want is to argue with you. I would much rather you help with some intelligent rebuttal to the hokum Dan has presented.
Having said that please take a look at the link.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/01/wsj-claims-theres-no-need-to-panic_29.html
… and look at the comment that waves Dan’s work in my face along with my reply – I invite you, I encourage you to add more to the scientific side of the story.
Peter, greetings
I’ve seen your writing, via Moth. Good stuff.
I observe, with you, that deniers are essentially anti-science. But there is a core problem underneath this: they are unable to reason. They consistently show themselves, as individuals and as a like-minded group, that they wouldn’t know a good reason for something if they sat on it.
In the process of engaging with deniers over many years, I no longer feel concern about each and every actual denier having the opportunity to participate in a discussion with me. Deniers have access to sufficient information and have made their interests known. Neither democracy nor compassion requires that we spend another twenty years privileging their extremely narrow sphere of concern over others’. It’s possible that continuing to attempt to seriously engage with them as individuals has actually placed an excessive burden on the communication of society and citizens, and has also probably delayed progress on public will-formation and participation in decision-making.
There are institutional and procedural means by which deniers can continue to voice their concerns. The fact that many deniers choose the internet suggests that they believe the internet presently has many democratic features but this is not the case, and the expectation that interaction with deniers will raise their (or anyone else’s) awareness ignores the persistently irrational and exclusionary elements of the denier discourse.
Pangburn for example has sought and received many hundreds of hours of attention 24/7 to his repetitive and compulsive posting on science sites; and despite much information-sharing and compelling argumentation from scientists, the result is the same old denier concerns and beliefs with no broadening of any public opportunities for discussion.
So I think it must be more about our need to have what we perceive to be an open and reasonable conversation than anything else, that we continue to believe deniers want to talk or that they mean what they say; and from a pragmatic perspective, it has added nothing to increasing public participation and inclusion.
I do check in here, from time to time. I’m glad to see your comments but I have to also find that Ian’s approach is refreshing and restorative; and necessary at this point to public opinion-formation.
It is important for men to be able to tell other men when what they say is stupid and deserves no further attention in a rational deliberative process with other men and women around the world.
There is no democracy without honesty.
cheers
Martha,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts (and the compliment).
Your points are valid, and I’ve come to appreciate that Ian came to the above comments by way of much more history in this particular discuss than I have.
At first glance they are off putting, but I admit I can understand them and have at times wished to reach through the computer screen to throttle a disingenuous dolt or two myself.
But, we also write for the audience and lurkers hoping somewhere to enlighten someone. I’m just a skilled labor type {with a life long love of Earth sciences and our planet}, but have watched this conversation since the early seventies, as decade after decade gets squandered… as monsters like Reaganomics and Bush era ruthlessness hypnosis generations into Willful Ignorance.
Where do we go from here?… What do we do as the time runs out???
‘Where do we go from here?’
I hold no keys, but I do think shared vision and leadership are important.
We do what we can to encourage thinking and ethics in our places of work, our communities and our relationships with people far away. We promote international education in curriculums and on the internet. We recognize and discuss the increasingly clear reasons to demand that our governments co-operate with others on peace, sustainability, climate change, social safety nets, financial stability, etc., and no good reasons not to – and through some combination of civic, activist and government evolution, we move in the right direction. It’s a process.
Unfortunately, old-school development ideas and the political hubris of the new neoconservatism in the U.S. has been especially challenging to the process and vision of global co-operation. While they do not represent their people or even their state, the denialosphere has had disproportionate influence so that tell us that the public is not yet exercising its will. I guess we also need to get real about building political support across groups working for change.
These days, I limit myself to brief comments at some Right-wing blogs. I do it for the lurkers (especially in solidarity with women, since women are all but absent from these blogs). Instead of long discussions of the science, which deniers don’t really want to read or understand but are often obsessed with, I address the core beliefs. I challenge these core beliefs with information and especially with history e.g. A recent blog post at ClimateEtc was uncritically nostalgic for the good old days two hundred years ago when the Royal Society was ‘independent’ of the rest of society instead of ‘promoting’ AGW. I pointed out that patronage and politics was very much part of the Royal Society’s formation and influence on the developoment of science institutions in the past e.g. women Fellows were not admitted until 1945 (thirty years after the rest of society decided we could vote). So the real question is about what role we wish science to have in society rather than pretending it is not part of society. ETc.
I find that getting right to the false beliefs does more to challenge a lot of stuff, than anything else; and it’s quicker.
Another common denier stuck point is that they confuse the need for world governance in an increasingly shared world, for some form of ‘world government’. I just point out the thinking error, and leave it. It’s my current method.
Your method of asking questions is another good one, for all of us. At least, I’m thinking. Thanks!
take care
Thanks for the thoughts.
Have any good posts to link to?
Particular your approach to the “world government” vs. “world governance” thing.
cheers
Unfortunately, not really.
Wikipedia gets the concept right enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_governance
Basically, the idea of global governance on specific issues supports statehood and also the network and activity of public, voluntary, and NGO sectors.
In contrast, the idea of global or world government is totalitarian and precludes both sovereignty and democracy; and it’s this that deniers fear and believe they see happening.
Hope that helps.
cheers
Martha, thanks for the info.
Hey how about the DenialGate
{excuse a bit of shameless self promotion here}
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/02/nongovernmental-international-panel-on.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/02/anthony-watts-has-made-good-living.html
A big thank you for your blog post.Much thanks again. Awesome.
remark that the trend of Dan Pangburn is confirmed by facts.
Since theory which is not confirmd by fact is BS i think it will be better to consider the way of Panburn (and so Svensmark) and give up with the loosy CO2
“give up with loosy CO2″ ? ? ?
So you think your Faith can overcome physics?
Sorry, maybe I’m being unfair.
Perhaps, it’s just that you believe wishful calculations done in a scientific vacuum carry more weight than calculations that have been sloughed out in the public arena of peer review science?
[…] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/ […]
Atmospheric CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 24.67 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; March, 2013, 395.8 ppmv).
The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies say flat since 1997 see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml )
No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 24.67 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. I wonder how wide this separation will need to get for some people to realize that they must not actually understand the science.
The above equation that elicited Greenfyre’s sarcasm has been refined. The refined version, can be seen at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . Using only one widely available measurement set, the refined equation calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with 90% accuracy. Added atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence.
Guess you still don’t appreciate the concept of our “global heat distribution engine” with it’s many varied circulation patterns, including those taking heat into the deeper ocean?
Guess you still don’t understand the conception that we have increased the insulating ability of our atmosphere and Earth IS retaining more heat…
simple physics –
BUT, I know you.
You got an alternate reality going on.
Yea, your “science” in a vacuum “proves” physicists don’t know nothing about greenhouse gas physics; and that global warming is hoax… despite all the crazy weather thing.
Citizen,
Again you demonstrate that you lack knowledge of physics or any other science. What makes you think that you are qualified to even comment on this subject?
Wilhelm Ostwald, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, 1909
Hi Ian
I don’t think DP can hear you.
Seems he still has different information.
There’s some kind of block, there, no? Results in DP arguing without understanding.
cheers
Dan Pangburn
“Citizen, Again you demonstrate that you lack knowledge of physics or any other science. What makes you think that you are qualified to even comment on this subject?”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I don’t claim to know the physics, but I do recognize science that comes out of a vacuum chamber.
And having spent a bit of time at your blog and tracking down various blog conversations of yours – I am qualified to notice that your science is VERY insulated; you have contempt for bona fide experts; and you never answer qualified critiques with a straight answer . . . instead winding up in some dog chasing tail dialogue that never advances – because you simply refuse to acknowledge what the experts have explained to you.
Yet, you expect to be taken seriously.
============================================
Now there’s one worth posting:
“Ian Forrester:
Among scientific articles there are to be found not a few
wherein the logic and mathematics are faultless but which are for all that worthless, because the assumptions and hypotheses upon which the faultless logic and mathematics rest do not correspond to actuality.”
Wilhelm Ostwald, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, 1909
Panburn wrote: “No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 24.67 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.”
~ ~ ~
CC: I believe you have a lab-bench mentality and don’t grasp the complexity or our Global Heat Distribution Engine. Why do you ignore our oceans?
http://skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OK LETS LOOK AT YOUR LINK
Panburn wrote: ” The above equation that elicited Greenfyre’s sarcasm has been refined. The refined version, can be seen at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html .
~ ~ ~
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight
===============================================
comments on three main points:
Ocean oscillations push heat around our globe, >>> they do not produce heat.
“Sunspot numbers” – now there’s a red flag
Dan’s claim is disputed by every expert society I can think of.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide “Added increments of CO2 and other ghgs exhibit a logarithmic decline in their influence on AGT.”
I’m no expert, but here again, every expert resource I’ve looked at says that your above claim is false – for a number of reasons, – in part – having to do with our atmosphere being a real three dimensional entity with air masses in constant motion, etc..
*sunspot numbers… that is “expert societies” that have addressed this issue.
Cit,
You said “Why do you ignore our oceans?” If you had read the paper(s) and had any scientific knowledge or ability you would know that this is not true.
If you are saying ‘Ocean oscillations do not produce heat.’ that is obvious to anyone that understands the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and that is exactly what I say in the paper and use in the equation. The very first sentence in the Summary is “About 41.8% of reported average global temperature change [0.74 C] results from natural ocean surface temperature oscillation and 58.2% results from change in the rate that the planet radiates energy to outer space, as calculated using a proxy, which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers.”
Since before 1900 to the present, the average global temperature trends are simply the result of calculations. The calculations account for the average global temperature measurements with 90% accuracy. The graph, Figure 1 at the link, clearly shows this. Can you comprehend that all of those things that were not explicitly considered must find room in that unexplained 10%?
After the present, is a projection which assumes that the average global temperature will continue to be controlled by the same factors that have driven average global temperatures since before 1900. I suppose that could be a “claim” until about 2020. After that depends on what the sun does (also a claim).
I have made public for all to see what I expect the average global temperature to do which is a downtrend for at least a couple of decades. The average measured global temperature trend has been flat since 2001, the equation shows down since 2005. You think that is wrong. So when do you expect the trend to be up again?
Dan wrote: “The calculations account for the average global temperature measurements with 90% accuracy. The graph, Figure 1 at the link, clearly shows this. Can you comprehend that all of those things that were not explicitly considered must find room in that unexplained 10%?”
~ ~ ~
Actually your graph looks like numbers fitting, and that dive in temperature starting right about now seems an incredible thing to suggest, in light of all we know about our global heat distribution and how it’s been perturbed these past decades.
Lordie, one “skeptic” or another has offered similar graphs showing the imminent drop in global temperature for the past couple decades. Yet the temps continue creeping up.
For me easily as impressive as temp records – are the Earth observations and what’s happening to our cryosphere… now there’s a global thermometer worth trusting… even if it works at a slower pace than “skeptics” seem to be demanding.
NOAA Global Climate Change Indicators
National Climatic Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
=====================================
As for “ignoring the oceans”… BAD wording on my part – I should have written:
“dismissing the ocean’s role”
As for your use of #5: = “Schwartz, Stephen E., (2007)
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth’s climate system”
Dan wrote:
“They report the temperature of the water surface while the average temperature of the bulk water that is participating in the oscillation can not significantly change so quickly because of its high thermal capacitance 5.
This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the reported rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations as a result of any credible forcing. According to one assessment 5…”
~ ~ ~
It seems that you are misrepresenting what Schwartz actually reported. As RealClimate explains far better than I could:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/friday-roundup-2/
and here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/
~ ~ ~
And from reading this caveat:
Stephen Schwartz: “Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen.
In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.”
~ ~ ~
Schwartz was explicitly trying to stop people from basing claims – such as your: “This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the reported rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations as a result of any credible forcing.” on his work.
Or as RealClimate put it:
“(Schwartz) doesn’t pretend to smite global-warming theories with a single blow, he simply explores one way to estimate climate sensitivity and reports his results. He seems quite aware of many of the caveats inherent in his method, and invites further study.”
~ ~ ~
As for when the current surface temperature trend will get kicked in for another record breaking sprint… seems to me it’ll occur when the ocean returns some of that heat it’s been soaking up – during the next El Niño… currently we are in a neutral phase.