I do think that I understand the final point: energy isn’t measured in sunspots. If I have got the right end of the stick, somewhere inside I’m waiting for an allusion to babel fish, and the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of god.

Could someone please offer a short bullet point summation of the mistakes in Dan’s formula and reasoning – I appreciate that a number of flaws have been highlighted here and there, but a list would be nice.

thank you
Peter M.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, if someone could shed light on how a Google of the title to Dan’s article gets wallpapered over seven pages of results, that would be interesting too.

How many regressors do you count (with d set to zero)? How would you describe the accuracy of the model? What other models are there to compare to?

I stand corrected on that point. But you do know this, don’t you:

In least squares regression, R² is weakly increasing in the number of regressors in the model. As such, R² alone cannot be used as a meaningful comparison of models with different numbers of independent variables.

So your LOOK AT THE HIGH R SQUARED!!!! talking point still doesn’t hold.

– frank

Another way to do it (less neuron damage) and get closer to the right answer is to write two equations in two unknowns and solve them simultaneously.
Average sunspot number = 45.28 = X*Ti^4
Energy radiated from the planet = 239.4 = 0.612 * SB * Ti^4
Then 239.4 = 0.612* SB *45.28/X
X = 45.28/239.4 * 0.612 * SB = 6.56E-9

I thought the graph looked a bit better using 6.519E-9.

Frank, R^2 is a measure of how close the calculated values are to the measured ones. It is explained on page 1 of the pdf made public 5/24/10.

But even there Pangburn is full of fail. As I said in that other thread, R² is useful for correlating estimates of two different variables, not estimates of the same variable (temperature).

Of course, Pangburn will ignore all that, since in his own mind he’s authoring his very own Principia.

And a side note: Pierett says:

I used a more simple math since most of my public is local business men.

Sounds like there’s the expectation that “local businessmen” are mathematical idiots.

(But given the 2008 financial crisis, maybe that expectation isn’t too far off…)

– frank

Following the forestry blog link, I found a post touting the fact that he comments at Huffington Post and Discover Magazine. I guess that makes me a “regular contributor to Scientific American.”

I like Dan’s post. It is nice to see someone who is working the problem on a physics level. My new work that somewhat mirrors his work

Nice to see Pierett at last admitting that he is absolutely ignorant of science Only a fool, or a dyed in the wool AGW denier, would actually think (I know that is impossible for these types) that what Pangburn says is in any way related to real science and maths.

I think Dan has hit on something that should not be discarded.

Nice piece. I used a more simple math since most of my public is local business men.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment from time to time.

Paul Pierett

It never occurred to me that anyone would actually read those things – let alone carefully enough to pinpoint the exact point where it all falls apart.

My brain thanks you for your sacrifice.

—-

It didn’t take that long, so I haven’t lost too many grey cells.
And I’m saving time by reading your blog rather than wading through WOWT.

S2