DP writes - A) The Maunder Minimum lasted from about 1645 to about 1715. I started at 1700 because that is the earliest that I found numerical data on the web for sunspot numbers. I made the hypothesis that the integral of sunspot numbers was related to energy added to the planet and, using conservation of energy, reduced this by the integral of energy leaving the planet.
The equation accounts for this, the effect of ocean oscillations and the influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide and allows the determination of the contribution of each to average global temperature. That is, I included an influence from sunspots and allowed the math to determine how much influence sunspots have. The pdf made public 11/24/11 has more detail and includes a theory of how sunspots through their influence on average cloud altitude (temperature) act as a proxy for average global temperature.
DP writes - B) Of course predicting close to absolute zero would be absurd. With no sunspots, and assuming no influence from ocean oscillation or CO2, the equation predicts a steady decline of about 0.1C/decade from the starting temperature.
DP writes - C) “Does he think the Sun extinguishes if there are no sunspots?” Since I am the person who discovered what actually drives average global temperature, you figure that out.
He is curve-fitting, ignoring physics while playing around with arbitrary constants for factors he can think of.
My question, though, about his beliefs on sunspot activity and solar output, would stand whether or not he really did demonstrate something. It is an entirely valid question, whether or not he thinks the Sun extinguishes when there are no sunspots. Any solar physicist will of course tell you no, because any solar physicist will know how main sequence stars operate at especially such a rudimentary level, and heck even lay-people could tell you that the Sun has not extinguished.
Dan appears to believe it does - that's what his model shows it does. So, I want him to either admit he thinks that, admit his model is wrong, or admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about (the last not being in any sense exclusive to the prior ones).
DP writes - D) The 110 meter figure for effective thermal capacitance came from this http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008746.shtml
I have not yet attempted to improve on this. The assumption that some heat gets to a lot lower depth has no influence on effective thermal capacitance.
~ ~ ~
By that I mean, you've isolated your work by steadfastly talking right past the complaints and flaws knowledgeable people have pointed out to you. Rather than looking at the substance of other's complaints you shrug 'em off with an air of uppity contempt.