Monday, December 17, 2012

"The IPCC Got it Wrong" {#B} further conversations with Dan Pangburn

I want to take this opportunity to look over another one of Dan Pangburn's comments. They provide a good vehicle for presenting the real science behind the smoke and mirrors of smooth talking contrarians.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dan Pangburn has left a new comment on your post "AGW Mistake Disclosed by Dan Pangburn - an unauthorized guest post": 
AGW Mistake Disclosed by Dan Pangburn - an unauthorized guest post
“…to imply that ocean oscillations can be a source of global warming.” Yes that would be absurd. However the oscillations do influence the average global temperature (agt) that is reported by the agencies at any one time. As oscillations, they go as much down as up in any period of the oscillation. Thus they have no net influence on the energy that the planet either gains or loses. 
Please Dan, consider our global heat distribution machine for a moment. 

Some of those oscillations are about transferring that "agt" from the surface into the depths... where do you account for that injected thermo energy into our global heat distribution machine?  

I ask, because you seem to treat that as lost heat.


DP says:  I discussed this on page 7 of the pdf made public 4/10/10 with “There is no intrinsic net gain or loss of energy over the entire circuit of a current, in spite of the oscillation of the measured surface temperature.” I would now replace ‘circuit of a current’ with ‘oceans’.


No intrinsic gain or loss of energy!?  Are you kidding?
On what basis do you claim such a thing? 
What about the observed warming of the deep oceans?
~ ~ ~ 
Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise
~ ~ ~  
"Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, only chase it"
DP says:  Effective thermal capacitance determines the rate at which true average global temperature (not agt which includes ESSTA oscillations) responds to changes in the energy gained or lost by the planet.

How does thermal capacitance determine the rate of energy gain or loss response?  

We are talking about thermal energy being added into a system*, not the thermal capacity of a system!  {* that is our global heat distribution engine}

Do you appreciate the distinction?

DP says:  “…actively increasing our atmosphere's insulating properties” This is untrue and misleading. The discussion starting on page 3 of the pdf made public 4/10/10 explains more.

Here's a link to short informative read, along with an excellent response to one of the comments:

"Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, only chase it"
"SkS Response: The mechanism of transferring heat from the atmosphere to the ocean is an increase in the amount of downward infrared radiation. Normally a certain amount of infrared radiation escapes out to space. But with greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere, this extra gas both absorbs and scatters the outgoing radiation and some of it returns to the Earth's surface. 
There are various independent lines of empirical evidence that this is happening. A series of papers analysing different satellite data find less infrared radiation escaping to space. Similarly, a number of different papers find more infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface. So we have a mechanism for warming the oceans and evidence that this mechanism is indeed at play." 

As for your "pdf-rd4/10/10" come on please stop playing chase me games!  If you know what you're talking about then write it down.
~ ~ ~ 

As for what I may clumsily call our "atmosphere's insulating properties" here's a better explanation of some important details you seem to overlook.
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Climate sensitivity is low
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
DP says:  Prediction of the average global temperature trend until 2037 is made and shown in Figure 4 of the pdf made public 10/24/12. {ditto the above!} The equation has been verified. What actually happens to the agt trend depends heavily on what happens with the integral of sunspot numbers which is fairly well known through 2020. Since yearly reported agt includes random fluctuation with standard deviation of about +/-0.1 °C, only the trend is an accurate measure. Expect an update in a year or so.

It doesn't matter if your equation has been "verified!" An equation is just an equation.  Simply because the equation works don't mean it represents physical reality... even if a short term correlation can be composed.

There is no evidence to support your sunspot supposition either on a physical basis, or on an observational basis.

Allow me once again to refer any interested onlookers to examine the evidence over at and friends.

What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming? 
Are we heading into global cooling?  
Comment on EER interview with Fritz Vahrenholt
Also published in European Energy Review (EER). 
"Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun"

No comments: