tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post5600870823147967385..comments2024-01-01T18:50:35.975-07:00Comments on Citizenschallenge: "The IPCC Got it Wrong" {#A} further conversations with Dan Pangburn citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-1379161481997743382014-01-21T13:55:55.474-07:002014-01-21T13:55:55.474-07:00Well opit, thanks for inspiring me to get off my b...Well opit, thanks for inspiring me to get off my butt and write another blogspot post.<br />~ ~ ~<br /><br />Tuesday, January 21, 2014<br /><br /><br />Why trust Roy Spencer?...or the "NASA 50"…or the Oregon Petition for that matter?"<br /><br />This post was inspired by a couple comments I received from a character who goes by "opit". <br />His comments and links are text book examples of ideology driven willful ignorance overriding honest curiosity and a desire to learn about our home planet.<br /><br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-trust-roy-spencer-nasa50.htmlcitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-88528437986104975372014-01-19T21:09:16.574-07:002014-01-19T21:09:16.574-07:00opit, it is Ironic that you take offense at the no...opit, it is Ironic that you take offense at the notion of "quibbling about details" then use known fraudsters as your references as though they know anything about accurately and honestly presenting science.<br /><br />Shame on you!citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-78729589429991960532014-01-19T21:04:47.759-07:002014-01-19T21:04:47.759-07:00Your, first article by James Delingpole with a H/T...Your, first article by James Delingpole with a H/T to Marc Morano<br /><br />These people are politically motivated operatives - not investigative or science reporters, and certainly with no climate science trainging, they are feeding you verifiable lies that you want to believe, so you accept and refuse to look further. <br /><br />But, they are verifiable lies just the same!<br />Get an education: http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives<br />~ ~ ~ <br /><br />Your 2nd article written by "Joeforamerica" at the website of some rightwing radio shock jock. Again folks who know nothing about climate, but are politically very angry. <br /><br />As for the coming ice age - nonsense. OK, if society had not come along it is quite probably Earth would be heading into an ice age. But the simple physics of increasing our planet's GHG insulation by a third and increasing - has precluded that possibility. But, you would have to want to learn about those known facts, to understand such geophysical realities.<br /><br />Incidentally, if you take the time to serious look into it, you'll find that our cryosphere is melting throughout our planet - that's a sign of warming, not an ice age.<br />~ ~ ~ <br /><br />Your 3rd is a letter to the editor, with somebody's response. What does that have to do with understanding science or Earth's observations. <br /><br />Also, aren't youz the onez screaming "science isn't about consensus" - then why are youz waving that petition put together by a bunch of survivalists scrambling for a buck and their NAS document fraud... er look-a-like, by Fred Seitz <br />< http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz >, Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, < http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas > Willie Soon < http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon > (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. That silly Oregon Petition was a political ploy and has nothing to do with understanding what we are doing to our atmosphere and how will be impacting future conditions here on Earth<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm<br /><br />http://www.desmogblog.com/art-robinson<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.<br /><br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-68588845227611460682014-01-19T19:02:51.243-07:002014-01-19T19:02:51.243-07:00You say it is quibbling about minutae to argue abo...You say it is quibbling about minutae to argue about warming when it is not feasible to measure the aggregate of such ? Science is based on measurement. That is why it is particularly interesting that Dr. Roy Spencer in charge of satellite temperature measurement ( and many NASA scientists ) dispute not just particulars, but the representations of gross change being linked to CO 2 rise.<br />NASA is therefore an interesting resource, as it is contradicted by its own staff.<br />http://ricochet.com/main-feed/50-NASA-Scientists-Against-Global-Warming<br />Now I know Daily Mail is not a scientist's resource - but when such are challenged as unreliable, the field is open<br />http://www.morningliberty.com/2014/01/19/scientists-say-no-to-global-warming-prepare-for-ice-age/<br />So my assessment comes out more like<br />http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2013/07/26/the-scientists-who-dispute-global-warming-theory-2-letters/24180/<br />And the representations for AGW are arrogant and unwilling to accept alternative representation as worthy of consideration. Yet such is the basis for general acceptance - not 'peer review' of 'true believers.'<br />http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1578143_If_Global_Warming_is_fake_and_hoax_then_what_is_the_purpose_.html&page=10<br />Here is a view as extreme in its way as that. http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-activism/<br />Another citation of the letter with better particulars<br />http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4<br />When John Hindracker weighs in, all question as to whether this is a political question becomes moot.<br />http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/nasa-scientists-rebel-against-global-warming-hysteria.phpopithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621946866211400380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-67263612657191207502014-01-18T22:23:27.832-07:002014-01-18T22:23:27.832-07:00As for the last line of the above article
"Wh...As for the last line of the above article<br />"What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth."<br /><br />Well again, the thing is Earth is being observed quite well:<br /><br />Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-fast-forward-trenberth.html<br />~ ~ ~ <br /><br />Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-Ucitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-82958894060587616622014-01-18T22:10:02.340-07:002014-01-18T22:10:02.340-07:00Am I serious about what? You're mighty vague....Am I serious about what? You're mighty vague.<br /><br />From what you write, I believe you are confusing the "map" with the "territory" <br /><br />From the article<br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm<br />~ ~ ~<br />"He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average."<br /><br />Then he goes off the deep end with a totally off base analogy using phone numbers. <br /><br />Fact is, scientists have been observing the various components of our global heat distribution engine - and warming is clear throughout our biosphere. <br /> <br />And our weather is clearly transitioning into a more extreme and unpredictable regime - and we understand why that is happening.<br /><br />And there were predictions made and those predictions are coming true with a vengeance - but you want to quibble about minute flaws in temp representation, rather that learn the important lessons of what's happening on our warming planet.<br />~ ~ ~<br /><br />We have set in motion detectable warming at all levels of our atmosphere and biosphere that will have increasingly profound impacts on our life styles and expectations as we move forward.<br /><br />http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence<br /><br />~ ~ ~<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-28381095980661433972014-01-17T19:18:45.659-07:002014-01-17T19:18:45.659-07:00As a lay person scrutinizing claims as to why pred...As a lay person scrutinizing claims as to why predictions of the future are wrong - are you really serious ? - the claims about surface temperature variations on a water covered globe in elliptical orbit around a star wandering through a galactic orbit in which it presumably is exposed to varying amounts of impacts from interstellar dust ( and heated internally by nuclear reactions ) really looks one dimensional when looking at the basis of calculation. And then there is the question of being able to make a sensible determination of energy balance. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm<br />Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'opithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621946866211400380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-7837807480341889002012-12-25T12:20:32.061-07:002012-12-25T12:20:32.061-07:00CC wrote: "You've got some creative cal...<br />CC wrote: "You've got some creative calculations there, but they are one dimensional and in essence <i>science fiction</i>"<br />~ ~ ~ <br /><br />Dan,<br />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. <br /><br />Real science isn't done like it, it require a certain humility in the face of incoming information. Along with a desire to digest as much information as possible to build one's learning on.<br /><br />But, your pdf's and the way you present your comments... well, evasiveness and defensiveness does not breed trust. I don't trust your isolated position, a position starved of the intellectual nourishment the full community of scientists.<br /><br /><br />Far as I've been able to tell, your work hasn't been echoed in any but that extreme conspiratorial thinking portion of the echo-chamber. No real climatologists, or grad students are taking up your discovery and investigating it further. Yet, rather than engaging with explanations, you write off serious critiques with an shrug... as your long train of web comments shows.... <i>makes me wonder how much of your science is emotion based?</i> <br /><br />Gotta admit, all this begs the question: why should I/we/anyone take your claims seriously? <br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-40967590610113962372012-12-25T09:25:19.398-07:002012-12-25T09:25:19.398-07:00Dan your calculations do nothing to anticipate the...Dan your calculations do nothing to anticipate the warming that is being observed throughout our oceans.<br /><br />Global Climate Models are valuable tools in the hands of the educated who are trying to learn about our climate system. You on the other hand, seem to be driven by your pet project of <i>correlation fitting</i>, rather than taking the knowledge where it leads us.<br /><br />You've got some creative calculations there, but they are one dimensional and in essence science fiction. . . and repeating the same lines ad infinitum does more to underscore that flaw than anything else.<br />~ ~ ~ <br /><br />For those who want to learn about Global Climate Models, their strengths, weakness and usefulness some good faith learning is required. Here's a good starting place:<br /><br /><b>"National Academy of Science: Climate Models 101"</b><br />http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/index.php<br /><br /><b>"IPCC: Climate Models and Their Evaluation"</b><br />http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf<br /><br /><b>"American Institute of Physics:<br />General Circulation Models of Climate"</b><br />http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm<br /><br /><b>"Global Warming: Man or Myth"</b><br />http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html<br /><br /><b>"NASA - GISS: Global Climate Modeling"</b><br />http://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><i>I notice you do nothing to defend your slur regarding the climate science information website known as SkepticalScience.com, guess it's must be more a gut reaction than anything founded on facts.</i>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-37402244702501718512012-12-24T15:27:50.314-07:002012-12-24T15:27:50.314-07:00"What is wrong..." In spite of intensive..."What is wrong..." In spite of intensive training by scores of people, the GCMs have done a poor job of calculating the past agt and have failed miserably in predictions of the last decade. Where as, my equation has calculated agt with 88% accuracy since it has been measured accurately world wide including the flat of the last decade. Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-38310725840420149362012-12-22T21:34:34.405-07:002012-12-22T21:34:34.405-07:00¶1 I'm not so sure Greenfyre would agree.
~ ~...¶1 I'm not so sure Greenfyre would agree.<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br /><br />¶2 Too bad you didn't absorb any of the lessons GCMs offer researchers<br /><br />http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_gcm_guide.html<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br /><br />¶3 How?<br />Define and defend.<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br /><br />¶4 That was a poor choice of words. Rather than "fudge factors" I should have pointed out that you approach all of this with a certain 'writer's license'. <br /> <br />And you've got some creative sciencie calculations there, but it is science fiction and repeating the same lines ad infinitum does more to underscore that truth than anything else.<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />¶5 So you claim. . . so how many other scientists have taken up your cause?<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br /><br />¶6 I'll never convince you Dan, but perhaps there are others out there interested in understanding all of this a little better, might I suggest: <br /><br /><br />Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science<br />An analysis by Peter Laut – November 2009<br />http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf<br /><br />The trouble with sunspots<br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-sunspots/<br /><br />Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) fact sheet<br />http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />¶7 "skepticalscience.com is a thinly disguised Warmer's blog." <br /><br />Oh boy your stripe are showing there.<br />Why do you feel so comfortable saying such a thing?<br /><br />I suspect, you just don't like them because of your politics. It's one of the things about the contrarian crowd - they don't want anyone having access to the full spectrum information.<br /><br />Can you define and defend your condemnation of SkS?<br /><br />What is wrong with skepticalscience.com's representations of the science?<br /><br />What is wrong with their links and references back to that science that they offer?<br /><br />What is wrong with their clean, moderated and dynamic discussions? citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-58706684021486912832012-12-22T03:19:05.992-07:002012-12-22T03:19:05.992-07:00"...looked at your method " the only loo..."...looked at your method " the only look at my stuff that I have seen on the web was by Greenfyre and, as I pointed out in posts there, he (inadvertently) corroborated it.<br /><br />"This is the thinking of an engineer " Not even close to true. If you had absorbed the entire paragraph, in context, you may have realized that I was pointing out one of the deficiencies in the GCMs.<br /><br />"...all we've learned" you have been misled.<br /><br />"How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?" Measurements demonstrate that the influence, if any, of CO2 is small. CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 is 89.5 ppmv and since 2001 is 23.2 ppmv. The agt trend since 2001 is flat.<br /><br />"...doesn't pan out" "...don't hold up " Well, the accuracy of the equation is only 88% but it is improving every year: 2000, 81%; 2005, 85.8%; 2011, 88%. <br /><br />Solar cycle length and solar cycle amplitude are equally important and are both accounted for in the time integral, which is what I use. That is why my stuff works and no one else's does.<br /><br />skepticalscience is a thinly disguised Warmer's blog.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-15170330596546969892012-12-20T08:19:00.443-07:002012-12-20T08:19:00.443-07:00Reply to Dan's comments:
¶1
Actually, as sta...Reply to Dan's comments:<br /><br />¶1<br /><br />Actually, as stated before, he not only looked at your method but repeated it.<br />I think the suspicion is that you're the one who has oversimplified and ignored the physics that's inconvenient to your case.<br /><br />============<br /><br />¶2<br /><br />I notice this telling sentence in your 8/11/10 pdf regarding climate models: <br />"To perfectly determine how things change..."<br /><br />This is the thinking of an engineer and it's absolutely appropriate for bridge builders and rocket designers to be constrained by the demand for near total perfection in their models.<br /><br />However, we are talking Earth Science, where that standard has not, and can not, be applied... or can you share some examples? <br /><br />But, to claim the lack near perfection in climate models and projections negates all we've learned, is nothing less than crazy-making.<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br />How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm<br /><br />============<br /><br />¶3<br /><br />That very impressive, learned sounding. But as shared before it doesn't pan out.<br /><br />It's the sun<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm<br /><br />============<br /><br />¶4<br /><br />No they don't corroborate you conjecture. As shared before your claims don't hold up to the full spectrum of evidence.<br /><br />Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm<br /><br />There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-33129710871721097592012-12-17T23:03:19.785-07:002012-12-17T23:03:19.785-07:00“…accused of butchering the laws of physics…” Whoe...“…accused of butchering the laws of physics…” Whoever wrote this apparently did not understand the simple physics that I used (the well known law of conservation of energy) and may have not even looked at the method (which is described in detail)). As to the accuracy, well, if the math is unfamiliar, just look at Figure 4 in the pfd made public 10/24/12.<br /><br />“…based on GHGs-only…” One of the mistakes that the Consensus has made that I mentioned in the pdf made public 8/11/10 was “…artificial enhancement by the users of the influence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Instead of trying to find out what was causing the warm up, they ASSUMED that it was primarily CO2. That assumption was corroborated by the simultaneous rise in average global temperature and CO2 that took place in the 22 years from about 1976 until 1998. Measurements since 2001 demonstrate that they are wrong.<br /><br />“…changes in solar activity…” If they had thought to use the integral of sunspot numbers (as a proxy, appropriately reduced by the integral of energy radiated from the planet) as a measure of the net influence of solar activity they might have discovered what really caused the average global temperature trajectory to do what it has done since average global temperatures have been accurately measured world wide.<br /><br />If you look closely at the graphs, that are presented by Skeptical Science, of the measured temperatures and extend them from the peak of the 2010 el Nino, where they end them, to the present you will see that they corroborate my stuff. The graphs in the pdf made public 10/24/12 for all five reporting agencies include the data that they used along with data from other agencies that believe that theirs is best.<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.com