tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post1282830912662976119..comments2015-12-15T19:48:55.226-08:00Comments on Global Warming Unveiled: Dan Pangburnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-81379641595005192182015-12-15T19:48:55.226-08:002015-12-15T19:48:55.226-08:00You have really talked yourself into a mess here. ...You have really talked yourself into a mess here. The clear atmosphere is essentially transparent to radiation from the sun. Clouds absorb some, reflect some, and transmit some. Start there or just look at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Cloudaltitudevsglobaltemperature.pdfDan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-89002508339804000162015-12-15T19:25:37.927-08:002015-12-15T19:25:37.927-08:00I don't know what Hansen and Pierrehumbert did...I don't know what Hansen and Pierrehumbert did but "add the two" is certainly wrong. Some other mistakes by the 'consensus' are discussed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com<br /><br />It appears you could use a refresher in radiation heat transfer to understand what is going on. Your last paragraph is nonsense. Heated air rises. Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-3381345259091823492015-12-15T18:55:51.786-08:002015-12-15T18:55:51.786-08:00Determination of Standard Atmosphere, first done i...Determination of Standard Atmosphere, first done in the 1950s, is described here http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html and agrees with some of what you say. The population gradient of ghg contributes substantially to the radiation balance. Energy balance is calculated at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Cloudaltitudevsglobaltemperature.pdfDan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-32689640482344293482015-12-15T16:50:45.422-08:002015-12-15T16:50:45.422-08:00If existing albedo is 30% (of which two-thirds is ...If existing albedo is 30% (of which two-thirds is due to cloud cover) then an increase to just 31% lowers the temperature by about 0.9 degree which is comparable with the difference between the Maunder minimum temperatures and the mean temperatures over the last ~1000 year natural cycle. The radiation from CO2 (like that from water vapor) works against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, thus leading to lower surface temperatures because, in case you don't know, the so-called wet adiabatic lapse rate is less in magnitude than the dry rate. How could you possibly maintain radiative balance with the Sun if the thermal profile did not rotate about a pivoting altitude and become lower at the surface end? You can't raise the surface temperature with more water vapor and, at the same time, have a less steep temperature gradient, because radiative balance would be way out and soon correct itself by lowering the whole thermal plot whilst retaining the same gradient. <br /><br /><b>This is the epitome of self-contradiction in the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture. A higher surface temperature due to water vapor and yet a less steep temperature gradient !?!?!</b><br />Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-89124865834563516352015-12-15T16:49:38.941-08:002015-12-15T16:49:38.941-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-80294211796176005382015-12-15T16:33:11.417-08:002015-12-15T16:33:11.417-08:00Why we need the heat creep process:
(copied from t...Why we need the heat creep process:<br />(copied from the comment thread on my <a href="https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">blog</a>)<br /><br />We know that, apart from direct solar radiation, there must be additional thermal energy entering a planets surface each morning and early afternoon because otherwise we dont have any warming at those times, and we dont have overall energy balance at the surface for each complete rotation, such as each 24 hours for Earth. In typical Earth energy diagrams like the one on this page, they show back radiation of about 324W/m^2 into the surface, but the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, and so there is no heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions. Such heat transfers can never happen by radiation. Instead, a similar amount of thermal energy is actually delivered into the surface by conduction across the interface with the atmosphere. This was energy originally absorbed each morning from new solar radiation that is strong enough to raise the cold temperatures found mostly in the upper troposphere and above. This new energy must be what makes its way to the surface, but it does not do so by radiation. Only non-radiative processes (natural convective heat transfers) can transfer thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane, provided that the process is increasing entropy. This is because such processes depend upon energy being transferred by molecular collisions, and gravity acts on molecules in flight between collisions increasing their kinetic energy as their gravitational potential energy decreases. But, by definition, no energy is transferred across internal boundaries in a perfect state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Energy transfers only happen when new energy creates a state that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so that entropy can increase. If the new energy is at the top of a column of the troposphere, then a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient) can only be attained if some of that new thermal energy at the top is dispersed downwards to warmer regions. That is what I have been first to explain does in fact happen, so that we know this heat creep process is possible, and it is indeed the correct physics which explains the missing energy that raises the surface temperature each morning, even under thick cloud cover.Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-36525797026601790442015-12-15T16:31:49.423-08:002015-12-15T16:31:49.423-08:00I agree that climate change is all 100% natural, w...I agree that climate change is all 100% natural, with possible causes relating to planetary orbits (see http://climate-change-theory.com) and their effects which could pertain to variations in solar activity, sunspots, cosmic ray intensity, cloud formation and solar intensity varying because of variation in the distance from the Sun. I’ve said all that on my first website years ago.<br /><br /><b>What I don’t agree with is the radiative forcing conjecture that radiation from the cold atmosphere helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature to observed values. You cannot add the two and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, but Hansen and Pierrehumbert thought they could get away with doing so: after all, politicians are ignorant about such matters and so are brain-washed climatologists.</b><br /><br />Only maximum entropy production can do that in the process wherein new thermal energy absorbed in the upper troposphere makes its way to the surface by natural convective heat transfer which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium or, in other words, maximizing entropy. On what point do you have difficulty in your understanding of this standard physics based on the Second Law?Doug Cottonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564342660783793003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-67506007702740589652015-11-19T04:15:06.038-08:002015-11-19T04:15:06.038-08:00Great to see this post found really understanding ...Great to see this post found really understanding about global warming, I get another blog related to <a href="http://www.globalwarmingtimes.com" rel="nofollow">Global Weirding News</a> and Global Warming Newswhich have almost every news links for global warming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658470011228037771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-76965951153265031782015-11-17T12:39:27.926-08:002015-11-17T12:39:27.926-08:00Perhaps you did not read the analysis. The match i...Perhaps you did not read the analysis. The match is 97% with measured average global temperatures.<br /><br />LBNL got it wrong. If CO2 had an effect on climate, it would have appeared in the 542 million years of the Phanerozoic eon.<br /><br />You need to take the blinders off.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-69661983817277748292015-11-17T12:22:57.031-08:002015-11-17T12:22:57.031-08:00Measured values are 5-year smoothed at second hi-l...Measured values are 5-year smoothed at second hi-lite. Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-25343119978349016932015-11-17T08:18:17.443-08:002015-11-17T08:18:17.443-08:00Dan, great work, you need to get this published in...Dan, great work, you need to get this published in a refereed journal. It needs an abstract before the intro, and the intro may benefit from a little wordsmithing, otherwise it's excellent.<br /><br />I had difficulty understanding why the value of R squared was different in Table 1 between the two rows in yellow? Looks all the parameters are the same but the correlation coefficient is different, why is that?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14940515205555080648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-13278665883722740352015-11-16T20:44:48.285-08:002015-11-16T20:44:48.285-08:00Pity it doesn't match reality.
How are polar t...Pity it doesn't match reality.<br />How are polar temperatures going ? Classic GHG phenomenon of warmer when little or no sun or at night. <br />Record heat worldwide for last few years.<br />First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface<br /><br />Date:<br /> February 25, 2015<br />Source:<br /> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory<br />Summary:<br /> Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions. <br />0.2 Watts per Sq meter over 11 years during which time CO2 rose 22ppm, since late 1700's CO 2 has risen 140 approx ppm largely due to man along with feedbacks and the starting to melt methane Clathrates. Just mans activities has increased CO2 back radiation by approx 1.4 Watts per Sq Meter,<br /><br />A maunder Minimum reduces incident energy by approx 0.5 Watts per Sq Meter.<br />Do your own mathAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00482497934517726619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-53655784673020746302015-10-18T13:58:53.709-07:002015-10-18T13:58:53.709-07:00Mahesh - It might keep you misinformed.Mahesh - It might keep you misinformed.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-78531022411208414582015-10-17T01:55:40.260-07:002015-10-17T01:55:40.260-07:00GlobalWarmingTimes A Global Warming News Site offr...GlobalWarmingTimes A Global Warming News Site offring each and every latest news and information about Global Warming I just follow this blog and read it daily basis it will keep you updats.. <a href="http://www.globalwarmingtimes.com" rel="nofollow">Global Warming News</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658470011228037771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-55609530442439031252015-09-04T02:31:08.160-07:002015-09-04T02:31:08.160-07:00You really share a valuable blog on the effect of ...You really share a valuable blog on the effect of global warming.<br />The data and fact that you have been presented for the better understand the global warming effect is correct and easy to get.<br /><a href="http://www.globalwarmingtimes.com" rel="nofollow">Global Warming News</a><br />Avinash Dwivedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07581660101453676728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-51221107781307124232015-06-28T09:55:14.396-07:002015-06-28T09:55:14.396-07:00Dan Pangburn: "The warmers lose cred as the C...Dan Pangburn: "The warmers lose cred as the CO2 continues to go up and average global temperature doesn't." Precisely. The counter by claiming the current hiatus is too short of a time period. All of the hullabaloo for the past year is an attempt to downplay and discredit the idea (data) and supporters of the hiatus (supporting real data is an contradiction in terms itself). <br /><br />I looked at this on WUWT in two related posts in which I look at the simple cross plot of NASA GISS mean monthly temperature vs. Mauna Loa Keeling CO2. <br />1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/<br />2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/a-statistical-definition-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming-using-nasa-giss-and-mlo-data/<br /><br />Key points:<br />Taking the entire data set (back to 1959, limited by the Mauna Loa data) the X-Y plot clearly breaks into three distinct periods a) 1959 - mid 1970s flat or no correlation; b) mid 1970s to late 1990s global mean temperature monotonically increase suggesting apparent correlation with with CO2; c) late 1990s to date - current hiatus with zero correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. Re the first period in fact from the mid 1940s to mid 1970s not only was there was no relation between temperature and CO2 but even cooling during the period. The point in the second WUWT article is if manmade CO2 is the predominate factor "causing" global warming, this conclusion is not supported by the data. Therefore it is not a conclusion it is an unsupported premise. The data during the last period late 1990s to date is remarkable in that the X-Y data are a complete scattergram/shotgun with zero correlation. <br /><br />My conclusion is: "The accepted (by the consensus) hypothesis that global mean temperature (the dependent variable) can be explained by or is due to “mainly” a single variable, CO2 is patently false during the 18+ year hiatus...(d)id CO2 sensitivity go to sleep? ...(a)re other variables exactly canceling out the CO2 effect? It is also important to recognize that the Mauna Loa data includes manmade and non-manmade CO2. The integrated assessment climate models (IAMs) are deterministic physical models of the climate with built in predetermined physical model structures (i.e., defining of cause and effect). From the data, we can say they (models and their proponents) are wrong based on their (in)ability to explain the facts (data) during this hiatus. The zero “fit” / complete lack of correlation does allow us to conclude that during the hiatus, the assumption that CO2 is the major thing driving global mean temperature is not just a lousy hypothesis, it’s wrong and unsupported by the data (fact). The data present strong evidence that all of the variability (scatter) in the data during the hiatus is due to “not CO2.”<br />Danley Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14399726912508670481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-4385868280510151192015-06-05T04:04:29.126-07:002015-06-05T04:04:29.126-07:00Your valuable blog aware us from the side effect o...Your valuable blog aware us from the side effect of global warming.<br /><br />Thanks for the sharing a awaking blog on the global warming times.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.globalwarmingtimes.com" rel="nofollow">Global Warming Times</a><br />Avinash Dwivedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07581660101453676728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-2826942110762135032015-06-03T01:32:02.388-07:002015-06-03T01:32:02.388-07:00A really good article, thank you very much.A really good article, thank you very much.David Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12284071323385164651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-36695354574599935612014-09-02T21:36:11.554-07:002014-09-02T21:36:11.554-07:00Thanks for the feedback.
Here is more. The physi...Thanks for the feedback. <br /><br />Here is more. The physics of thermalization explains why non-condensing ghg change has no significant effect on climate.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-26431332663409267982014-09-02T16:34:32.941-07:002014-09-02T16:34:32.941-07:00Thanks Dan,
Best article I've read in weeks. ...Thanks Dan,<br /><br />Best article I've read in weeks. Nice to see real mathematics.fireman501https://www.blogger.com/profile/17420412639786500537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-4836832385580044332014-05-20T15:03:12.964-07:002014-05-20T15:03:12.964-07:00Make that 1780-1958Make that 1780-1958Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-83838440827807619372014-05-20T14:58:40.766-07:002014-05-20T14:58:40.766-07:00The CO2 data that was used (and change to which wa...The CO2 data that was used (and change to which was shown to have no significant effect) is from Law Dome Antarctica 1180-1958 and Mauna Loa Hawaii after 1958. A graph is on page 11 at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Verification%20Dan%20P.pdf <br />Several other early (most superseded) papers are at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=trueDan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-40431449834473185042014-05-19T17:30:18.506-07:002014-05-19T17:30:18.506-07:00Never knew the point on c02 either, as temps don&#...Never knew the point on c02 either, as temps don't change. All $$$$Pat Hatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745293224202430152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-40336514850296425922014-05-19T17:29:34.099-07:002014-05-19T17:29:34.099-07:00Wow, some very straight forward info for a change....Wow, some very straight forward info for a change. Instead of the blah blah blah global warming because blah blah blah. Pat Hatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745293224202430152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2750701703442546987.post-13448503217627770902014-05-08T09:24:47.365-07:002014-05-08T09:24:47.365-07:00I saw that. There was a guy named Christopher Robe...I saw that. There was a guy named Christopher Robert that said this to you:<br /><br />Quote" I'll give you a hint: if it ends in .com and it's not a real journal (nature.com, sciencedaily.com, etc.), it's not a source, and no real scientist will ever even click your links. Richard Feynman would roll in his grave if he knew crazies like you were trying to cite him. Citing a blogspot to try to argue science....sheesh."QuoteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com