Articles Tagged "Dan Pangburn"

Consensus Mistake

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

The IPCC, some politicians and many others in the ‘consensus’ stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) was the primary cause of global warming. Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

Some of their mistakes were discussed more than two years ago Mistakes made by the Consensus - climaterealists.com. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by an amount equal to 25.9% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001 (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; Sept, 2012, 393.35 ppmv). The temperature trend, which was declining through 2009, was raised to flat through 2011 by the El Nino that peaked in March, 2010.

The IPCC has claimed in IPCC AR-4, Chapter 9, Executive Summary, that “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” This appears to be incorrect because R2 including the influence of CO2 is not significantly different from R2 assuming CO2 has no influence.

All those organizations that agree with the Climate Science Community ‘Consensus’ had accepted what the Consensus claimed because they assumed that these Climate Scientists were the experts and had figured it out. In fact, the Consensus had not ‘figured it out’. They did not identify a cause and instead assumed that it must be atmospheric CO2 because they couldn’t think of anything else. This was reinforced by the observation that CO2 and average global temperature increased together from 1973 to 2005 (or at least for the 22 years from 1976 to 1998).

However, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperature has stopped rising. From 2001 through September, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.6% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.6% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

Click source to download "Verification of Natural Climate Change" by Dan Pangburn

The Equation

The equation is presented in the pdf made public 3/10/11 at this 1 website. It is repeated here for convenience.



Where:

anom(Y) = calculated temperature anomaly in year Y
N(i) = average daily Brussels International sunspot number in year i
Y = number of years that have passed since 1700 (or any other year where the net summation is approximately zero such as 1856, 1902, 1910, 1938, or 1943)
T(i) = agt (average global temperature) of year i in °K,
ESST(c,Y) = ESST (Effective Sea Surface Temperature) in year Y calculated using an ESST range (magnitude) of c
CO2(Y) = ppmv CO2 in year Y
CO2start = ppmv CO2 in 1880
a, b, c, and d are coefficients to be determined.

Note that the energy gain from the sun is appropriately reduced by energy lost by radiation from the planet. The coefficient ‘b’ is the effective thermal capacitance. It relates the net energy in the numerator to a temperature anomaly.

The equation posits that average global temperature (agt) can be calculated from (1) the timeintegral of sunspot numbers (a proxy that correlates with energy retained by the planet), (2)predefined effective sea surface temperature (ESST) and (3) the measured atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level. The influence of CO2 can be zeroed out by setting the coefficient ‘d’ to zero.

The temperature range of the 20th century spans about 0.74 C. Of this, about 40% or 0.3 C has excellent correlation with the sunspot time-integral. An equation has been derived that calculates average global temperature based on the physical phenomena involved. With inputs of accepted measurements (source web links are given) from government agencies, it calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). This research is presented at Reference 1 and links given there.

Clouds radiate energy from the planet. Cloud elevation determines cloud temperature and thus the energy rate. The analysis presented here determines that an increase in average cloud altitude of only about 72 meters results in an increase of steady-state average global temperature of 0.3 Celsius degrees. Svensmark2 has shown that more sunspots correlate with fewer low-level (below 3 km) clouds. If there are fewer low-level clouds then average cloud altitude must be higher, average cloud temperature lower, less energy radiated from the planet and thus the planet warms.

Click source to download PDF file and read FULL report from Dan Pangburn

Open Letter to Congress and the President:

Many of us are interested only in determining the influence of human activity on climate. Although the planet stopped warming years ago, demonstrating that human activity has had little, if any, influence on climate, it appears that many of you remain unconvinced. Many have been deceived by those who stand to benefit by continuing to deceive. They benefit by getting government grants to continue to examine the issue. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted in futile attempts to prove that added greenhouse gases are a major cause of Global Warming and to predict what might happen if the planet continued to warm. Observe that their and your credibility decline as the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to rise and the planet continues on its cooling trend.

The IPCC and others who proclaim that the planet is still getting warmer, and that the main cause is increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, are egregiously wrong. This is demonstrated by publically available measurements. From 2001 through Feb, 2011 the atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 22.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased and the average of the five reporting agencies has been on a declining trend since about 2005 and has been declining steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010. The 22.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

Climate Change Causes

Examination of measured data and data that has been determined using a measured proxy (the time-integral of sunspot number) reveals that climate change, as described by average global temperature (agt), whether it is called Global Warming, Global Climate Disruption or even Global Cooling, has been caused, at least primarily and probably nearly entirely, by natural phenomena. A fairly simple equation that uses measurements of these phenomena accurately (R2= 0.88) calculates agt over the entire period of when it has been accurately measured (since about 1895). The equation and a graph of the latest results are given below.

The equation posits that agt variation depends on three things. They are (1) the time-integral of sunspot number (this is a proxy that correlates with energy retained by the planet), (2) the effective sea surface temperature, and (3) the change in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The equation contains coefficients that set the fraction of the total change that each of these three contributes. The coefficients are adjusted to find the best match of calculated agt to measured agt. The closeness of match is determined by the coefficient of determination, R2.

The coefficients that result in the highest possible R2 allow determination of the fraction that each of the three phenomena contributes.

Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 20% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while average global temperature (agt) has not increased significantly and in fact the agt for the nine years from 2001 through 2009 shows a decline of 0.5C per century. This is outside of the ‘limits’ asserted by the ‘Consensus’ of the Climate Science Community.

So how did the Consensus get it so wrong?

The scientists in the Consensus apparently don’t understand some of the science very well, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge some science or may not even be aware of some relevant science.

Here are some of the issues:

1. Global Climate Models

Climate Scientists use huge mathematic models that are intended to simulate climate over the entire globe. The mathematic models are very computationally intensive and are run on powerful computers. These so-called Global Climate Models (GCMs) divide the atmosphere into about 100,000 or more contiguous blocks that may also be called elements. For example, the Hadley Center model named HadAM3 is a 73 by 96 grid with 19 levels for a total of 133,152 elements. HadGEM1 has four times as many. The number of elements is limited by the practical consideration of computer run time. The programs necessarily use strategies and algorithms to suppress numerical computational artifacts such as aliasing and computational instability.

INTRODUCTION

The analysis at Reference 1 presents a method and equation that accurately calculates average global temperatures since 1895 without considering any influence from change to the level of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

The coefficient of determination, R2, (R2 is discussed in Ref 2) for that calculation is 0.8686 which means that the equation explains 86.86% of the measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies. This is better than has been achieved by any Global Climate Model. The agt anomaly identified in Ref 1 as a prediction is more correctly called a calculation up to the present and a projection (for the condition of no sunspots) thereafter.

The Ref 2 paper includes a determination of the possible influence that added atmospheric CO2 might have on average global temperature. It is a refinement of the previous work which was presented in Ref 1. The Ref 2 work showed that, although assuming no effect of added atmospheric CO2 produced an excellent correlation with measured agt, when a significant contribution from added atmospheric CO2 is included an excellent correlation is also produced, in fact, a tiny bit better.

CLICK to download FULL report from Dan Pangburn

INTRODUCTION

The analysis at Reference 1 presents a method and equation that accurately calculates average global temperatures since 1895 without considering any influence from change to the level of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The coefficient of determination, R2, for that calculation is 0.8686 (all of those digits are as calculated and are shown only to reveal the tiny differences between calculated values.

There is no presumption that real-world precision is this close) which means that the equation explains 86.86% of the measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies.

This is far better than has been achieved by any Global Climate Model. The agt anomaly identified in Ref 1 as a prediction is more correctly called a calculation up to the present and a projection (for the condition of no sunspots) thereafter.

The present paper includes a determination of the contribution that added atmospheric CO2 makes to average global temperature. It is a refinement of the previous work which was presented in Ref 1. The present work produced the rather startling discovery that, although assuming no effect of added atmospheric CO2 produced an excellent correlation with measured agt, when a significant contribution from added atmospheric CO2 is
included, an excellent correlation was also produced, in fact, a tiny bit better.

Click to download "Effect of Change to Atmospheric CO2 Level on Average Global Temperature" by Dan Pangburn

The following article is a follow up from Dan Pangburn to Climate Change Mistake

Conclusions of the Natural Climate Change Verification

This work shows the influence that sunspots have had on 20th century and more recent average global temperatures. Without the influence of sunspots, the trends of anomalies would have been close to the shape of the graph for ESST only.

The precise points to make calculations of the effective influence of the sunspot timeintegral are somewhat uncertain. Temperatures predicted at the end points of the ESST trends result in the following: Sunspots had little effect prior to about 1941. The anomaly predicted for 1941 was 0.1017 and in 1973 was -0.0908 for a decline of 0.1925. Without the sunspot time-integral the decline would have been that of the ESST or 0.45.

Thus the temperature decline from 1941 to 1973 would have been about 0.257 C deeper if not forthe high sunspot-number-time-integral during that period. This is equivalent to saying
that the decline from 1941 to 1973 was (0.45 – 0.1925)/0.45 or 57% less than it would have been without the time-integral of sunspot-number during that period.

Click PDF file to download Corroboration of Natural Climate Change by Dan Pangburn