tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post5112912846034304259..comments2023-11-17T02:23:26.098-06:00Comments on A Penigma - a mystery, under a pseudonym: Golly- G! G-Force, that is: the Unique Insanity of U.S. Conservatives Regarding Anthropogenic Climate ChangePenigmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-37206862578622805312013-10-30T12:09:12.811-05:002013-10-30T12:09:12.811-05:00Dan, I obviously agree with DG. Frankly, I'm...Dan, I obviously agree with DG. Frankly, I'm pretty well educated scientifically, so please don't patronize. The link I posted for you considered your points (in a research article completed by three professors at the University of Massachusetts and, ta da, ran from 1610 to the present (I wonder why- perhaps because the root of your theory was some other "researcher" choosingPenigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-38461058760592654922013-10-30T10:26:01.374-05:002013-10-30T10:26:01.374-05:00Don't patronize us with the nonsense that &quo...Don't patronize us with the nonsense that "I cannot understand it for you". You haven't made a compelling case for your argument; the problem is not our understanding.<br /><br />Answer 2 questions: 1. do you agree or disagree that the earth is warming? 2. explain why you find it plausible that there is a 97% worldwide consensus among scientists due to them being paid off (dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-81022079982157044762013-10-30T08:44:35.755-05:002013-10-30T08:44:35.755-05:00The answers to all of your questions and response ...The answers to all of your questions and response to all of your assertions reside in my papers. You can access all of them in the paper returned by Googling “Calculated temperature anomalies 1610-2012” in quotes. The extreme sensitivity of average global temperature to clouds is calculated in Reference 5 there. A THEORY as to how clouds may be influenced by sunspots is presented with some Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-5641033640487464162013-10-29T23:39:17.500-05:002013-10-29T23:39:17.500-05:00Sorry, I should have edited my previous replies. T...Sorry, I should have edited my previous replies. They were written too swiftly and aren't entirely clear. Here goes a better try.<br /><br />First, you said you weren't talking about solar irradiation (energy), yet your paper does precisely that. So which way is it? <br /><br />Second, you claim that the only way for the Earth to lose or gain energy is through electromagnetic radiationPenigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-22700678894926590422013-10-29T16:12:31.925-05:002013-10-29T16:12:31.925-05:00I love these:
"Earth is in the vacuum of spa...I love these:<br /><br />"Earth is in the vacuum of space so the only way that the planet can gain or lose energy (excluding nuclear processes) is by electromagnetic radiation. The energy equation applied to the planet is..."<br /><br />"It is axiomatic that change to the energy retained by the planet is indicated by change to the average temperature of the planet."<br /><br /Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-53851941495944106892013-10-29T15:50:43.522-05:002013-10-29T15:50:43.522-05:00Dan, beyond DG's comment pointing out the rath...Dan, beyond DG's comment pointing out the rather obvious and obscenely large flaw in your "theory", your statements admit your own lack of scientific investigation.<br /><br />Correlation does not equate to causation. Furthermore, lack of correlation, by itself, despite the pathetic quote from Feynman, equate to a lack of causation. There may be direct and indirect explanations for Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-48486947949439874142013-10-29T15:47:43.646-05:002013-10-29T15:47:43.646-05:00Let me add that you need to come up with a better ...Let me add that you need to come up with a better reason for the consensus being wrong than "people's paychecks depend on continuing the deceit". You haven't yet demonstrated there is a deceit, much less that anyone is being paid off to arrive at such an extensive global consensus. Who do you think it is that is paying for this deception? It is preposterous, and if this is an dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-87618516809380410012013-10-29T15:24:49.427-05:002013-10-29T15:24:49.427-05:00There are not simply 'more people' in the ...There are not simply 'more people' in the consensus, there are overwhelmingly more people in the consensus, who are also very highly qualified.<br /><br />What peer review has your work had?<br /><br />Do you or do you not believe the current trend is that the earth is cooling?dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-45006990985007606192013-10-29T13:52:49.918-05:002013-10-29T13:52:49.918-05:00It is a calculation, not a theory.
My equation ca...It is a calculation, not a theory.<br /><br />My equation calculates the average global temperature trend since 1610 (showing, for example, the decline of the LIA) and calculates temperature anomalies that correlate with average global temperature measurements since 1895.<br /><br />The ‘consensus’ correlates with temperatures from about 1973 to about 2005. The temperature trend since 1877 has Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-17819489076244748452013-10-29T10:31:44.205-05:002013-10-29T10:31:44.205-05:00Mr. Pangborn seems to believe that solar activity ...Mr. Pangborn seems to believe that solar activity has not been adequately considered. NASA says otherwise.<br /><br /><br />And last but not least, NASA, which notes here:http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/<br /><br /><br />Solar irradiance<br /><br />It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-33589941580711043422013-10-29T10:29:57.144-05:002013-10-29T10:29:57.144-05:00Your observation that Mr. Pangborn is an engineer ...Your observation that Mr. Pangborn is an engineer coincides with a conversation between Pen and myself noting that in our own personal experience, the objections and insistence by engineers that climate change is either not real or is not anthropogenic, essentially because they are smarter than everyone else, including more prestigious engineers and experts in the various disciplines, including dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-91361485515407206742013-10-29T08:19:34.658-05:002013-10-29T08:19:34.658-05:00Dan,
It seems you are confusing correlation with...Dan, <br /><br />It seems you are confusing correlation with causation. For example, let's assume I dig into data so far that I can find that each year there was an increase in sun spot activity, there was a girl named Helga born to the Svardson family in Oslo, does that make the naming of the girl the cause of sun spots, or for that matter, does it mean the sun spots caused her to be named Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-62443404676212730832013-10-29T07:40:27.220-05:002013-10-29T07:40:27.220-05:00dog gone:
This:
"About Me
Dan Pangburn Lice...dog gone:<br /><br />This:<br /><br />"About Me<br />Dan Pangburn Licensed mechanical engineer, MSME, ASME Life member, first GW related paper was made public in 2008."<br /><br />is from his blog. Not a physicist or climatologist. Something tells me that if he was an accountant or actuarial and disagreed with the thousands of actual scientists who study the subject he would STILL be democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-33727207140552183062013-10-29T06:54:43.233-05:002013-10-29T06:54:43.233-05:00Dan, you are expecting us to believe that you are ...Dan, you are expecting us to believe that you are smarter than all the scientists in the Academies of Science in 34 different countries, along with multiple international groups, multiple disciplines of science, and some of the top research dedicated academic institutions of the entire world.<br /><br />So your statement 'many really missed the boat' just doesn't cover the fact that dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-71491610922447116332013-10-28T18:18:01.572-05:002013-10-28T18:18:01.572-05:00Many (if not all) really missed the boat when they...Many (if not all) really missed the boat when they looked at TSI, didn’t see any effect and ruled sunspots out as a factor. If you looked at my stuff, you would know that sunspots have been regularly recorded since 1610.<br /><br />The time-integral of sunspot numbers correlates with the average global temperature trend since 1610. The temperature trend decline into the LIA and rise since about Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-34860221018227896662013-10-28T08:12:13.402-05:002013-10-28T08:12:13.402-05:00Dan,
Sorry, but sunspots have been studied in det...Dan,<br /><br />Sorry, but sunspots have been studied in detail as well by climate change scientists and again discounted. Sunspots are cyclical, have been over the past 150 years. Yes there have been periods of higher activity lately (and also a drop off), they are correlatable, but not tested or even supportable as causational. As DG implied, do you REALLY think a massive collection of Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-55208038488815504922013-10-28T08:09:06.439-05:002013-10-28T08:09:06.439-05:00I disagree, gravity is theorhetical in many respec...I disagree, gravity is theorhetical in many respects because you cannot replicate/test in a controlled environment to prove "gravity waves" or "gravity wells". You cannot observe gravity waves or even gravetic "energy". You would be hard pressed to quantify gravity effects at a finite level (as a measurement of energy) between massive bodies.<br /><br />Gravity Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-6742758618456831072013-10-28T03:42:40.338-05:002013-10-28T03:42:40.338-05:00Ok, to be fair, it's a bit of an overreach to ...Ok, to be fair, it's a bit of an overreach to claim that there is less science behind Gravity Theory than climate change. Unless by that you mean a greater range of disciplines (maybe).<br /><br />I find it curious - as noted by our third colleague, Laci - that this is an issue where there is massive politicization and misinformation ONLY in the U.S. Elsewhere, it isn't. In the rest ofdog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-28394305208738762192013-10-28T03:38:17.196-05:002013-10-28T03:38:17.196-05:00Apparently this does not work,, if you believe tha...Apparently this does not work,, if you believe that the global temperature trend is down.<br /><br />The other problem of course is that you seem bent on ignoring that it has taken multiple disciplines doing not just multiple projects, but multiple KINDS of projects, using many techniques, approaching the observations from many angles, to reach the current conclusion.<br /><br />You don't dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-86344958151268086742013-10-27T22:57:27.903-05:002013-10-27T22:57:27.903-05:00conenssti is a made-up word from 'conservation...conenssti is a made-up word from 'conservation of energy sunspot time-integral'. That and the word 'energy' were to get you to the paper without tripping spam traps. Concatenating it with .BlogSpot (note the dot (.)) should work better. The paper does what I said in my first post. Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-15620321152948210752013-10-27T20:00:13.203-05:002013-10-27T20:00:13.203-05:00By the way, YES, gravity or more correctly "G...By the way, YES, gravity or more correctly "Gravity Theory" is just that, a theory. It is nearly unprovable outside of observance that objects fall toward super massive bodies, that super massive bodies react to each other (and appear to attract each other), and that light seems to be "bent" along it's course by super massive stellar bodies. <br /><br />There are Penigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-51104989092261184472013-10-27T19:46:21.135-05:002013-10-27T19:46:21.135-05:00What a load ..
Dan, as someone with at least a pa...What a load .. <br />Dan, as someone with at least a passing familiarity with the science behind global climate change analysis, I've never heard of conenssti energy, is that like metacholians from Star Wars? Perhaps it's like the thing the folks who follow scientology believe in?<br /><br />Anyway, what you're suggesting is that hundreds of thousands of highly competitive scientistsPenigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134413210507419937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-73929278244938579252013-10-27T10:43:55.868-05:002013-10-27T10:43:55.868-05:00The global temperature is not down.
I did a googl...The global temperature is not down.<br /><br />I did a google search and a bing search and a couple of other conenssti energy searches, and found NOTHING.<br /><br />This is one more example of crazy right wing climate denial delusion. The very notion that only you and a handful of right wing climate deniers know the correct way to interpret the complex data of climate change -- by excessively dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-90814645743898726362013-10-27T07:53:45.998-05:002013-10-27T07:53:45.998-05:00dog gone:
Well said.
I had someone in the &quo...dog gone:<br /><br />Well said. <br /><br />I had someone in the "bulk fuel" business, after telling me and some other people that all alternative power is unviable, announce the AGW is a "left-wing hoax". There's no conversation possible with people who willingly lie in attempt to shout down the other side. <br /><br />It's funny, though, that none of them ever find democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337568240689378702.post-55215324219907597842013-10-27T01:03:58.988-05:002013-10-27T01:03:58.988-05:00Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has dri...Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.com