tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post2645991348761585322..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Harry Bulkeley: A few questions about global warming -- AnsweredRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-2152915361014227022014-03-26T00:19:20.708-04:002014-03-26T00:19:20.708-04:00I don’t know if it will help to see where I am at ...I don’t know if it will help to see where I am at but, like you, I don’t doubt that there is a greenhouse effect (for the planet; for greenhouses, not so much) and CO2 is a ghg. However, one of the things that I discovered is that whether CO2 change is considered or not made no significant difference in the coefficient of determination, R^2 .<br /><br />Apparently what appears to you to be a correlation is actually a calculation of R^2. That is merely a measure of how well the equation matches the measurements. As you can see from the high R^2 and also the graphs, the equation does extremely well.<br /><br />The first law is applied just like you said it should be. Application of the first law of thermodynamics is described on page 2 of reference 2 which is at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . As stated in the AGWunveiled paper, the SB change due to average global temperature (AGT) change is adequately accounted for by the sunspot number time-integral, i.e. (T(i)/Tavg)^4 is set equal to one.<br /><br />Most, if not all, who looked at sunspots, stopped looking when they found that TSI did not correlate. The sunspot number time-integral makes an excellent correlation. An explanation of how it works is given in the AGWunveiled paper. In brief, magnetic fields from the sunspots shield the planet from galactic cosmic rays which reduces low altitude cloud cover. Less low altitude clouds means lower albedo, and also, higher average cloud altitude, lower average cloud temperature, less thermal radiation from the planet. The effects work together so more sunspots results in a warming planet; fewer sunspots a cooling planet. I made a rough calculation of the sensitivity of AGT to low altitude clouds at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ <br /><br />Good luck with your paper. <br /><br />I also have a paper in review (two approvals so far). It should be out this summer, perhaps sooner.<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-86077356572073687182014-03-25T19:20:36.942-04:002014-03-25T19:20:36.942-04:00Unfortunately, the cumulative sums issues for time...Unfortunately, the cumulative sums issues for time series analysis do apply. They apply because you are correlating two different series, only one of which you apply cumulative sums to, among other things.<br /><br />You also are not applying the first law (conservation of energy), notwithstanding your claim. It's fairly straightforward -- if you're applying the first law, you add up the energy in and subtract the energy out and energy storage. You have no figures for any of these quantities.<br /><br />What you do have is sunspot numbers, which are not simply an energy measure. There are reconstructions of solar output -- energy -- variations over this period. The fact that you ignore them in favor of sunspot counts suggests bad things about the rest of your work.<br /><br />Since the foundation is wrong, the rest of the work is also. The conclusion might ultimately be correct, stopped clocks and all, but you can't get to there from what you started.<br /><br />The sun is certainly important to climate. I have a paper in review now which investigates a particular case. But there's more involved to making that case than you show. (Not least, mine actually works with energy.)Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-22098773634211086292014-03-25T15:23:37.528-04:002014-03-25T15:23:37.528-04:00Robert - Not posting the link was simply to avoid ...Robert - Not posting the link was simply to avoid tripping spam traps.<br /><br />With a little more time at my site, you may have realized that the 'cumulative sums' point as described by Tamino does not apply. The equation uses conservation of energy and the numerical integration calculates the energy change over time which is observed as temperature change.<br /><br />I have posted stuff at climaterealists and refer to my postings there, mostly as historical background. <br /><br />All of the analysis at my site is my own. I use data reported by credible agencies for temperature anomalies, CO2 level and sunspot numbers.<br /><br />The analysis calculates average global temperature anomalies since before 1900 with R2>0.90 and credible trends back to the depths of the Little Ice Age.<br /><br />There are many sub-links in that paper and possibly a lot of stuff that you have never seen before. I welcome any and all technical critique. Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-73562440691363158362014-03-25T12:56:32.170-04:002014-03-25T12:56:32.170-04:00Well done.Well done.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-69461597774509527002014-03-24T19:36:59.130-04:002014-03-24T19:36:59.130-04:00Dan: If you want to post a link to your personal b...Dan: If you want to post a link to your personal blog (1 article only?) that has relevant material, go ahead. It's http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/2013/12/calculated-meanglobal-temperatures-1610.html<br /><br />See my link policy -- http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/linking.html<br /><br />The use of cumulative sums has a number of problems, and it doesn't appear you avoid them. See http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/cumulative-sums/ for some discussion of why. <br /><br />It also appears you're using material from <a href="http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/misleading-yourself-with-graphs.html" rel="nofollow">"climaterealists"</a>, originally named 'co2skeptics'. That doesn't look like a good source (follow this link to see what that reaction).Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-49861140391988757612014-03-24T19:13:20.297-04:002014-03-24T19:13:20.297-04:00Search keyword AGW unveiled (no embedded space) to...Search keyword AGW unveiled (no embedded space) to discover what has driven climate change since before 1900.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.com