tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3900438532658604202.post742839245893921017..comments2023-10-11T00:14:56.087-10:00Comments on Raising Islands--Hawai'i science and environment: Schatz: Congressional climate deniers can't hide any moreJan Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11097508601802284702noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3900438532658604202.post-27175263521152178572014-07-05T08:09:44.404-10:002014-07-05T08:09:44.404-10:00Thanks, Dan, for your comments. I think we can end...Thanks, Dan, for your comments. I think we can end this conversation now. Solar forcing clearly shows some climate correlation. However, your assertion that CO2 change is insignificant flies in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary.<br /> Jan Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11097508601802284702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3900438532658604202.post-2522860146487885062014-07-05T04:02:38.995-10:002014-07-05T04:02:38.995-10:00Solar cycle amplitude or duration considered separ...Solar cycle amplitude or duration considered separately don't work but the combination of the two, which is what the time-integral does, is what works (actually the time-integral of the sunspot number anomaly). It has never been debunked.<br /><br />The 'compelling data' is made public at the link and references.N2 822Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3900438532658604202.post-88102811072693223002014-07-04T09:14:17.442-10:002014-07-04T09:14:17.442-10:00Thanks for your comment. There are, of course, num...Thanks for your comment. There are, of course, numerous issues of logic with this statement, starting with sloppy language in the first sentence. The sunspot correlation cited in the link has long ago been debunked. Sunspot and activity tracked each other for a time, but in 1980, solar activity declined significantly while temperatures continued to rise. I'd be pleased to see compelling data, but remain unconvinced of this proposal based on what has been provided.Jan Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11097508601802284702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3900438532658604202.post-16023604465541890352014-07-03T07:56:29.062-10:002014-07-03T07:56:29.062-10:00Discovering that CO2 change and therefore human ac...Discovering that CO2 change and therefore human activity does not cause global warming is a start. But this leaves the question of what actually does drive average global temperature change.<br /><br />Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610). <br /><br />The influence of CO2 change is insignificant. <br />Coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.<br />R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.<br /><br />The calculations use data since before 1900 which are publicly available. <br /><br />The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured.<br /><br />Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.<br /><br />The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.<br /><br />The method, equation and data sources are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.com