Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

solar output = the output from the Sun. It is intergrated over to produce the TSI.

this is the geometry, you know because the sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere, exactly what I told you.

This is well beyond your pay grade

 

[Pixel42]

NOAA's report for January is up: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Here's the global temperature map for January:

So let's see how Corbyn's predictions did.

1. Extreme cold in the USA in January

A mixed picture, but more than half the country was below the baseline average and there were some isolated areas which were as much as 4C below. I'm feeling generous so I'll award Corbyn a hit here, I think.

3. Extreme cold in Britain and Europe in January

No hit there.

So we have:

Predictions made: 3
Predictions correct: 1
Success rate: 33%

Tune in again next month to see how his predictions for February fare.

 

[Furcifer]

It is obvious that a solar flux = a higher TSI and means that there will be more heat contributed from the Sun and so we would have to attribute less of the observed global warming to greenhouse gasses (anthropogenic or otherwise).

lol, no. It depends heavily on the LW and SW component of the radiation. It isn't this...simple.

(Dart or Diplomat? I don't know, but I know it was a Dodge)

So what does the underestimating of the flux do to the calculation of anthropogenic warming you can find in the link?

 

[Reality Check]

this is the geometry, you know because the sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere, exactly what I told you.

This is well beyond your pay grade

this is the geometry, you know because the building is a cube and the sugar cube is a sphere, exactly what I told you.

This is well beyond your pay grade

Any more inane posts from you to waste space 3bodyproblem?

But seriously: Are you condused about the the word integrate refers to or just ignorant of what TSI is?

 

[Reality Check]

Lil, no. It depends heavily on the LW and SW component of the radiation. It isn't this...simple.

Lol. Yes it does depend on the LW and SW components of the radiation. It is complex.
But that was not the question: You said a higher solar flux.
You did not say the same solar flux but different LW and SW components. You did not say a higher solar flux but different LW and SW components.

lol
So what does the underestimating of the flux do to the calculation of anthropogenic warming you can find in the link?

What calcuation in what link?

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?

 

[Furcifer]

Any more inane posts from you to waste space 3bodyproblem?

But seriously: Are you condused about the the word integrate refers to or just ignorant of what TSI is?

You don't have any clue what you're talking about, but that doesn't seem to stop you. Care to explain this statement now that you've been clued in?

You seem to be talking about the spectral variation in the solar output.

It obvious you're floundering. You've tried to make some distinction where there is none. I've explained this to you several times now. Keep trying though, it's amusing.


For anyone curious, RC started handwaving about how the spectral variation in TSI was different from the spectral variation in solar output. I specifically told him it was irrelevant, the radiation hitting the Earth, the TSI, varies in spectrum. As if the radiation that never hits the Earth has anything to do with the climate! Hilarious.

 

[Furcifer]

Lol. Yes it does depend on the LW and SW components of the radiation. It is complex.
But that was not the question: You said a higher solar flux.
You did not say the same solar flux but different LW and SW components. You did not say a higher solar flux but different LW and SW components.

lol, that's the variation. The intensity of the radiation, the TSI is fairly steady, the actual spectrum, the SW and LW and everything in between changes considerably. The effects of which warm different parts of the atmosphere, even the ocean. Some actually creates ozone, that has some interesting effects on the climate as well.

What calcuation in what link?

lol, you've posted the link twice! Did you even read your copypasta? I know you didn't understand it, but you should have read it.

What effect does underestimating the incident solar radiation flux have on the calculation on the skeptical science page you've posted at least twice?

 

[Reality Check]

For anyone curious, RC started handwaving about how the spectral variation in TSI was different from the spectral variation in solar output. I specifically told him it was irrelevant, the radiation hitting the Earth, the TSI, varies in spectrum. As if the radiation that never hits the Earth has anything to do with the climate! Hilarious.

For anyone curious, there is no "spectral variaiton" in the TSI. The TSI is an integration over the entire spectrum. This produces a single number.

Obviously there is a "spectral variaiton" in the spectrum from the Sun! The difference is obvious:

• the spectral variation in TSI does not exist.
• the spectral variation in the solar spectrum does exist.

The radiation hitting the Earth does vary in spectrum. It is relevant for things like greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc.

It is obvious that the radiation that never hits the Earth has no effect on the climate.
Hilarious.

Seriously: 3bodyproblem, the TSI is the radiation that hits the Earths atmosphere integrated over the spectrum. Only the radiaiton that hits the Earth is included.

It looks like the answer to my previous question

But seriously: Are you condused about the the word integrate refers to or just ignorant of what TSI is?

is that 3bodyproblem is ignorant enough to think that I think that the TSI is intergrated over space, not the spectrum.

 

[Reality Check]

What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming

lol, that's the variation. The intensity of the radiation, the TSI is fairly steady, the actual spectrum, the SW and LW and everything in between changes considerably. The effects of which warm different parts of the atmosphere, even the ocean. Some actually creates ozone, that has some interesting effects on the climate as well.

That is right.

lol, you've posted the link twice! Did you even read your copypasta? I know you didn't understand it, but you should have read it.

lol - that link Laštovička et al. (2006) has no calculation of anthropogenic warming so what "calculation of anthropogenic warming " in which link are you refering to?

Did you even read my link? I know you didn't understand it, but you should have read it. You should be able to tell me what link you read.

What effect does underestimating the incident solar radiation flux have on the calculation on the skeptical science page you've posted at least twice?

Now you are refering to some calculation on the Skeptical Science web site. Maybe here
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)?

But the effect is just what I said before: Underestimating the incident solar radiation flux (with mention of a change in spectrum, thus the same as TSI) will decrease the calculated effect of greenhouse gasses on the measured global warming.
If you want a number then calculate it yourself. IN fact:

3bodyproblem
What effect does underestimating the incident solar radiation flux have on the calculation on the skeptical science page that I have posted at least twice?

<U>

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?

</U>

 

[Furcifer]

Now you are refering to some calculation on the Skeptical Science web site. Maybe here
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)?

10 posts, still handwaving and feigning ignorance. Hilarious.

Are you ever going to address the question? What effect do you suppose underestimating the incident solar radiation flux has on calculating the anthropogenic contribution to global warming?
Please show your work so we can discuss it. Thanks.

 

[Furcifer]

lol - that link Laštovička et al. (2006) has no calculation of anthropogenic warming so what "calculation of anthropogenic warming " in which link are you refering to?

I suppose if you read the stuff you linked you'd know.

Now you are refering to some calculation on the Skeptical Science web site. Maybe here
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)?

Wow, an epiphany!

But the effect is just what I said before: Underestimating the incident solar radiation flux (with mention of a change in spectrum, thus the same as TSI) will decrease the calculated effect of greenhouse gasses on the measured global warming.

Show your work. Do you understand what this means "Show your work"?

If you want a number then calculate it yourself.

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. Just unsupported blustering about something you don't have any idea about. You made a statement and now you want me to prove it for you because you can't. lol

You claimed it didn't matter, I'm tired of your lies and games. Feel free to prove how it doesn't matter. As they say "Evidence?".

In the mean time, it's entirely possible the Earth is cooling. The net radiation isn't the only factor, nor are surface measurements. Satellite data is invaluable. So is developing a better entropy based model of the Earth's climate. Dismissing a theory because it doesn't fit your political idea of how things are is foolish. I don't know for sure what effect the size of the Sun has on the climate, but it can't be handwaved away.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, you're off by a mile. I suspect you don't really know what "flux" is. The fact that "Total" is part of TSI should be a clue.

I'd suspect you hadn't seen the incident at all if I wasn't quoting you directly.

"Incident solar flux" is what you said, and that is TSI.

Keep trying.

Keep digging.

I suspect you'll keep posting cryptic responses in an effort to conceal your ignorance and confusion. Your "If you understood this subject like I do you wouldn't ask that question" tactic was thin to the point of transparency when you introduced it. It's beyond tatters now.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's the primary forcing. The engine that drives the climate isn't fully understood.

"Not fully understood" yet you know TSI is the primary forcing. How does that work?

 

[CapelDodger]

The number might not, but actual wave does.

You seem to be making a distinction that doesn't exist.

No he doesn't.

Do you know what the solar output is? Or what the total solar output is?

Do you know what "spectral" means?

From a sphere striking another sphere?

What sphere do you think the Sun is striking against?

So we can talk about how that might be causing Global Cooling?

If global cooling happens we can talk about what's causing it. We'll be able to observe what's causing it, which should be educative, as the Mt Pinatubo eruption was. That caused cooling which was accurately predicted by a climate model.

You're just objecting and don't have any clue why.

You don't leave many clues as to what you're trying to mean.

 

[CapelDodger]

So we have:

Predictions made: 3
Predictions correct: 1
Success rate: 33%

Tune in again next month to see how his predictions for February fare.

Thanks for that .

 

[CapelDodger]

It's obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about. But I'll give you a chance to explain the difference between TSI and solar output

How condescending of you.

You've had ample opportunity to explain what "spectral variation in TSI" is. (Yes, I know it's a nonsensensical expression, but I didn't bring it up and you did.)

 

[Furcifer]

"Incident solar flux" is what you said, and that is TSI.

Not even close. Do you really think repeating a lie will make it true?

This science stuff is hard when you can't copypasta from a propaganda website isn't it? TSI isn't the flux.

Here's some good reading: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/45/2011/esdd-2-45-2011.pdf

"The Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux estimated by directly applying the observed spectral solar irradiance into the most accurate Planck expression is compared with that estimated with a conventional approach that uses the 10 Sun’s brightness temperature under the assumption of a blackbody Sun"

I suggest you think about why the flux would have to be estimated if it was the same thing. Stop playing climate scientist and read before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Furcifer]

(Yes, I know it's a nonsensensical expression, but I didn't bring it up and you did.)

You don't have any clue what you're talking about, not the slightest, but you're claiming I'm being nonsensical?

This is the most arrogant thing I've seen on this forum. My God man, NASA launched a satellite to measure the spectral variation in irradiance and you're claiming it's "nonsensical". Unbelievable. You better call NASA and let them know their billion dollar satellite is "nonsensical"!

 

[Haig]

Here's some good reading: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/45/2011/esdd-2-45-2011.pdf

"The Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux estimated by directly applying the observed spectral solar irradiance into the most accurate Planck expression is compared with that estimated with a conventional approach that uses the 10 Sun’s brightness temperature under the assumption of a blackbody Sun"

Thanks for the PDF Lots to try to understand

 

[Furcifer]

Thanks for the PDF Lots to try to understand

Yes, it's an interesting look at TSI and entropy. It's amazing how little is actually known about the primary forcing.