Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Dancing David]

That is an interesting paper, but the math is beyond my ken, this still does not support either Corbyn or Atsrometria.

It does say that the model of energy exchange could be wrong (by a factor of four in some cases), and that there may be variables currently not understood in the solar irradiance.

However what does that have to do with either Corbyn or Astrometria? This does not support Astrometria ideas that the earth is about to cool or Corbyn's predictive ability.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

[sarcasm]
Many posts, still handwaving and displaying 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
[/sarcasm]

Seriously, 3bodyproblem:

• Are you under the impression that I am a climate scientist?
• Are you under the delusion that I am required to do badly specified math for you?

Still waiting for:

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?
• What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming?

Note that I am not silly enough to assume that you are a climate scientist. I am merely asking for you to provide the evidence behind your assertions.

 

[Reality Check]

Wow, an epiphany!

Wow now we know that you are talking about a calculation on: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)?

Except you seem to be lying: There is no "calculation of anthropogenic warming" on that page. Try reading the title or the web page. One of the papers linked to may have such a calculation.

Show your work. Do you understand what this means "Show your work"?
..snipped insults and troll-like ranting...

You first.

In the mean time, it's entirely possible the Earth is cooling.

In the meantime you are ignoring the measurements that the Earth is warming.

 

[Furcifer]

Except you seem to be lying: There is no "calculation of anthropogenic warming" on that page. Try reading the title or the web page. One of the papers linked to may have such a calculation.

Or maybe I didn't lie and you can't read?

"This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:
dT = λ*dF = 5.35*(0.54 to 1.2°C/[W-m-2]*ln(310/295) = 0.14 to 0.32°C with a most likely value of 0.22°C"

You don't read any of what you post do you?

 

[Furcifer]

That is an interesting paper, but the math is beyond my ken, this still does not support either Corbyn or Atsrometria.

It does say that the model of energy exchange could be wrong (by a factor of four in some cases), and that there may be variables currently not understood in the solar irradiance.

However what does that have to do with either Corbyn or Astrometria? This does not support Astrometria ideas that the earth is about to cool or Corbyn's predictive ability.

I'm glad you read it. Don't get bogged down in the specifics of the math, I can't check it either. If I pulled out some texts and spent a week or two maybe, but not right now.
How does it apply to Astrometria? I don't know, that's what I'm asking. I don't know what the size of the sun does to the spectral variation and intensity of SSI. Does it shift it to the infrared or ultraviolet? How does it affect the 11 year sinusoidal cycle? Is it possible the upper atmosphere is cooling and the lower atmosphere warming to the extent that the net result is actually cooling? Does that mean the system may actually obtain some equilibrium well before a 4 degree warming? Is the penetration depth and warming in the ocean affected by this? What about ozone?

GCM's don't come close to approximating any of this because they severely lack entropic effects. Many of these questions have to be answered before models can be constructed to deal with these parameters, then fed data and then tuned. That's year away from becoming a reality.

 

[Reality Check]

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

That is an interesting paper.

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 Sun’s brightness temperature under the assumption of a blackbody Sun. The globally averaged non-blackbody incident solar radiation entropy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere equals 0.31Wm−2 K−1. This value is about 4 times larger than that estimated from the conventional blackbody approach, with the difference comparable to
the typical value of the entropy production rate associated with atmospheric latent heat 15 process.

It looks like they are saying:

• Here is the measured value (0.31Wm−2 K−1).
• The theoretical value from the measured irradiance and the assumption of a black-body Sun is 4 times less.
• The theoretical and measured values differ because of these factors...

Let us hope that no one out there thinks that this is a 4 times difference in the measured incident solar radiation entropy flux.

 

[Reality Check]

Or maybe I didn't lie and you can't read?

"This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:
dT = λ*dF = 5.35*(0.54 to 1.2°C/[W-m-2]*ln(310/295) = 0.14 to 0.32°C with a most likely value of 0.22°C"

You don't read any of what you post do you?

You are right then - there is a anthropogenic warming calculation starting from

dT = λ*dF

But your question was:

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

I was right in my original statements that you have been ignoring.
Lower the flux (i.e. radiative forcing, dF in the equation) and the change in termperature lowers (dT) for the same climate sensitivity. Increase dF and dT increases.

That is obvious.

Now where are your citations to the evidence that the flux (or radiative forcing) has been underestimated?
This is the second question in:

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?
• What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming?

N.B. Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) shows that the theoretical estimate of solar radiation entropy flux using a blackbody Sun is 4 times smaller from the measured solar radiation entropy flux. The measured value of 0.31Wm−2 K−1 has been used for decades (I have seen a 1982 paper with the same value stated).

So do not be foolish and cite it. Cite a paper with a measured value that is (4 times?) different from 0.31Wm−2 K−1 as you claim.

 

[Furcifer]

I was right in my original statements that you have been ignoring.
Lower the flux (i.e. radiative forcing, dF in the equation) and the change in termperature lowers (dT) for the same climate sensitivity. Increase dF and dT increases.
That is obvious.

Swing and a miss. The flux is not the radiative forcing in that equation.

Now where are your citations to the evidence that the flux (or radiative forcing) has been underestimated?

Strike two. Flux is not radiative forcing.

The measured value of 0.31Wm−2 K−1 has been used for decades (I have seen a 1982 paper with the same value stated).

So do not be foolish and cite it. Cite a paper with a measured value that is (4 times?) different from 0.31Wm−2 K−1 as you claim.

Strike 3.

Want to take another turn at bat?

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux

Swing and a miss. The flux is not the radiative forcing in that equation.

A hit: flux is the cause of radiative forcing. No flux = no radiation = no radiative forcing.

Strike two. Flux is not radiative forcing.

A hit: flux is the cause of radiative forcing. No flux = no radiation = no radiative forcing.

Strike 3.

Want to take another turn at bat?

A hit: flux is the cause of radiative forcing. No flux = no radiation = no radiative forcing

Want to throw more curve balls ?

Or even concentrate on the science:
Now where are your citations to the evidence that the flux (or radiative forcing) has been underestimated?

This is the second question in:

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?
• What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming?

N.B. Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) shows that the theoretical estimate of solar radiation entropy flux using a blackbody Sun is 4 times smaller from the measured solar radiation entropy flux. The measured value of 0.31Wm−2 K−1 has been used for decades (I have seen a 1982 paper with the same value stated).

So do not be foolish and cite it. Cite a paper with a measured value that is (4 times?) different from 0.31Wm−2 K−1 as you claim.

 

[Furcifer]

A hit: flux is the cause of radiative forcing. No flux = no radiation = no radiative forcing.

Nope. No flux means "no flux"

A hit: flux is the cause of radiative forcing. No flux = no radiation = no radiative forcing.

Nope. The Sun is the cause of forcing.

Want to throw more curve balls ?

We might have to set you up a "tee".

Keep trying.

 

[Reality Check]

Nope. No flux means "no flux"

Nope. No flux means "no flux" from the Sun = the Sun has gone out.

Almost . The Sun is the cause of flux. The flux is a cause of forcing. Thus the Sun is a cause of forcing.

Keep trying.

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?
• What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming?

 

[Haig]

The biggest solar flare for 4 years was reported early on 15 Feb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12485104 and the ejected particles from it which hit Earth are a key part of the drivers of WeatherAction's long range forecasted world-wide TOP RED WARNING period 18/19 Feb.

"Our Red Warnings, especially TOP Red and Extra Top Red (ETs) mark dates when standard Met will seriously underestimate the severity of weather events and usually only predict about half (or less) of the snow or rain which will come in those events. Their models can never anticipate which of their forecasts will be notable understatements or on occasions, which we also predict at times, overstatements.

"Key points in our forecasts, issued weeks ago for some of the effects of this Top Red hit USA, Australia and Britain + Europe were & remain:-

{Forecast Feb 8-28, USA Extreme Weather Events &scenarios} TOP RED WARNING 18-19 FEB. Active Low(s) prob Mid-West Most active around 18/19 tracking E / N & quieter later. Stationary fronts South-central parts – thunder floods & tornadoes. The full forecast carries a USA map

{Forecast Ext Events 10-28 Feb 2011 Tropical Cyclones Australia & South Indian Ocean} 18/19 Feb …. Significant Thunderstorms likely and TD / TC Formations possible - probability 60% - in South Indian Ocean &/or Seas East of Queensland but less active than …. Landfalls in East Australia spec Queensland possible but next period more likely.

For Britain + Ireland & Europe The mild attack from the West will intensify but so will the cold blast from the East so "Let battle commence". The conflict will make the snow expected more extensive and heavier than standard meteorology models are saying both in Britain & in parts of Europe. The enhanced collision of air masses also predicts (extra) gales.

 

[Pixel42]

Well here's what the UK Met Office is currently predicting for the next week or so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/10209

A rather cloudy day for most, with outbreaks of rain across western, northern and some southern coastal areas. Drier, with some bright spells to the southeast and in the far north of Scotland. Light winds.

Tonight

Largely cloudy, with further outbreaks of rain or drizzle in the north and west. Rain may become more persistent for a time across Scotland, turning wintry on hills.

Friday

Cloudy, with outbreaks of light rain in the north. Brighter in the south. Heavier and more persistent rain into western areas later. Strengthening southeasterly winds. Rather cold in the east.

Outlook for Saturday to Monday

Unsettled, with outbreaks of rain, turning persistent and heavy at times, and perhaps turning to snow in the north, mainly over hills. Some drier spells too. Windy in the north.

Monday 21 February 2011 to Sunday 27 February 2011

Cold and mild weather battle for UK dominance
High pressure will dominate across Scandinavia at first, slowing the eastward progress of Atlantic fronts across the British Isles.

The period will start cold across the northeast of Britain, but mild and wet weather will sit across the south and west.

Weather fronts will try to move northeastwards, but until they arrive there is an increasing risk of snow falling on the higher ground of the Scottish mountains. During the following weekend, the mild but rather wet weather will win out with many areas turning milder.

Let's see if Corbyn's forecast of much more snow than that proves more accurate.

 

[Dancing David]

I predict there will be an extreme weathere event somewhere is tehw orld, I can not say what kind of event it will be, I can not say where it will happen and I can not say why it wil be less than random. But I have posted this before reading any other posts on this thread.

I too can make vague unsourced and unverifiable predictions.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110217.html

 

[Dancing David]

The biggest solar flare for 4 years was reported early on 15 Feb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12485104 and the ejected particles from it which hit Earth are a key part of the drivers of WeatherAction's long range forecasted world-wide TOP RED WARNING period 18/19 Feb.

"Our Red Warnings, especially TOP Red and Extra Top Red (ETs) mark dates when standard Met will seriously underestimate the severity of weather events and usually only predict about half (or less) of the snow or rain which will come in those events. Their models can never anticipate which of their forecasts will be notable understatements or on occasions, which we also predict at times, overstatements.

You do know what statistical noise is? Gee I wonder how many forecasts meet that standard as a miss?

 

[nvidiot]

I too can make vague unsourced and unverifiable predictions.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110217.html

[crank]

That's not an x-class flare! It's an electroluminescentsonicoacousticresiduodifferentialmountainousterranianironion discharge!

[/crank]

Sry couldn't resist.

 

[Reality Check]

The biggest solar flare for 4 years was reported early on 15 Feb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12485104 and the ejected particles from it which hit Earth are a key part of the drivers of WeatherAction's long range forecasted world-wide TOP RED WARNING period 18/19 Feb.

So it looks like Piers Corbyn's prediction depend on him being able to predict solar activity such as flares weeks or even months in advance. From these solar predictions he then has to adjust his weather predictions.

Haig: Where does Piers Corbyn publish his solar flare predictions?
For example, where is his prediction of the 15 Feb flare that he used to make the above prediction.
Or is Piers Corbyn just lying and making up a connection after the announcement of the flare?

In which case - on the 15th I had a quite large bowel movement. The ejected particles from it which hit the sewer lines are a key part of the drivers of WeatherAction's long range forecasted world-wide TOP RED WARNING period 18/19 Feb !

Of course he is just displaying an enormous amount of ignorance. Solar flares do not deliver enough energy to measurably affect the weather.
There was an similar flare on the 13th but PC ignores this.
See for example the Bad Astronomer blog for the 13th: First earthward-heading solar flare of the cycle

I’ll also note that, via reddit, I learned of a website that is making all sort of goofy weather predictions because of this flare. I can’t state categorically that flares don’t affect our weather, but if they do it is in such a minuscule way that it’s very difficult to correlate the two. That site was talking about increased rainfall in Europe from the flare, which is simply nonsense. And I also don’t think you need to worry about superstorms, either.

Followed by: Sunspot 1158 ain’t done yet

You can read all about how this works in my previous post. While this was a stronger flare — it was an X2 class, making it about 3 times more powerful than the flare from the other day — again, we’re in no real danger from it. But if you live in the extreme north or south you should watch for aurorae over the next couple of nights!

 

[Dancing David]

[crank]

That's not an x-class flare! It's an electroluminescentsonicoacousticresiduodifferentialmountainousterranianironion discharge!

[/crank]

Sry couldn't resist.

 

[Furcifer]

Nope. No flux means "no flux" from the Sun = the Sun has gone out.

Unfortunately no that's incorrect. If you had read the papers provided you'd know this.

No TSI means the sun has gone out (or some super villian had successfully blocked out the sun) no flux means "no flux".

 

[Reality Check]

Unfortunately no that's incorrect. If you had read the papers provided you'd know this.

No TSI means the sun has gone out (or some super villian had successfully blocked out the sun) no flux means "no flux".

Unfortunately no that's incorrect. If you had read the papers provided you'd know this.

No flux means no flux (and no quotes needed ). One way of getting no flux is to turn off the Sun.

No incident flux means no incident flux. One way of getting no flux is to turn off the Sun (or some super villian has successfully blocked out the sun.

No TSI means no TSI . One way of getting no TSI is to turn off the Sun (or some super villian has successfully blocked out the sun).

You seem to be unable to answer these questions :

• 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?
• 3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?
• What effect does underestimating the incident solar flux have on global warming?

Can I take this as meaning that you were just spouting unsupported assertions?