Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

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.

How about I dumb it down a bit?

No sun means no flux, but no flux doesn't imply no sun.

Got logic?

 

[Furcifer]

I'm still waiting for you to support your statement.

"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?

Accounting for the underestimate in flux, what percentage of anthropogenic warming is due to CO2 and what percentage due to the sun?
Thanks!

 

[Reality Check]

How about I dumb it down a bit?

No sun means no flux, but no flux doesn't imply no sun.

Got logic?

How about I dumb it down a bit?

No sun means no flux, but no flux doesn't imply no sun as I said "No flux means no flux (and no quotes needed ). One way of getting no flux is to turn off the Sun."

Got logic?

 

[Reality Check]

I'm still waiting for you to support your statement.
Accounting for the underestimate in flux, what percentage of anthropogenic warming is due to CO2 and what percentage due to the sun?
Thanks!

Where is your citation of the underestimate in the flux? How much was the flux underestimated? How does this underestimation in the flux change the value of in the variables in dT = λ*dF? What statement? Do you mean the obvious statement that an increase in dF leads to an increase in dT for the same λ in the equation dT = λ*dF?

• 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).


Thanks!

 

[Furcifer]

Where is your citation of the underestimate in the flux?

Stephens, G. L. and O’Brien, D. M.: Entropy and climate, I, ERBE observations of the entropy production, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 119, 121–152, 1993.
This is the conventional value and it is 4 times lower than that measured by SORCE.

How much was the flux underestimated?

You really don't have any clue what you're talking about do you? Are you having a problem with the subtraction or are you just totally clueless?

I think it's time you stopped playing climate scientist on the internet.

 

[Reality Check]

Stephens, G. L. and O’Brien, D. M.: Entropy and climate, I, ERBE observations of the entropy production, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 119, 121–152, 1993.This is the conventional value and it is 4 times lower than that measured by SORCE.

Stephens, G. L. and O’Brien, D. M.: Entropy and climate, I, ERBE observations of the entropy production, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 119, 121–152, 1993.is an interesting paper from 1993. It calculates an entropy flux through the upper boundary of the climate system of 0.68 * 10^15 W K-1 (from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment measurement).

But where is the citation to the SORCE value of entropy flux that is 4 times higher, 3bodyproblem.

or is it that "You really don't have any clue what you're talking about do you? Are you having a problem with the subtraction or are you just totally clueless?"

I think it's time you stopped playing climate scientist on the internet.

That is really idiotic, 3bodyproblem. I have already told you that I am not a climate scientist. I do not claim to be one. I do not play at being one. I do not do know how to do climate science calculations.
My area of expertise is solid state physics.

ETA:
The above value for entropy flux looks strange.
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) (published in 2011).
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).

 

[Furcifer]

But where is the citation to the SORCE value of entropy flux that is 4 times higher, 3bodyproblem.
or is it that "You really don't have any clue what you're talking about do you? Are you having a problem with the subtraction or are you just totally clueless?"

"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"

That is really idiotic, 3bodyproblem.

It is isn't it? You interject with some copypasta from a propaganda website that you don't really understand. It shows to me you aren't interested in learning anything. You have blind faith in what you read on blogs is correct.

I've asked a relatively straightforward question and presented you with peer reviewed literature to support the fact that the incident solar flux has been severally underestimated.

Accounting for the underestimate in flux, what percentage of anthropogenic warming is due to CO2 and what percentage due to the sun?

Thanks.

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

The satellite was launched in 2003!

 

[Reality Check]

"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"

A proper citation would be to where Wu et al list the values.
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.

If we assume that the TOA SSI outside [200 nm, 2400 nm] wavelengths corresponding to the SIM-based TOA SSI observations is equal to a constant fraction of the TSI of 1361Wm−2, we obtain the overall Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux of 1.24Wm−2 K−1
corresponding to the SIM-based TOA SSI through Planck expression. This value is surprisingly very close to the overall Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux of 1.23Wm−2 K−1 5 by applying the blackbody Sun’s TOA SSI into Planck expression.
Both amount to a global averaged Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux of 0.31Wm−2 K−1.
On the other hand, using the same blackbody Sun’s brightness temperature (TSun =5770 K), and assuming the global averaged cosine of solar zenith angle 10 cos0 =0.25 and solar solid angle Ò0 =6.77×10−5 sr to the planet as in Stephens and O’Brien (1993), the conventional expression (5) yields the Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux of 0.08Wm−2 K−1, 4 times smaller than that by using Planck expression and the SIM-based TOA SSI (or the blackbody Sun’s TOA SSI).

It is isn't it? You interject with some copypasta from a propaganda website that you don't really understand. It shows to me you aren't interested in learning anything. You have blind faith in what you read on blogs is correct.

That is idiotic, 3bodyproblem.
I am learning things by reading the papers that are listed on that blog.
I (mostly) understand what they post and the papers that they link to.
I have no blind faith - I analyze what they present in light of what I know about physics. This is a lot in general but not so much in climate science. The last thing I did that is even remotely related to climate was a post-graduate course on oceanography where the role of oceanic oscillations like El Nino was mentioned.

It is idiotic to label a blog a "propaganda website" when its purpose is clearly stated - to list the scientific evidence about climate change.

I've asked a relatively straightforward question and presented you with peer reviewed literature to support the fact that the incident solar flux has been severally underestimated.

I have given you a straightforward answer to your question.
But maybe you can understand this
I do not know how. Tell me how to calculate the % of global warming from the incident solar entropy flux and I will calculate that. Maybe subtracting this from the observed global warming will be the percentage of anthropogenic warming from CO2.
You are wrong: The Wu et. el. paper calculates the incident solar entropy (you misses that vital word) flux from the incidence solar radiation flux.
Using the standard model of a black body Sun they get the usual result.
Using another model of the Sun they get an incident solar entropy flux that is 4 times higher.
They give a possible cause for the large discrepancy in the estimates.

The satellite was launched in 2003!

I am not ignorant enough to think that observations of the Sun started with the launch of a satellite in 2003!
I checked and I was wrong: It was 1983 :
Entropy productions on the earth and other planets of the solar system (1983, Aoki, I.)

The entropy flux of incident solar radiation at the top of the earth atmosphere is given as 0.000031 J/sq cm per sec per deg K. The entropy production on the earth is calculated from balance equations of radiation energy and entropy and shown to be 0.000012 J/sq cm per sec per deg K. Those for other planets of the solar system are also given.

 

[Furcifer]

It is idiotic to label a blog a "propaganda website" when its purpose is clearly stated - to list the scientific evidence about climate change.

I agree. It's silly to dismiss evidence because of the source alone. The merit is in its validity, not it's URL.

I do not know how. Tell me how to calculate the % of global warming from the incident solar entropy flux and I will calculate that. Maybe subtracting this from the observed global warming will be the percentage of anthropogenic warming from CO2.[/SIZE][/hilite]

That's not what you said. You made a rather definitive statement that was incorrect so I called you on it.

I am not ignorant enough to think that observations of the Sun started with the launch of a satellite in 2003!
I checked and I was wrong: It was 1983 :
Entropy productions on the earth and other planets of the solar system (1983, Aoki, I.)

My apologies, I had no idea you happened to read an obscure 30 year old paper than just happens to be referenced in the paper I cited.

If the diluted grey body value has been known and verified for decades why do you suppose only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter? And why do they use the black body value despite this? Granted it's small in comparison to the change in albedo due to clouds, which runs as high as 6 W/m-2K-1, but it's significant. It any event do you think this has been taken into account in the calculation you've cited?

 

[Reality Check]

I do not know how. Tell me how to calculate the % of global warming from the incident solar entropy flux and I will calculate that. Maybe subtracting this from the observed global warming will be the percentage of anthropogenic warming from CO2.

That's not what you said. You made a rather definitive statement that was incorrect so I called you on it.

I have never made a "rather" definitive statement on solar entropy flux.
I have made definitive statement about the TSI and cited the evidence for it.

I have guessed that an increase in solar entropy flux would mean an increase in global temperatures.

If the diluted grey body value has been known and verified for decades why do you suppose only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter? And why do they use the black body value despite this? Granted it's small in comparison to the change in albedo due to clouds, which runs as high as 6 W/m-2K-1, but it's significant. It any event do you think this has been taken into account in the calculation you've cited?

I do not know. Do you?

I have never cited a calculation involving the solar entropy flux.

Do you mean "dT = λ*dF" from Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)?
What do you think dF is and how do you think the solar entropy flux should be included in it?

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, in the real world;

 

[Furcifer]

I have guessed that an increase in solar entropy flux would mean an increase in global temperatures.

I realized a while ago you guessed. You "have a feeling", that's a result of alarmism, not scientific evidence or understanding.

I also have a "feeling" if you put a blanket on you can warm yourself even as the room cools. I also know the energy flux into the room from my warming body increases as the temperature gradient increases. I also know how infrared heaters work. I also know how complex the interaction between the Sun and the Earth can be. As a result I'm not as easy to dismiss things I don't fully understand because I read something not entirely related on a website with a known bias.

What do you think dF is and how do you think the solar entropy flux should be included in it?

That's the difference in TSI over 100 years, not the flux. The flux contributes to the sensitivity.

 

[Reality Check]

You "have a feeling", that's a result of alarmism, not scientific evidence or understanding.

Wrong: That guess was an evaluation from my knowledge of physics. I call it a guess because I do not have much knowledge of climate science.
I am not an "alarmist" (whatever you mean by that). I am guided by the scientific evidence that global warming exists and that it is probably man made.

That's the difference in TSI over 100 years, not the flux. The flux contributes to the sensitivity.

Are you saying that dF in that equation is the difference in TSI over 100 years?

How does the solar entropy flux contribute to the climate sensitivity?

 

[Mikemcc]

I realized a while ago you guessed. You "have a feeling", that's a result of alarmism, not scientific evidence or understanding.

I also have a "feeling" if you put a blanket on you can warm yourself even as the room cools. I also know the energy flux into the room from my warming body increases as the temperature gradient increases. I also know how infrared heaters work. I also know how complex the interaction between the Sun and the Earth can be. As a result I'm not as easy to dismiss things I don't fully understand because I read something not entirely related on a website with a known bias.




That's the difference in TSI over 100 years, not the flux. The flux contributes to the sensitivity.

Do you have any evidence that this feature of the frequency distribution is, in any way, comparable to the effects of man-made CO₂?

If it is a the primary driver then I would assume that UV intensity must have dropped since the Stratosphere has been measured to be cooling (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html), yet it is particularly sensitive to UV intensity because of UV absorbtion by ozone. Is this backed up by your information?

 

[Furcifer]

Are you saying that dF in that equation is the difference in TSI over 100 years?

How does the solar entropy flux contribute to the climate sensitivity?

Correct.

The Earth isn't a black body, it's a grey body. The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you have any evidence that this feature of the frequency distribution is, in any way, comparable to the effects of man-made CO₂?

It isn't known, that's why they call for more research. CO2 forcing is 3.8-4.0 Wm-2k-1 and this is a 0.24Wm-2k-1 from the black body value.

If it is a the primary driver then I would assume that UV intensity must have dropped since the Stratosphere has been measured to be cooling (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html), yet it is particularly sensitive to UV intensity because of UV absorbtion by ozone. Is this backed up by your information?

UVA or UVB? There's a breakdown in the paper based on wavelength. I'd have to check, but yes I believe it is.

 

[Dancing David]

Now lets see 3bodyproblem, thsi relates to the thread topic how?

And so teh model will be readjusted, this is an issue because science does not readjust models?

So the model for solar radiation will be adjusted, this does not mean that we currently have any data that solar changes are driving the current increase in global temperatures, now does it?

So there is still the likely culprit of AGW.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you have any evidence that this feature of the frequency distribution is, in any way, comparable to the effects of man-made CO₂?

Nope, this is standard drive through the gaps of a model, rather than showing that AGW is not an issue.

It could be that the solar radiance is changing, that has not been shown to have an effect as of yet.

It would also override the influence of the Milkanovitch cycles. Significant changes in the solar radiance would over ride the signal of the Milkanovitch cycles.

 

[Furcifer]

Now lets see 3bodyproblem, thsi relates to the thread topic how?

If you can't figure this out yourself can you honestly say you understand anything about climate science?

And so teh model will be readjusted, this is an issue because science does not readjust models?

This is just another of many issues affecting the reliability and resolution of GCM's.

So the model for solar radiation will be adjusted, this does not mean that we currently have any data that solar changes are driving the current increase in global temperatures, now does it?

The current increase in temperature is trivial. When you look at the recent more reliable data and take into account the primary forcing like CO2, H20 and solar radiation, how much they've varied and how much we actually know about them, it's entirely possible the sun's variability is having a much more pronounced effect than we currently think.

 

[Furcifer]

Nope, this is standard drive through the gaps of a model, rather than showing that AGW is not an issue.

It's rather large gaps in the theory that are the real problem.

It could be that the solar radiance is changing, that has not been shown to have an effect as of yet.

The change in TSI isn't as much a factor as the varibility in the wavelength over the emitted spectrum. I'm not sure how that ties in to the size of the sun and things like flares and CME's, that's why I'm asking questions.

It would also override the influence of the Milkanovitch cycles. Significant changes in the solar radiance would over ride the signal of the Milkanovitch cycles.

The difference in flux from the blackbody to greybody is half of that measured from peak to peak of a Milankovitch cycle. That's a lot of energy. Solar flares release considerably more peak energy, but over a much much smaller time period. It can't all be dismissed as a fart in the wind because there are some observable correlations to change in climate.