Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

While TSI remains fairly steady it varies considerably throughout the spectrum it emits.

You need to learn what the TSI is. It does not emit a spectrum!
The Sun emits a spectrum. This spectrum varies. The TSI is an integration over the spectrum that gives a number that represents the total solar radition flux.

Difference parts of the spectrum affect the Earth and hence the climate in different ways. That means the black body monochromatic approach to TSI doesn't come close to properly estimating the entropy flux at TOA.

More ambiguity:

• There is no "black body monochromatic approach to TSI".
  The TSI is calculated directly from the incident solar radiation.
• TSI is not used in calculating the entropy flux at TOA.

The TOA entropy flux is calculated from the TOA radiation flux. That calculation involves the spectral variation in the radiation flux. The usual assumption is that the spectral variation is that of a blackbody since the Sun's spectrum is roughly that of a blackbody. Wu et. al (2011) showed that by using a "grey body" assumption they get an entropy flux that is times larger.

The question that you cannot seem to answer is what impact the paper's results have on climate.
You have asserted that the incident solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity. But you have not given any source for that assertion.
You seem to think that an increase in entropy flux means an increase in climate sensitivity. But you have not given any source for that assertion.

One thing you may not have realized:
Here is the equation relating temperature change to driving force change:

dT = λ*dF
​

where λ is climate sensitivity. The current estimate for this is 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2).
Increasing climate sensitivity increases the effect of the driving forces. Thus what you are suggesting is that any increase in CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth even more than the current models predict !

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, that's the paper I posted, not the garbage you posted. I said what you posted, not what I posted. You don't remember who posted what do you?

I remember who posted what. You posted:
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF)
published in 2011 by Wu et. al.
You are wrong about its contents. That paper has no equations for solar entropy flux & climate sensitivity.

I posted: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version).

You're lying now. Nothing has been verified by observation.

You're lying now. Climate models have been verified by observations.
A little light reading for you since you seem to be ignorant about climate models: How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

You haven't even read the Schönwiese paper, how do you know there's an error? Now your qualified to peer review papers and a climate scientist familiar with model predictions over the last 17 years? Someone needs a reality check alright.

How dumb - I never said that the Schönwiese paper (whatever it was) had an error in it.

I said that the quote from Schönwiese is from 1994.
He did not have a time machine. He was unaware that the climate model predictions of 1994 would be verified by observations.

 

[Reality Check]

It's as simple as this, climate scientists can't predict the climate any better than meteorologists can the weather.

I had better point out the common misconception that this statement of yours shows: Climate is not weather - it is averaged weather. Thus climate scientists can predict the climate better then meteorologists can the weather.
The difference between weather and climate

Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.
...
Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006).

 

[Furcifer]

You need to learn what the TSI is. It does not emit a spectrum!

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

The TSI is an integration over the spectrum that gives a number that represents the total solar radition flux.

I don't know who you think you're fooling or trying to fool, but it isn't working.

The incident solar radiation entropy flux is estimated from the Sun's brightness temperature or measured by SORCE. Did you read the paper at all? It specifically tells you that this is not being done and that's part of the reason climate models don't include entropy.

I'd pay money to see you do that integration though.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know who you think you're fooling or trying to fool, but it isn't working.

The incident solar radiation entropy flux is estimated from the Sun's brightness temperature or measured by SORCE. Did you read the paper at all? It specifically tells you that this is not being done and that's part of the reason climate models don't include entropy.

I'd pay money to see you do that integration though.

I don't know who you think you're fooling or trying to fool, but it isn't working.


That is what I said: The solar radiation entropy flux is not measured from the TSI as you implied.

Did you read the paper at all? That is what it states. The incident solar radiation entropy flux is estimated in that paper from the Sun's brightness temperature as measured by SORCE. To be more eact:

Here, we use these spectral irradiance measurements to estimate the Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux, and examine the importance of a proper estimation approach.

as in the abstract.

I'd pay money to see you answer question coherently though.

 

[Haig]

The warmist conspiracy is so strong, that almost everybody has forgotten that back in 1988 the International Panel on Global Warming (IPGW) was formed and continued to operate under that name for 22 years until approximately last year, when the warmist conspiracy decided to rename the issue to "climate change". They went through all the printed and electronic copies around the world and revised "IPGW" to now say "IPCC" for "Climate Change", along with doing brain wipes of most of the population. Amazingly most people are deluded into thinking that "Climate Change" has been a leading description for decades! In fact, only a small band of heroic skeptics avoided the brain wipe, and are proud to let the rest of us know that "Climate Change" is a new label applied only recently for political reasons.

Naw! you've got that all wrong, this is the real picture:

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know who you think you're fooling or trying to fool, but it isn't working.


That is what I said: The solar radiation entropy flux is not measured from the TSI as you implied.

Did you read the paper at all? That is what it states. The incident solar radiation entropy flux is estimated in that paper from the Sun's brightness temperature as measured by SORCE. To be more eact:

as in the abstract.

I'd pay money to see you answer question coherently though.

Not surprisingly all the alarmists on the JREF can't muster a single original thought.

Thanks for the copypasta

 

[CapelDodger]

Translation- "But I'm smarter than every one, this stuff is sooo easy. I shoulda been a climate scientist full time, instead of in my spare time on the internet"

Oh the irony ...

While TSI remains fairly steady it varies considerably throughout the spectrum it emits. Difference parts of the spectrum affect the Earth and hence the climate in different ways. That means the black body monochromatic approach to TSI doesn't come close to properly estimating the entropy flux at TOA.

Not even close? How much out is it estimated to be, with what uncertainty?

Recent studies suggest plasma stream just below the surface of the sun have considerable affect on the entropy flux and hence the climate.

Taking your word for that (for now) ... how considerable? It can't be enormous or it wouldn't only be "suggested". If it increases the entropy it will affect the total radiation (entropy is carried from the Sun to Earth by radiation, of course) which would be detecteded by satellites from a change in the spectrum.

Or you can believe "It's an open and shut case". Scientists don't.

It's an open-and-shut case that a warming world (which is what we've got) means that more entropy is coming in than is going out. Do you have another case?

Scientists haven't been scratching their heads trying to explain the solar spectrum and its variations. They'd only do that if there appeared to be a problem with the established understanding. You, on the other hand, are scratching around for something, anything, which might provide a better explanation than the laws of physics as we know them. Or, failing that, obfuscation (giving up on energy flow, for instance, since it doesn't work for you, and going to "entropy flux", which most people won't understand).

 

[Hindmost]

This is just a heart warming exchange...

 

[Furcifer]

Not even close? How much out is it estimated to be, with what uncertainty?

How many times does it need to be repeated? Is this some sort of tactic?

Taking your word for that (for now) ... how considerable?

Don't know, ain't science fun!

It can't be enormous or it wouldn't only be "suggested".

That's a nonsequitor. It's "suggested" because it isn't proven, needs more study etc.

If it increases the entropy it will affect the total radiation (entropy is carried from the Sun to Earth by radiation, of course) which would be detecteded by satellites from a change in the spectrum.

That's not correct, entropy is a result of radiation interacting with the Earth. The intensity of incident radiation varies throughout the spectrum on a fairly regular basis.

It's an open-and-shut case that a warming world (which is what we've got) means that more entropy is coming in than is going out. Do you have another case?

That's an assumption, it isn't proven however. If it were possible to accurately measure the change in entropy GW would be an open and shut case. Until then we have a rough estimate of the Sun's energy and some poorly placed thermometers.

Scientists haven't been scratching their heads trying to explain the solar spectrum and its variations.

They have when it comes to how it affects the climate.

They'd only do that if there appeared to be a problem with the established understanding.

There's no understanding to begin with.

You, on the other hand, are scratching around for something, anything, which might provide a better explanation than the laws of physics as we know them.

Well that doesn't make any sense.

Or, failing that, obfuscation (giving up on energy flow, for instance, since it doesn't work for you, and going to "entropy flux", which most people won't understand).

This tends to be the problem with alarmists, they go "Oh no CO2, aaaaakckk! we're all going to die". If global warming were as simple as measuring CO2 ppm climate science would be a rather simple affair. Instead we're employing super computers and some of the most brilliant minds on the planet to figure this thing out.
In the mean time taking a closer look at the sun is actually a very good idea. If you bothered to try and read the paper cited you'd see the radius of the sun is a consideration in the calculation of TSI. I'm not sure how important it actually is, but that's not my job. I'm just here to point out how foolish it is to assume more than you really know and instead take a skeptical look at the issue.

 

[Reality Check]

Not surprisingly all the alarmists on the JREF can't muster a single original thought.

Thanks for the copypasta

Not surprisingly all the denilists on the JREF can't muster a single original thought.

Thanks for the display of unsupported assertions (ignorance?)

Here is the copypasta once again for you to ignore:
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version).
Wow what a lot of text copied!
Wow what a lot of scientific paper ignored by 3bodyproblem

Here is the question that you are running away from:
How does the solar entropy flux affect climate sensitivity?

dT = λ*dF
​

where λ is climate sensitivity.

Here is the paper that you are lying about:
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF)
published in 2011 by Wu et. al.
You are wrong about its contents. That paper has no equations for solar entropy flux & climate sensitivity.

Maybe you are right in your assertion that the increase in the estimate of solar entropy flux mentioned in the Wu et. al. paper will increase climate sensitivity. What you have not realized is that this will increase the temperature change resulting from the radiative forcing in the above equation. So you are asserting that the increase in solar entropy flux will make global warming worse.

This does not matter becasue the estimates of the climate sensitivity (AFAIK) include solar entropy flux, i.e. they are worked out from observations.

 

[Furcifer]

Not surprisingly all the denilists on the JREF can't muster a single original thought.

Alarmist says what?

What's with the mimicking like a 3yr old? I thought you had to be of age to be a member but your lack of knowledge and childish posting style suggest otherwise.

 

[DC]

Alarmist says what?

What's with the mimicking like a 3yr old? I thought you had to be of age to be a member but your lack of knowledge and childish posting style suggest otherwise.

stones glass houses etc.....

you are laughable.

 

[Reality Check]

Alarmist says what?

What's with the mimicking like a 3yr old? I thought you had to be of age to be a member but your lack of knowledge and childish posting style suggest otherwise.

I am mimicking a 3bodyproblem not a 3yr old. You throw inane insults at me. I am merely showing how inane they are.

I am not an "alarmist". Do not project your delusions about what I am on me.
I am a skeptic. I have looked at the evidence for global warming and see that is is strong enough to convince me that some action needs to be taken in case it continues.
ETA
IMO The temperatures increases will be slow enough and the effects gradual enough that we will be able to adapt to the new conditions. There may be massive upheavals, e.g. farmers having to swap over to different crops, some populations having to move, etc. Anything that can be done to reduce the impact should be done. So emphasizing the carbon part of the econony in order to reduce CO2 emissions is good.


You are continuing to show your ignorance of climate science by asserting that climate sensitivity has been underestimated by not including solar entropy flux and not understanding

• that the climate will responds to radiative forcing such as greenhouse gasses by increasing temperature even more.
• that the estimates of climate sensitivity are taken from observations that include the actual solar entropy flux.

Just in case your ignorance is extends to our knowledge of CO2 effects: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

 

[Furcifer]

I am not an "alarmist". Do not project your delusions about what I am on me.
I am a skeptic. I have looked at the evidence for global warming and see that is is strong enough to convince me that some action needs to be taken in case it continues.

Clearly you are. You've been lying about what you know or at the very least overstating it. It's been anything but skeptical as you push a theory you don't fully understand. I just don't see the point.

Don't be ashamed, none of the alarmists on this site actually want to learn more. They just come for the fear mongering. I have yet to see any come to the realization, that almost every climate scientist shares with me, that this science in no where near able to understand the climate let alone make reliable forecasts beyond that of your average 6 o'clock weatherman.

That's a simple fact.

ETA
IMO The temperatures increases will be slow enough and the effects gradual enough that we will be able to adapt to the new conditions. There may be massive upheavals, e.g. farmers having to swap over to different crops, some populations having to move, etc. Anything that can be done to reduce the impact should be done. So emphasizing the carbon part of the econony in order to reduce CO2 emissions is good.

That really remains to be seen. The last NASA model I saw spit out a 1.4C increase in average global temperature by 2100 under a business as usual scenario. It's not business as usual, so there's a bias, they don't take in to account the cloud cover (eta: very well), which is a wild card. Cloud forcing represents a change in temperature more than 1.4 degrees. And we are headed into a solar minimum.

Simply put CO2 forcing is still within natural variations of climate. That coupled with our ability to GM crops suggests to me at least even major changes in cash crops might not be required.

You are continuing to show your ignorance of climate science by asserting that climate sensitivity has been underestimated by not including solar entropy flux and not understanding

I can't be more clear on this, sensitivity is directly related to flux. There's nothing more I can tell you.

Perhaps you want to explain what you think sensitivity is then go from there?

• that the climate will responds to radiative forcing such as greenhouse gasses by increasing temperature even more.

• 
  
  Yes, and the flux tells us what "even more" is.
  
  

  [*]that the estimates of climate sensitivity are taken from observations that include the actual solar entropy flux.

  
  What's you source? Post your "estimates of climate sensitivity" so we can discuss them.
  

Just in case your ignorance is extends to our knowledge of CO2 effects: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Fitting you ended this post with the alarmist mantra, when cornered THEY ALWAYS resort to "You just don't understand!"

The same thing goes with most conspiracy theories, they claim people just don't understand. Yes CO2 causes warming, but we have no idea how much because the climate is highly complex. If it were a simple thing the climate models would at the very least be able to perform a regression. They can't.

 

[Reality Check]

What is climate sensitivity, 3bodyproblem

Clearly you are. You've been lying about what you know or at the very least overstating it. It's been anything but skeptical as you push a theory you don't fully understand. I just don't see the point.

You are lying. Clearly I am not.
I have stated that I am not a climate scientist. I know a lot of physics. I am not "pushing" any theory. I have cited the evidence for global warming and that it is man-made.
If you ignore it or cannot understand it or cannot produce evidence that invalidates it then that is your problem, 3bodyproblem.

Don't be ashamed, none of the alarmists on this site actually want to learn more.

I am not ashamed because I am not an alarmist except in your head.
I have actually learned something from our exchange, e.g. the role of entropy in the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.That

I can't be more clear on this, sensitivity is directly related to flux. There's nothing more I can tell you.

I can't be more clear on this: you have presented no evidence that climate sensitivity is directly related to entropy flux.
IMO climate sensitivity is related to entropy flux but that does not matter because according to you I do not know anything !

Perhaps you want to explain what you think sensitivity is then go from there?

I thnk that climate sensitivity is what it is defined in climate science (as in my citations).
You next: What is climate sensitivity, 3bodyproblem?

Yes, and the flux tells us what "even more" is.

Yes, and you are repeating your assertion once more withoiut any evidence.

What's you source? Post your "estimates of climate sensitivity" so we can discuss them.

Already posted. But AR4 has a good review of.

Fitting you ended this post with the alarmist mantra, when cornered THEY ALWAYS resort to "You just don't understand!"

There you go with your usual ignorant "alarmist" rant.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? is a link to a blog post that explains why we know that CO2 is causing the observed global warming. That blog post contains citations of the scientific literature. The blog itself has a stated commitment to back up all entries with the science behind the topic.
It would take someone quite delusional to think that the scientific evidence for a cause for global warming is "alarmist". It is science. Live with it.

P.S. I did not say that you did not understand the evidence that CO2 causes warming. I thought that you were ignorant of the strong evidence that CO2 causes warming. I still do not know whether you remain ignorant or not.

 

[Trakar]

...The last NASA model I saw spit out a 1.4C increase in average global temperature by 2100 under a business as usual scenario...

Please present the evidence to support your assertion.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

BTW - In this instance, BAU models are generally considered extreme conditions,...with good cause.

 

[Furcifer]

You are lying. Clearly I am not.

About what? When I said you were a parrot it was figurative.

I am not ashamed because I am not an alarmist except in your head.
I have actually learned something from our exchange, e.g. the role of entropy in the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

I consider it alarmist to object to something on principle and not with evidence. Having a "feeling" because Al Gore said you should is not skepticism, it's alarmism.

I can't be more clear on this: you have presented no evidence that climate sensitivity is directly related to entropy flux.

Again this is your own failing because you don't understand and you refuse to listen. It's childish, much like your parroting behaviour you continue to exhibit. I can't hold your hand, especially if you don't want to go.

You next: What is climate sensitivity, 3bodyproblem?

The amount of energy needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. What's flux? Just the units alone should make that light bulb go off in your head.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? is a link to a blog post that explains why we know that CO2 is causing the observed global warming. That blog post contains citations of the scientific literature. The blog itself has a stated commitment to back up all entries with the science behind the topic.

More copypasta. How do you expect to learn regurgitating from the blogsphere?

It would take someone quite delusional to think that the scientific evidence for a cause for global warming is "alarmist". It is science. Live with it.

It takes an alarmist to extend the consensus opinion that the world has warmed by a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years because of CO2 to mean anything but that.

P.S. I did not say that you did not understand the evidence that CO2 causes warming. I thought that you were ignorant of the strong evidence that CO2 causes warming. I still do not know whether you remain ignorant or not.

CO2 is not the only part of the climate. Alarmists think it's the only thing and dismiss things like radiation and the diameter of the sun. That's what I'm takin about.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: An increase in solar entropy flux will make global warming worse

About what? When I said you were a parrot it was figurative.

You were lying about me being an alarmist.

I consider it alarmist to object to something on principle and not with evidence. Having a "feeling" because Al Gore said you should is not skepticism, it's alarmism.

I agree.
That why I have not objected to any of your assertions "on principle". I have objected to then because you have not supported them.
That is why I do not support the theory of global warming "on principle". I support it because I have read the evidence for and against global warming and it is enough to convince me from my extensive, general knowedge of physics.

Who is Al Gore ?
I do not have any "feeling" because of the propaganda film that Al Gore put out.

Again this is your own failing because you don't understand and you refuse to listen. It's childish, much like your parroting behaviour you continue to exhibit. I can't hold your hand, especially if you don't want to go.

Again you are ranting: I understand that you have presented no evidence that climate sensitivity is directly related to entropy flux for the simple reason that you have presented no evidence.
I have listened to you. All you have done is repeat your assertion - you have presented no evidence.

The amount of energy needed to change the temperature by 1 degree. What's flux? Just the units alone should make that light bulb go off in your head.

Entropy flux units = W m−2 K−1

More copypasta. How do you expect to learn regurgitating from the blogsphere?

That is idoitic. I learn by reading the papers in the link. The blog makes it easier to link to the papers, e.g.
I can do this: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

Or I can do this: CO2 is causing warming. Read

• Evans 2006 (for the greenhouse gas spectrum)
• Harries 2001 (satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation)
• Puckrin 2004 (transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy)
• Myhre 1998 (a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere)
• IPCC 2007 (a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2)
• Hansen 2005 (if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached equilibrium)
• Meehl 2004 (the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero )
• etc.

It takes an alarmist to extend the consensus opinion that the world has warmed by a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years because of CO2 to mean anything but that.

It takes an ignorant person to think that climate scientist "extend" the observation of global warming into the future by assuming that it will continue. What they do is model the climate and these models

1. Match the past climate.
2. Made predicitons that were then verified.
3. Make predictions for the future.

CO2 is not the only part of the climate. Alarmists think it's the only thing and dismiss things like radiation and the diameter of the sun. That's what I'm takin about.

That is right and why you remain deluded if you think that I am an alarmist. I know that

• There are other greenhouse gasses.
• There are aerosols.
• There is the TSI (solar radiation).
• There are clouds.
• etc.

The diameter of the Sun does vary and does cause a small variation in output of about 0.001% (Dziembowski et al., 2001). There are suggestions of past correlations between climate abd the diameter (Possible links between the solar radius variations and the Earth's climate evolution over the past four centuries )
I know of no current research on the topic.

Only an idiot would think the climate scientists (or me!) ignore radiation. The Sun is really, really important in climate science !

And one more time for you to ignore yet again:
Maybe you are right in your assertion that the increase in the estimate of solar entropy flux mentioned in the Wu et. al. paper will increase climate sensitivity. What you have not realized is that this will increase the temperature change resulting from the radiative forcing in the above equation. So you are asserting that an increase in solar entropy flux (causing an increase in climate sensitivity) will make global warming worse.

The math is simple:
Here is the equation: dT = λ*dF where λ is climate sensitivity, dT is change in global temperature, dF is change in radiative forcing.
Increase climate sensitivity and you increase the effect of all radiative forcing. This includes the effect from the changing diameter of the Sun. This includes the TSI forcing. This includes CO2 forcing. Etc.

 

[Pixel42]

CO2 is not the only part of the climate. Alarmists think it's the only thing and dismiss things like radiation and the diameter of the sun. That's what I'm takin about.

No-one here thinks CO2 is the only thing that affects the climate. We all know it's one of many things that do so. It's just that the CO2 level is the only thing that's changing significantly at the moment, and hence the only thing that's currently causing real concern about the extent of the change in the climate that's likely to result.

Changes in solar radiation tend to be cyclical over periods of decades, and so are intrinsically less concerning than something that is only going to go up for the foreseeable future.