Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Trakar]

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.

Agreed, though I don't know how much of this I'd pin to things like solar diameter, probably better to just say that we have evidence that our Sun's output varies over time due to a number of factors, but largely in a consistent manner, and we don't worry too much about this as long as the variations adhere to historic values and ranges.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/45/2011/esdd-2-45-2011.pdf

I've read it, and the reviewer comments (which are short), and I still don't know why we're talking about this. It's a very abstruse subject, and the data dealt with only covers 2004-10. About half a solar-cycle. This is likely to matter why? If it did the subject would already be under study because the climate was not behaving as expected. But it is behaving as expected.

Entropy does not drive climate. Climate is driven by physical processes. Increasing entropy in a closed system (such as the Universe, but not Earth's climate) is a thermodynamic principle, but not a force.

The only physical effect of solar spectrum radiation suggested in the paper is the fact that different wavelengths are absorbed in different parts of the atmosphere, but that variation is actually quite simple. UV is mostly absorbed in the stratosphere (still, thankfully) while longer wavelengths get through to the troposphere. That's about it.

It's been known for years that the TSI variation over a solar cycle is skewed towards UV (it's about 0.1% for TSI but about 0.2% for the UV fraction). This has an impact on stratospheric temperature and on the tropopause, calculable and observed. The solar-cycle impact on the troposphere is less, and much more obscured by surface effects (oceans, mountain ranges, icecaps, stuff like that).

This discussion paper is no doubt a useful addition to a scientific portfolio, but based on half a solar-cycle when solar spectral variation is its central issue. It's more philosophy (pinning down the entropy flow behind the physical processes involved) than it is practical science.

I think the reason it's emerged is to somehow give credence to Corbyn's post-normal astrology (indirectly, by suggesting a generic solar-cycle mystery influence which The Team are ignoring), and to back the "we don't know everything so we know nothing" argument beloved of the simple-minded.

And it has "entropy flux", which is soooooo Deep Space 9. "Oi re-calibrated the entropy flux variation on that moyself, there was nuttin' wrang with it!"

 

[CapelDodger]

Agreed, though I don't know how much of this I'd pin to things like solar diameter, probably better to just say that we have evidence that our Sun's output varies over time due to a number of factors, but largely in a consistent manner, and we don't worry too much about this as long as the variations adhere to historic values and ranges.

Referring back to Project Astrometria, the OP-linked piece starts explicitly with "We can't measure this accurately until we get up there above the atmosphere with the right instruments". Only then does get into telling us what the observations will be, and what they mean .

It reminds me of the Great Weather-Station Photo Shoot, which was announced with great fanfares regarding what the data would show when it came in. As the data came in the fanfares faded, and now it's as if it never happened. (Unlike the Queensland floods, and those in Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and Brazil ...)

So what's the update on Project Astrometria, Haig? In cartoon format if you've got it, but anything not in Russian would be good.

 

[CapelDodger]

How many times does it need to be repeated?

Once more. If you know.

Try 38%.

Is this some sort of tactic?

No. "Try 38%" might be.

Don't know, ain't science fun!

Numbers are dull for some, but science tries to deal in them. "Considerable" just can't match numbers (especially when they come with explicit uncertainties). Even "significant" has some meaning.

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

If it was enormous it would have been noticed, not in some obscure paper on input entropy-flow from the Sun (the paper doesn't even address output entropy-flow) but in reality.

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.

That's the blackbody assumption, which the paper refutes. (Permission to treat the paper as a hostile witness, your honour?)

I am, of course, correct that entropy is carried from Sun to Earth by radiation. (Yes, there's some from solar flares and solar wind, but the day-in day-out transfer is by radiation.). It's also carried thusly to a satellite above the atmosphere, where the spectrum can be measured by, for instance, the SIM instrument on SORCE, which is what the discussion paper is based on.

Entropy is inversely related to wavelength. Ergo, if entropy varies signiicantly it shows up in the spectrum.

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.

Entropy and energy are not the same thing, and "poorly placed thermometers" is just sad. AGW is proven by the fact that it's happening, it requires no new laws of physics (on the contrary, it would requires new laws to explain why it didn't happen, but it has, so there's no need), and is based on the energy budget.

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

There's no observable effect outside current understanding, which is why you're left to grasp at an obscure (and apparently hostile) discussion paper on how entropy ties into the important stuff.

There's no understanding to begin with.

There is. You could share in some of it if you wanted to.

Well that doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense to people observing you.

This tends to be the problem with alarmists ...

For the record, I'm not an alarmist. I'm loving this.

...they go "Oh no CO2, aaaaakckk! we're all going to die".

Also for the record, you are all going to die. I have other plans, and so far they're working out.

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.

The computers aren't figuring things out, they're just running the numbers. And those brilliant minds have figured a great deal out. Many of them are alarmed (I blame it on caring, which I don't).

In the mean time taking a closer look at the sun is actually a very good idea.

There are solar scientists doing just that, and I follow their considerable progress with great interest. Sun-directed satellites (and computer models) have led to understanding of what was previously hidden.

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.

The paper doesn't say that.

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.

I'm here to point out that how foolish it is to think that what you don't know, nobody knows. That what you have no understanding of, nobody has any understanding of. And that "poorly placed thermometers" are at the heart of things.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have actually learned something from our exchange, e.g. the role of entropy in the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

You've been prompted to consider the subject, and no doubt you'll learn from that . I think it's important to stress that entropy plays no role in any physical process. It emerges on a meta-level. A fascinating subject, but not one that has any primary significance in matters such as climate.

 

[Furcifer]

Once more. If you know.
Try 38%.
No. "Try 38%" might be.

Try 400%, I don't know the uncertainty

Numbers are dull for some, but science tries to deal in them. "Considerable" just can't match numbers (especially when they come with explicit uncertainties). Even "significant" has some meaning.

Where's 400% on your chart? It's off mine.

I am, of course, correct that entropy is carried from Sun to Earth by radiation. (Yes, there's some from solar flares and solar wind, but the day-in day-out transfer is by radiation.).

No it isn't. It's a novel idea though, kinda like TSI is the entropy UPS.

Entropy is inversely related to wavelength.

Say what girlfriend? Could you express that as an equation? Maybe you mean intensity?

Entropy and energy are not the same thing,

Well at least we agree on that.

and "poorly placed thermometers" is just sad.

Oh, and we agree on this.

AGW is proven by the fact that it's happening,

That tends to work in its favour.

it requires no new laws of physics

Nope. Although I think this entropy varies inversely with wavelength thing might be new. I think it may require some revision, I'm not sure.

(on the contrary, it would requires new laws to explain why it didn't happen,

I'm not sure "more clouds" would be a new law of physics. But I think I can see where you are going with this.

but it has, so there's no need), and is based on the energy budget.

Where's the budget?

There's no observable effect outside current understanding, which is why you're left to grasp at an obscure (and apparently hostile) discussion paper on how entropy ties into the important stuff.

Well there's the denial, if you don't or won't see it, it mustn't exist.

It makes sense to people observing you.

Who? The one parroting everything? I doubt it.

For the record, I'm not an alarmist. I'm loving this.

You clearly have alarmist tendencies.

Also for the record, you are all going to die. I have other plans, and so far they're working out.

The computers aren't figuring things out,

No fooling!

they're just running the numbers.

Exactly, GIGO.

And those brilliant minds have figured a great deal out. Many of them are alarmed (I blame it on caring, which I don't).

See this is an alarmist tendency, to project. The actual climate scientists aren't sure what's going on. They know the Earth has warmed a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years and it's due in part to CO2. Some of it might be due to solar activity or variation in size, changes in albedo due to deforestation, changes in cloud cover etc. There's so many other things involved that it's a fraction of a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years. That's nothing to get all worked up about.

But oh no, there go the glaciers, the sea is rising, the hurricanes are growing more intense, the storms are getting worse! Acckk!

There are solar scientists doing just that, and I follow their considerable progress with great interest. Sun-directed satellites (and computer models) have led to understanding of what was previously hidden.

No you don't, you read alarmist blogs and fear monger to people. You don't have any intention of discussing climate science in a friendly and lively manner.

I'm here to point out that how foolish it is to think that what you don't know, nobody knows. That what you have no understanding of, nobody has any understanding of. And that "poorly placed thermometers" are at the heart of things.

Poorly placed ground based thermometers. I like satellites. We're starting to get reliable data, that's a start.

 

[Trakar]

originally by 3bodyproblem
...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.

I'm here to point out that how foolish it is to think that what you don't know, nobody knows. That what you have no understanding of, nobody has any understanding of. And that "poorly placed thermometers" are at the heart of things.

From here,...his job looks much easier than yours. He just needs to keep shaking his head, stamping his feet, and declaring the problems are too great and too complex to ever understand.

You, on the other hand, have to convince a person apparently uninterested in (and in many cases disbelieving of) rigorous mainstream scientific understandings, dismissive of empiric evidences and often neglectful of basic standards of reason and logic, that their personal beliefs, druthers and "common sense" mythunderstandings are not good foundational principles upon which to base their understanding of the universe...

Good Luck!!

BTW is anyone in this thread still defending the perspective that we are looking at global cooling until 2100, or are we just discussing AGW in an open thread now?

 

[Furcifer]

I think it's important to stress that entropy plays no role in any physical process. It emerges on a meta-level.

I can't believe you just said that. You just scrapped the second law of thermodynamics. Wow.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo2.html

 

[Furcifer]

From here,...his job looks much easier than yours. He just needs to keep shaking his head, stamping his feet, and declaring the problems are too great and too complex to ever understand.

You, on the other hand, have to convince a person apparently uninterested in (and in many cases disbelieving of) rigorous mainstream scientific understandings, dismissive of empiric evidences and often neglectful of basic standards of reason and logic, that their personal beliefs, druthers and "common sense" mythunderstandings are not good foundational principles upon which to base their understanding of the universe...

Good Luck!!

BTW is anyone in this thread still defending the perspective that we are looking at global cooling until 2100, or are we just discussing AGW in an open thread now?

Well since we scrapped the second law of thermodynamics I guess we should be fine. Capel Doger just solved global warming. I just wish he would have waited until Summer.

 

[Haig]

24-2-11
UK Parliament Transport select committee into December cold & snow crisis publishes evidence. Met Office in denial.

The full list of submissions is via:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/weather/contents.htm

Piers Corbyn's submission is via:- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/weather/m27.htm

Some of the documents Piers refers to are:
(3) Page 1 of 6 page WeatherAction forecast for December 2010
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No38.pdf
(4) USA & Australia lashed by simulatneous superstorms around 31 Jan
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No3.pdf
(5) A 48 slide Powerpoint pdf 6Mb presentation was also submitted

ALL 5 documents submitted &/or links thereto will be E mailed to enquirers please e mail piers@weatheraction.com with 'Parliamentary submission' in title bar

The Met Office submission is on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/weather/m4.htm

Piers Corbyn says.
"I think it is a step forward for my evidence to be accepted and thank the Committee which I hope will put the needs of the country before ideology in it's deliberations. THE MET OFFICE's submission is, I would say: a Mubarak-style, bunkerish, self-serving, denial of reality:-
- They claim to have learned some valuable lessons but show none.
- They say 'accurate regional forecasts on a monthly scale have proved to be useful' !!! Perhaps they are talking about someone else's forecasts (eg WeatherAction's). The observed FACT is Met Office seasonal forecasts have demonstrably negative skill. They have consistently - with zero success in all the last 6 unusual (extreme) seasons - misled the public, emergency services and Councils and led to deaths on unsalted roads consequent on ill-advised Council's believing MetOffice warmist winter forecasts.
- They say 'we are committed to developing the cutting edge science employed in monthly and seasonal forecasting'. This is as delusional as Colonel Gaddafi. Their science is not cutting edge, it has failed 6 times over. They have not shown any commitment to work with us or support our work; and note our success rate on the last 6 unusual (extreme) seasons is 6 out of 6**.
- Then their pinnacle of self-serving arrogance
'The extent and speed of this development is, of course, dependent on the availability of resources – particularly in supercomputing power to enable modelling to incorporate new science and understanding.'
NOT SO! No amount of taxpayers money wasted on more supercomputers could improve their forecasts at all. Their models are based on false assumptions and more computer power will only produce misleading forecasts faster. The problem needs proper Physics and equations - which we research into, develop and apply - NOT bigger computers."

** See Report of BBC meeting hosted by Royal Society re Forecasting Competition - http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No34.pdf The 6 season-extremes are the floody summers 07, 08, 09; winters 08/09, 09/10 and this winter's coldest for 100 years December and ongoing notable cold & snow in Scotland + North & NE England

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=315&c=5

Piers Corbyn appears to be successfully predicting the weather, weeks and months in advance, by studying activities on the Sun and how the Earth-Sun connection interacts.

The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game

Should be worrying that he agrees with the Russians in the OP Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100?

 

[Pixel42]

Piers Corbyn appears to be successfully predicting the weather, weeks and months in advance, by studying activities on the Sun and how the Earth-Sun connection interacts.

This is what he claims. However I still have yet to see a shred of evidence to support that claim. The evidence I am myself in the process of compiling certainly shows no signs yet of supporting the claim.

The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game

Two comments on the article nail it:

Why is Boris so keen to take Corbyn's word for it that his forecasts are right?
Corbyn's Christmas forecast for Queensland?
Warm and dry with a heatwave in the South.
What actually happened?
Floods of Biblical proportions.

The article says "he put his own money on a white Christmas" specifically his bet was:

"William Hill accepted the £750 bet from meteorological expert Piers Corbyn, who believes snow will fall on December 25th in Newcastle, Leeds and Norwich." (Source: 'Bookmakers Accepts Biggest Ever White Christmas Bet' news.777.com)

and the actual snowfall was:

"Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and the north-east all recorded snowfall, while the rest of the country experienced cold temperatures, but escaped more snow."

So that's 0 out of 3 to Piers! Somehow I don't think we will hear about this in any of his press releases! Sadly I doubt that this will make any of his very enthusiastic fans apply even the tiniest bit of critical thinking to his claims or methods.

Should be worrying that he agrees with the Russians in the OP Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100?

When someone like Corbyn agrees with a claim you know it must be extremely dubious.

 

[Pixel42]

Poorly placed ground based thermometers. I like satellites. We're starting to get reliable data, that's a start.

Well let's see how this "reliable data" compares with that obtained from the "Poorly placed ground based thermometers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Hmm.

 

[Haig]

This is what he claims. However I still have yet to see a shred of evidence to support that claim.

If you had looked into the background of Piers Corbyn and WeatherAction over the last 20 years you may just see that evidence and how/why he makes his claims, instead of shooting from the hip.

Here's a place to start
Thursday 24 Feb 2011 Forecasts with proven skill

The evidence I am myself in the process of compiling certainly shows no signs yet of supporting the claim.

Two comments on the article nail it:

When someone like Corbyn agrees with a claim you know it must be extremely dubious.

Your bias is showing

Why don't you just cut your Spanish WeatherAction Inquisition short (It was intended to maintain Catholic weather orthodoxy in their kingdoms) and just get to the bit were you declare Corbyn a heretic and have him burned at the stake

 

[Pixel42]

If you had looked into the background of Piers Corbyn and WeatherAction over the last 20 years you may just see that evidence and how/why he makes his claims, instead of shooting from the hip.

Here's a place to start
Thursday 24 Feb 2011 Forecasts with proven skill

As this appears to have been published today, looking for it at any time over the last 20 years would have been pointless, would it not? But as it appears he has now (finally!) published some data to support his claim I will at last be able to critically evaluate it. I'm about to go out for a few hours, but I'll take a look at it this evening.

Your bias is showing

Coming from you, that's hilarious.

Why don't you just cut your Spanish WeatherAction Inquisition short (It was intended to maintain Catholic weather orthodoxy in their kingdoms) and just get to the bit were you declare Corbyn a heretic and have him burned at the stake

Because I judge claims by the evidence that supports them, not by blind belief as you seem to. When you are going to declare Corbyn a God and start worshipping him?

 

[Dancing David]

Well since we scrapped the second law of thermodynamics I guess we should be fine. Capel Doger just solved global warming. I just wish he would have waited until Summer.

So entropy is another term you abuse. And now the second law, not suprising.

You apparently don't know what either really define or mean, and I imagine you can't say why they would be relevant to the discussion.

But you are very good at your style of empty argumentation, carry on.

 

[Haig]

As this appears to have been published today, looking for it at any time over the last 20 years would have been pointless, would it not?

Only the date on the page changes daily just like the date on the bottom right of your screen. The dates are on all the pieces individually just like your desktop

But as it appears he has now (finally!) published some data to support his claim I will at last be able to critically evaluate it. I'm about to go out for a few hours, but I'll take a look at it this evening.

Better late than never but really! it's the first thing you should have done. All that information has been there for at least the last year I've came across Corbyn.

Coming from you, that's hilarious.

Is that projection?

Because I judge claims by the evidence that supports them, not by blind belief as you seem to. When you are going to declare Corbyn a God and start worshipping him?

Your judging again without facts.

Corbyn is a godsend for putting the AGW crowd in their place

 

[Reality Check]

Problems with 3bodyproblem's unsupported assertion about solar entropy flux

Well since we scrapped the second law of thermodynamics I guess we should be fine. Capel Doger just solved global warming. I just wish he would have waited until Summer.

Hi 3bodyproblem: You missed a smiley:
"Well since we scrapped the second law of thermodynamics I guess we should be fine ."
Unless you were being serious . In which case :
No one here has scrapped the second law of thermodynamics.
The fact is that entropy is not a physical process. It is a measure of a physical system.
Try reading what you cite:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo2.html

It begins with the definition of a new state variable called entropy. Entropy has a variety of physical interpretations, including the statistical disorder of the system, but for our purposes, let us consider entropy to be just another property of the system, like enthalpy or temperature.

You have an unsupported assertion that an increase in incident solar entropy flux will cause an increase in climate sensitivity.
Wu et. al. (2011) show that their method of method of calculating incident solar entropy flux from the incident solar radiation flux gives a number that is 4 times greater than the usual method.


But you have 3 problems with that assertion:

1. You have given no evidence for your assertion.
2. If we assume that you are not mistaken then you imply that the climate is more sensitive to radiative forcing than the current theory has. This means that more increases in CO2 means even higher global temperatures then predicted !
3. Climate sensitivity has been estimated. Those estimates include any influence the Sun has on climate sensitivity. The estimates of climate sensitivity include any hypothetical effect of incident solar radiation flux.

 

[Reality Check]

Corbyn is a godsend for putting the AGW crowd in their place

Actually no: Corbyn is a devil-child for the evil act of not making his method public so that many peoples lives and livelihood can be saved from extreme weather events.

As for your statement about Corbyn & AGW - that is definitely a laugh .
You may think that Corbyn is so dumb that he believes that weather (even if he has some way of guessing it months ahead) is climate. Hopefully he is not that ignorant or deluded.

FYI, Haig: Climate is weather averaged over decades (30 years is the usual time scale mentioned).

 

[Furcifer]

So entropy is another term you abuse. And now the second law, not suprising.

You apparently don't know what either really define or mean, and I imagine you can't say why they would be relevant to the discussion.

But you are very good at your style of empty argumentation, carry on.

I think it's important to stress that entropy plays no role in any physical process. It emerges on a meta-level.

I'm not surprised you understand this. Perhaps you could explain what the "meta-level" is?

We're all dying to know.

Is this your interpretation of the second law, that entropy plays no role in any physical process? That it's magic carried on sun beams.

 

[Reality Check]

I think it's important to stress that entropy plays no role in any physical process. It emerges on a meta-level.

I'm not surprised you understand this. Perhaps you could explain what the "meta-level" is?

I will butt in here:
I am surprised at your ignorance of this. The "meta-level" is the physical system. The classical way to look at it is that entropy emerges from the meta-level of the statistics of the physical system.

Is this your interpretation of the second law, that entropy plays no role in any physical process? That it's magic carried on sun beams.

That is the conclusion of anyone who knows basic physics.

Entropy is a state variable decribing a physical system. Entropy is a result of physical processes acting on a system. It is not a physical process. It does not play a rol in physical processes. It plays a role in being a measure of the changes in a system from physical processes.

You may have forgotten what the second law of thermodynamics is or maybe you do not know about entropy.