Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

Entropy is a result of physical processes acting on a system. It is not a physical process. It does not play a role in physical processes.

Why do you think it doesn't "play a role"? Because it is a measure of the change in state function?

It plays an important role in measuring the amount of energy the earth absorbs or reflects. Since this is a discussion about climate it's very important.

Have you ever heard of sophistry?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

I don't have a single problem.

1. It's called physics.
2. You obviously don't get the idea of flux, at all.
3. Yes, but it has been done incorrectly.

Trying to claim the entropy flux doesn't play a role because it is a measure of something it just sophistry. Nice try

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you think it doesn't "play a role"? Because it is a measure of the change in state function?

Yes.

It plays an important role in measuring the amount of energy the earth absorbs or reflects. Since this is a discussion about climate it's very important.

Wrong.
It plays no role in measuring the amount of energy the earth absorbs or reflects. It is an effect of the the kinds of radiation the earth absorbs or reflects.

You are doing the equivalent of stating that the temperature that a thermometer reads is the cause of the energy that the thermometer absorbs. You have it the wrong way around. Like entropy, temperature is a state variable of the system (the thermometer ) and is caused by physical processes.

Have you ever heard of sophistry?

Have you ever heard of the definition of enthropy?

 

[Reality Check]

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

I don't have a single problem.

1. It's called physics.
2. You obviously don't get the idea of flux, at all.
3. Yes, but it has been done incorrectly.

Trying to claim the entropy flux doesn't play a role because it is a measure of something it just sophistry. Nice try

You now have 6 problems:

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.
4. You cannot understand that it is invalid to state "it is physics" as an answer to the first problem. That is not evidence except for ignorant or deluded people.
5. All you can to do to support your second problem is insult people.
   The idea of flux is easy to understand. That has nothing to do with the problem.
6. All you can do to support your third problem is to make yet another unsupported assertion !

And a 7th: Lying about what I write. Nice try
I did not state that entropy flux is a "measure of something".
The definition of entropy is that it is a state variable of a system.

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

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Excuse me, I know what the second law states and I know many defintitions of entropy.

Why don't you state exactly why you think it is important to the is discussion.

I know that you are good at changing the topic and those snappy one lines.

Try actually saying why it is relevant to the discussion.

You know, YOU explaining why the ideas that you feel are imporant like entropy are important to the discussion.

No one including said Capel Dodger that entropy is not a variable taht can not be defined or modeled in a system, nor did he deny the second law.

The question is whee are you going to explain why YOU think it is important.

I am intrested in more than your political spin, but so far you are more engaged in trolling than discussion.

So why do you feel that the discussion of entropy is important?

 

[Dancing David]

Why do you think it doesn't "play a role"? Because it is a measure of the change in state function?

It plays an important role in measuring the amount of energy the earth absorbs or reflects. Since this is a discussion about climate it's very important.

Have you ever heard of sophistry?

Excuse me, not really, try showing that you understand the concepts more than as just words to hand wave around.

Why exactly does it matter? You haven't defined what form of entropy you are using and why it matters.

 

[Furcifer]

What I don't get is this floundering around trying to make stuff up and being dishonest, instead of just saying "I don't know, let's take a look and learn something?"

It's pretty pathetic, and quite inappropriate for the Science forum. If anyone wishes to discuss this honestly and how it relates to Astrometria let me know. I'm genuinely curious because I'm skeptical. Otherwise I suggest you take your diatribes to the Religion forum, because that's all they amount to right now.

Does anyone have access to journals? I'm looking for the entropy flux calculations from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, Stephens and O'Brien 2007. I thought someone here had quote from the .pdf but I can't find it. Perhaps it was only the abstract.

 

[Furcifer]

You know, YOU explaining why the ideas that you feel are imporant like entropy are important to the discussion.

See this is how I know you are lying. How could anyone ask this question if you had any clue? We're talking about the Sun, radiation and Global Warming, but you don't see how entropy is important

Unreal. It's simply unbelievable you would ask such a fundamental question and claim you know about thermodynamics.

 

[Furcifer]

[*]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 !

Wow, totally clueless.

I suppose you meant to get is backwards?


Enough lying, you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The more you talk the more it becomes apparent.

Is this what alarmists do? They think they can make stuff up? Stop lying, grab a book and take a look.

 

[Furcifer]

Keep up the entertainment. It's hilarious to watch people dig holes for themselves then try to climb out.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Wow, totally clueless.
..snipped more inane insults...

Wow - let see if I can make this simple enough for you.
The equation that we are talking about is:

dT = λ*dF
​

where λ is climate sensitivity, dT is change in global temperature and dF is change in radiative forcing. The current estimate for this is 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2).
FYI The * is multiplication (you do know what multiplication is? )

If you make λ bigger then for the same dF you get a bigger dT.

If you claim that increasing solar entropy flux increases (makes bigger) λ then you are claiming that a given change in radiative forcing will cause a bigger change in global temperature.

You have asserted that solar entropy flux has an effect on climate sensitivity. That is your assertion. It is up to you to provide the evidence for that assertion. Otherwise I have to come to the conclusion that you are just making this up (lying or fantasying?).

ETA
If you had been polite enough to point out my error about your assertion rather then spouting inane insults then I would have seen this a lot sooner:

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

So your (still unsupported) claim is that increasing solar entropy flux decreases (lowers) λ. So a given change in radiative forcing will cause a smaller change in global temperature.





But this still leaves the flaws in your assertion:

1. You have given no evidence for your assertion.
2. Climate sensitivity has been estimated. Those estimates include any influence the Sun has on climate sensitivity. The estimates of climate sensitivity have to include any hypothetical effect of incident solar radiation flux. That includes the entropy flux.

 

[Reality Check]

Keep up the entertainment. It's hilarious to watch people dig holes for themselves then try to climb out.

I have to agree: You are digging an enormous hole for yourself and making no attempt to crawl out of it
That would be really funny if it was not so sad to see that your only response so far is unsupported assertions and insulting other posters .

 

[Furcifer]

Wow - let see if I can make this simple enough for you.
The equation that we are talking about is:

dT = λ*dF
​

where λ is climate sensitivity, dT is change in global temperature and dF is change in radiative forcing. The current estimate for this is 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2).

Look at your units. You've got the inverse. (I may have screwed up along the way as well, if I did I apologize. Different texts use different units)

That shouldn't screw you up if you knew what you were talking about, or understood what I was. Perhaps this was the problem all along?

 

[Furcifer]

I have to agree: You are digging an enormous hole for yourself and making no attempt to crawl out of it
That would be really funny if it was not so sad to see that your only response so far is unsupported assertions and insulting other posters .

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. It isn't an insult, it's a fact.

Are you going to support this statement:

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.

Or admit you are lying and made it up? It's fairly easy, if it were true you could google it or find one of your propaganda websites to find a link.

I'm going to assume an equation is not forthcoming because you lied. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Look at your units. You've got the inverse. (I may have screwed up along the way as well, if I did I apologize. Different texts use different units)

That shouldn't screw you up if you knew what you were talking about, or understood what I was. Perhaps this was the problem all along?

The text was copied from Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version).

Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m²) for λ.

The units are correct. dF is W per meter squared (W-m²). dT is °C.
λ = dF/dT and has units of °C/(W-m².

I have updated
Problems with 3bodyproblem's unsupported assertion about solar entropy flux
to have your actual unsupported assertion.

That shouldn't screw you up if you knew what you were talking about, or understood what I was. Perhaps this was the problem all along?

 

[Reality Check]

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. It isn't an insult, it's a fact.

Ditto. If you continue lying about what I write, I will continue calling you a liar. It isn't an insult, it's a fact.

Are you going to support this statement:

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.

Done. See the scientific papers cited in How sensitive is our climate?

Are you going to support this statement:
The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.

Or admit you are lying and made it up? It's fairly easy, if it were true you could google it or find one of your propaganda websites to find a link.

I'm going to assume an equation is not forthcoming because you lied. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

The text was copied from Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version).

The units are correct. dF is W per meter squared (W-m²). dT is °C.
λ = dF/dT and has units of °C/(W-m².

I have updated
Problems with 3bodyproblem's unsupported assertion about solar entropy flux
to have your actual unsupported assertion.

That shouldn't screw you up if you knew what you were talking about, or understood what I was. Perhaps this was the problem all along?

*sigh

I expressed it in inverse units. If you had taken any science in University you'd know the importance of watching your units.

Are you going to support this statement: 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. Or admit you are lying and made it up? It's fairly easy, if it were true you could google it or find one of your propaganda websites to find a link. I'm going to assume an equation is not forthcoming because you lied. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

 

[Furcifer]

Let's look at what I said:

The amount of energy needed to change the temperature by 1 degree.

The first search I did:

What is climate sensitivity?
The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in average global surface air temperature following a unit change in the radiative forcing. This sensitivity, denoted here as λ, therefore has units of °K / (W/m2).

(Note that occasionally, the sensitivity, λ is defined as the inverse of the above definition, that is, the radiative forcing required to change the temperature by one degree. This definition is used in the Cess et al. figure below. When in doubt, look at the units!)


lol, class is in session.

 

[Reality Check]

*sigh

I expressed it in inverse units. If you had taken any science in University you'd know the importance of watching your units.

Sigh.
You did not express climate sensitivity in any units at all that I recall.
Inverse units would be for "inverse" climate sensitivity, i.e. 1/λ = dT/dF with units of W-m^-2/°C
P.S. I missed the - in the ^-2 in my previous post.
So λ has units of °C/W-m^-2
You really are forgetful. I took essentially 7 years of science at University (undergraduate and graduate studies). I really know the important of watching my uinits. But since we are not doing any calculations they are irrelevant.

If all you can find to quibble about is the units then you really have a pitiful position.

Are you going to support this statement: 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. Or admit you are lying and made it up? It's fairly easy, if it were true you could google it or find one of your propaganda websites to find a link. I'm going to assume an equation is not forthcoming because you lied. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

Done: How sensitive is our climate?

Are you going to support this statement: The increase in flux lowers sensitivity. Or admit you are lying and made it up? It's fairly easy, if it were true you could google it or find one of your propaganda websites to find a link. I'm going to assume an equation is not forthcoming because you lied. Feel free to prove me wrong.Thanks

 

[Reality Check]

What is climate sensitivity?
...
lol, class is in session.

lol, the insane posting of the obvious that does not answer the question is in session.

Unless you are going to obsess with the units of climate sensitivity (oh look - they use Kelvin instead of Celsius !)