Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Dancing David]

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.

Excuse me, this is rather typical of your rhetorical non answer, I asked you what bearing ist has on the discussion.

So you hand wave words around, I know you can do that. I asked what specific bearing it has on the conversation, can you answer that, or just use more rhetoric.

In what way does the use of the term entropy bear on the conversation?

I asked why you felt it is imporatant to the discussion.

Do you actually know why you think it is important?

 

[Pixel42]

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.

You were the one repeating his claims as if they were fact, the burden was on you to provide the evidence to support them, so I have to wonder why you waited so long to do so. All the information I found when I first looked him up after seeing his name on this thread suggested he made a lot of intelligent guesses, most of them either vague enough or likely enough to get some hits, and then cherry-picked those hits and conveniently forgot the many misses to give the impression of remarkable accuracy - the SOP of woo peddlers with which any JREF forum regular is all too familiar. A first quick glance at your link does nothing to make me think that initial impression was incorrect. So I'll continue to compile my own, non-cherry-picked, data, and see what it tells me.

 

[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.

So 3bodyproblem, this still stands.

How does the paper you think you are presenting change anything?

It does not show that the solar radiance has changed significantly, now does it?
It does not show that solar radiance is driving the current observed warming, now does it?

Now, I would really appreciate it if you would actually discuss this.

 

[Dancing David]

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

I did not ask you what I thought now did I?

i asked you what you thought, and it turns out that you are empty of teh ability to explain yourself. So instead of repeating this empty rhetoric, why not answer the question?

Why does the paper you presented matter to the discussion?

It does not say that solar radiation is 4x higher all of a sudden. It says that for some interactions in the atmosphere, the interactions are measured to be higher than the original estimate.

This does not mean that solar radiance has any less or more of a role.

You have not shown a difference in solar radiance.

You have shown a difference in the measurement of solar radiance.

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

Not really, that is just more rhetoric, the measures of solar radiance in the past are not very reliable.

there is no good historical link between solar radiance proxy levels and the measurement of global temperature across multiple measurements in the historical record.

therefore it does not cause a problem for global climate models.

the questions is:
Does it appear that the global temperatures are rising.

In many sources of measurement, and not just weather stations, it appears that it is.

the next question is:
What is causing this rise?

Now I do not ask that as an alarmist.

I ask because so far the most likely culprit is the green house gasses, the second most likely culprit is a lack of really dirty volcanoes over the last century.

The current increase in temperature is trivial.

No it is not, it is most significant rising trend since the end of the ice age, can you show me in the record of the last 8-7,000 years when it has risen as significantly?

I ask in seriousness.

When you look at the recent more reliable data

there are a lot of separate measures than converge on the rising temperature, what does you think is the more reliable.
Cite your source, and we can discuss it. there are multiple measures.

and take into account the primary forcing like CO2, H20 and solar radiation,

It could be solar radiation, but by many measures that does not seem to be the case.
have you actually looked at the proxy records for solar radiance?
What are they?

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.

Yes, it is possible, however until you demonstrate that we are left with the green house gasses and a lack of dirty volcanoes as the most likely.

 

[Haig]

You were the one repeating his claims as if they were fact, the burden was on you to provide the evidence to support them, so I have to wonder why you waited so long to do so. All the information I found when I first looked him up after seeing his name on this thread suggested he made a lot of intelligent guesses, most of them either vague enough or likely enough to get some hits, and then cherry-picked those hits and conveniently forgot the many misses to give the impression of remarkable accuracy - the SOP of woo peddlers with which any JREF forum regular is all too familiar. A first quick glance at your link does nothing to make me think that initial impression was incorrect. So I'll continue to compile my own, non-cherry-picked, data, and see what it tells me.

I'm not your keeper Pixie42 I haven't the time or the inclination to respond to your biased opinion on Corbyn anymore and he's more than able to deal with the likes of you.

Obviously, anyone reading the above can see you've made your mind up beforehand so it's pointless trying to justify yourself to me.

 

[Furcifer]

So where's the flux Reality Check? Where's the flux?

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: 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

I really doubt anyone with a University education would be reduced to parroting and having trouble following their units. (unless it's biology you're talking about)

You haven't come up with an original thought in the entire thread.

So are you going to support your lie or continue to act childish?

Done: How sensitive is our climate?

Hey you found a thought, not your own, but a thought none the less.

So where's the flux Reality Check?

 

[Furcifer]

In what way does the use of the term entropy bear on the conversation?

lol. And you said you knew the second law. It's called "global warming", w-a-r-m-i-n-g.

I asked why you felt it is imporatant to the discussion.

You want to know entropy is important to global warming? And you know the second law of thermodynamics? And you don't understand how entropy is important to the discussion on warming?

How about you write out the equation form of the second law of thermodynamics and I'll point out the importance of entropy.

After that I'll show you why gravity is important to the discussion of Force.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not your keeper Pixie42 I haven't the time or the inclination to respond to your biased opinion on Corbyn anymore and he's more than able to deal with the likes of you.

Sadly true, in the same way people like Sylvia Browne are more than able to deal with the likes of Robert Lancester - by simply ignoring them, and continuing to peddle their woo to the gullible.

Obviously, anyone reading the above can see you've made your mind up beforehand so it's pointless trying to justify yourself to me.

And another irony meter explodes.

 

[Dancing David]

lol. And you said you knew the second law. It's called "global warming", w-a-r-m-i-n-g.



You want to know entropy is important to global warming? And you know the second law of thermodynamics? And you don't understand how entropy is important to the discussion on warming?

How about you write out the equation form of the second law of thermodynamics and I'll point out the importance of entropy.

After that I'll show you why gravity is important to the discussion of Force.

So you don't know what you think, I am shocked.

Simply shocked you can't explain why you think it matters.

I had suspected you were engaging in handwaving and using words you did not really understand, but saying why you feeli it matters, that would have dispelled those suspicions.

So why are entropy and the second law germane, exactly, to this discussion?

How do they influence the factors that appear likely as candidates for global warming? How does this say that solar radiance is more likely than not?

Seriously, you can't say why or what you think?

Really can you stop spinning long enough to show more than empty rhetoric?

ETA: you do know there are four fundamental forces and many others. It is not like a religion where you call it the Force, are you a Jedi or something.?

That is like me asking what role the force of gravity plays in an electrolysis reaction and you saying "Well electrolysis involves Force."

 

[DC]

still "debating" in circles with the folks that are to dumb to understand AGW.

what a waste of time. they are like twoofers.

 

[Reality Check]

You haven't come up with an original thought in the entire thread.

That is really dumb, 3bodyproblem. You really want me to go out and do original climate science research ?
In that case: Why have you haven't come up with an original thought in the entire thread.

So are you going to support your lie or continue to act childish?

Stop lying, 3bodyproblem.

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.

I later supported my assertion with a link to a blog entry containing the published paper - How sensitive is our climate?

Since you are obviously incapable of clicking on the link, I will have to quote some of it for you to ignore.

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.
...
Paleoclimate
One recent study examining the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5-9°C, found that "At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5°C of the warming inferred from proxy records" (Zeebe 2009). This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower.
Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
...
Wigley et al. (2005)
...
Forster et al. (2006)
Recent responses to the 11-year solar cycle
Tung and Camp (2007)
Other Empirical Observations
Gregory et al. (2002) ...
Hansen 1988 ... For further details, see the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong."
Probabilistic Estimate Analysis
Annan and Hargreaves (2009) ...
Knutti and Hegerl (2008) presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity.

Let us hope that you do not go on a semantics rant about the words "likely" and "probabilsitic" in the above quote. The climate sensitivity is an estimate - it has a range of probable values like all scientific measurements.

So are you going to support your lie or continue to act childish?
Problems with 3bodyproblem's unsupported assertion about solar entropy flux

So where's the flux Reality Check?

What the flux, 3bodyproblem ?
Seriously, you are making yourself seem so ignorant that you do not know that the Sun is the source of the incident solar radiation flux and thus the incident solar entropy flux? Thus "where" it is is everywhere from the Sun to the Earth's surface.

FYI: The incident solar radiation flux is measured (e.g. by the SORCE instruments) and the incident solar entropy flux is calculated from that.
Also (just in case) here is the definition of a flux .

 

[CapelDodger]

still "debating" in circles with the folks that are to dumb to understand AGW.

what a waste of time. they are like twoofers.

Unless you can get some amusement out of the exercise, I have to agree. Since 3bodyproblem has been reduced (once again) to spitting incoherence and Haig has apparently flounced off because we don't believe implicitly in his tin-pot guru, this thread has lost all purpose.

A thread to discuss entropy (its nature and meaning) might be interesting. 3bodyproblem might even contribute what he thinks entropy is, although experience suggests he'd simply insist that everybody else is wrong and incapable of understanding an explanation if he provided one.

 

[Hindmost]

Unless you can get some amusement out of the exercise, I have to agree. Since 3bodyproblem has been reduced (once again) to spitting incoherence and Haig has apparently flounced off because we don't believe implicitly in his tin-pot guru, this thread has lost all purpose.

A thread to discuss entropy (its nature and meaning) might be interesting. 3bodyproblem might even contribute what he thinks entropy is, although experience suggests he'd simply insist that everybody else is wrong and incapable of understanding an explanation if he provided one.

This thread is a reasonable example of social entropy.

glenn

 

[Tricky]

A lot of these posts seem to be drifting toward general discussion of Global Warming. Get this back on topic and bicker-free or it will be merged with the moderated thread with a LOT of posts headed for the dustbin.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Haig]

A lot of these posts seem to be drifting toward general discussion of Global Warming. Get this back on topic and bicker-free or it will be merged with the moderated thread with a LOT of posts headed for the dustbin.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Yes and that would be a pity.

Obviously, Global Cooling (as suggested in the OP) is the complete opposite to Global Warming.

Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years

A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age.

While climate change campaigners say global warming is the planet's biggest danger, renowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice.

The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.

Professor Paar, from Croatia's Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them.

"Most of Europe will be under ice, including Germany, Poland, France, Austria, Slovakia and a part of Slovenia," said the professor in an interview with the Index.hr.

"Previous ice ages lasted about 70,000 years. That's a fact and the new ice age can't be avoided.

"The big question is what will happen to the people of the Central European countries which will be under ice?

 

[Dancing David]

Mark me as unimpressed

 

[Trakar]

Yes and that would be a pity.

Obviously, Global Cooling (as suggested in the OP) is the complete opposite to Global Warming.

Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years

Check the date on the article.

That news is so last year this time.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes and that would be a pity.

Obviously, Global Cooling (as suggested in the OP) is the complete opposite to Global Warming.

Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years

Obviously, Global Cooling (as suggested in the OP) is the complete opposite to Global Warming !

Here is one opinion that is weird:

"This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can't predict it precisely, but it will come," he added.

That is what most climate scientists think - we are in an interglacial period. Another ice age will happen. But this will be in 1000's of years not in 5 or 100 years.
Ice Age

The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years," but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[34] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming[35] (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.[36] At a meeting of the American Geophysical Union (December 17, 2008), scientists detailed evidence in support of the controversial idea that the introduction of large-scale rice agriculture in Asia, coupled with extensive deforestation in Europe began to alter world climate by pumping significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the last 1,000 years. In turn, a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming, possibly forestalling the onset of a new glacial age.[37]

But the professor seems isolated in that Croatean university as he states:

And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.

"What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth's temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher.

"They keep warning people about global warming, but half of America no longer believes it as they keep freezing," he said.

That is wrong.

• Most climate scientists think that the current global warming is man made. But he may mean that the past global warming events were natural which is certainly true.
• He ignores (or does not know) that global warming is supposed to cause more extreme weather. And citing cold weather in a winter is not good climate science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Obviously, Global Cooling (as suggested in the OP) is the complete opposite to Global Warming !

Not to Piers Corbyn. To Corbyn, global warming is global cooling. He first said we're in a cooling-phase at least as far back as 2007, and he's 100% correct by his own reckoning.

Here is one opinion that is weird:

"This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can't predict it precisely, but it will come," he added.

Or even later, which would include the entropy-death of the Universe.

To Haig this would mean "will happen in the next five years" if he'd read it, but I think he's simply read that that's what it does say and has re-posted it here with great glee. "There so really is global cooling because this guy says it will start dead soon, just you watch".

We'll be watching, Haig, don't you worry. Let us know how it works out for you.
.

That is what most climate scientists think - we are in an interglacial period. Another ice age will happen. But this will be in 1000's of years not in 5 or 100 years.
Ice Age

I'm not so sure about that. We got ice-ages in the given geography, Milankovich cycles, and atmospheric constitution, but we're out of that situation now. We haven't had ice-ages in this ice-epoch with 390ppm CO₂. Without an industrialised species another glaciation would have been coming, but now? Not so certain.

This industrialised society now knows how to prevent another glaciation. Why would it allow one to happen? Where's the benefit?

But the professor seems isolated in that Croatean university as he states:




That is wrong.

• Most climate scientists think that the current global warming is man made. But he may mean that the past global warming events were natural which is certainly true.
• He ignores (or does not know) that global warming is supposed to cause more extreme weather. And citing cold weather in a winter is not good climate science.

Gone emeritus, I suspect, or has been misrepresented. Equal likelihoods. I'm sure he's white-hot on ice-age geography in the Balkans, and respect for that.

 

[CapelDodger]

"They keep warning people about global warming, but half of America no longer believes it as they keep freezing," he said.

Beggars belief, doesn't it? The US American mindset, I mean. If there's one thing we Europeans agree on it's how naive and self-centred that is.

I'm leaning more towards selective quotation.