Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

The literature on physics.

What literature on physics?

It does if you understand physics.

I understand physics.

Yes they are. I'm afraid you don't understand at all.

I'm afraid that you are ignorant of how climate sensitivity is estimated. They start with empirical measurements of changes in radiative forcing and temperature. Others start with General Circulation Models.

• How sensitive is our climate? or
• Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame

I cited the source, I suggest you take it up with them.

Your source states nothing about the connection between entropy flux and climate sensitivity. I suggest that you read it

You said it was measured. Liar.

I said it was measured. I was wrong. The IPCC uses the word estimates and that seems common in the papers. So it was estimates. Some of teh estimates are based on empirical measurements. Some are based on models.

See how much I lie, 3bodyproblem?

Feel free to try and prove me wrong.
. ..snipped rant....

I am not going to try to prove you wrong.
You made the assertions so you are wrong by defintion until you produce

1. The scientific literature supporting your claim that ""The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.".
2. The scientific literature supporting your claim that entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity.

I am not going to do the work that you should have done already.

 

[Furcifer]

What literature on physics?

All of it.

I understand physics.

Then why don't you understand how the entropy flux affects climate sensitivity? I don't mean specifically, just the general principle? If there's more entropy than estimated than it takes more energy to warm the Earth by 1 degree.

I'm afraid that you are ignorant of how climate sensitivity is estimated. They start with empirical measurements of changes in radiative forcing and temperature.

So how do you think the flux can be underestimated if it's measured? You clearly can't distinguish between a measurement and an estimate.

Your source states nothing about the connection between entropy flux and climate sensitivity. I suggest that you read it

Truthers do this. "NIST didn't explain the collapse". It wasn't tasked with explaining the collapse, just like this paper isn't about sensitivity, it's about entropy flux. You have to be totally ignorant of physics to not see how it applies to sensitivity. (the goal moving forward is to use the proper estimate of flux to calculate sensitivity, and determine the actual forcing due to CO2.

See how much I lie, 3bodyproblem?

See how pointless it is to harp about simple mistakes? Let's try to have an intelligent discussion.

I am not going to try to prove you wrong.

I realize that. Even if I was wrong you don't have the capacity to prove it. I resigned myself to this pointless banter pages ago.

You made the assertions so you are wrong by defintion until you produce

1. The scientific literature supporting your claim that ""The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.".

1. 
   
   I did, you don't seem capable of understanding the science I've presented and there's no Pop-Up books on the subject.
   
   

   [*]The scientific literature supporting your claim that entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity.

   
   I never said the estimate of entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity, I sad they use a blackbody estimate. That's supported by the paper, which clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual flux.
   
   Just to clarify, are you seriously going to maintain that under estimating the entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity? (you did before) Or are you maintaining it has no effect? (you did before) Or are you saying it isn't underestimated?

 

[Cuddles]

All of it.

Really? Here is some physics literature:
http://epaper.kek.jp/p95/ARTICLES/WAC/WAC20.PDF
It says exactly nothing to support the claim "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity". Surely you wouldn't be lying and deliberately playing stupid, would you?

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual rant...
I did, you don't seem capable of understanding the science I've presented and there's no Pop-Up books on the subject.

You did not present any science supporting your "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity" assertion.

I never said the estimate of entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity, I sad they use a blackbody estimate. That's supported by the paper, which clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual flux.

There you go showing an inability to undersand the science.
I know that the Wu et al paper clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual grey body flux that they estimate.

I also know that

1. the Wu et al paper never mentions climate sensitivity.
2. the fact that this paper was published does not mean that they are right. I expect that they are right since in general a more detailed model means better results. But that is something for climate scientists to establish by either citing the paper as correct or publishing papers showing that they missed something.

Read the scientific papers linked to in

• How sensitive is our climate? or
• Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame

These estimates include ones that use the real world. That real world includes actual, real, physical entropy flux.

Just to clarify, are you seriously going to maintain that under estimating the entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity? (you did before) Or are you maintaining it has no effect? (you did before) Or are you saying it isn't underestimated?

Just to clarify: I do not know. It sounds reasonable given my knowledge of physics. But according to you, I "don't seem capable of understanding the science I've presented" (not that you have presented any other than the citation to the Wu et al paper which does not mention climate sensitivity)! That is a rather ignorant statement since I have told you a couple of times that I have a science degree. I have a good general knowledge of physics. I will be able to understand the science when you present it to the forum.

It looks like you do not know either. Otherwise you could give citations to the papers and textbooks that show that an increase in incident solar entropy flux means a decrease in climate sensitivity.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."

This is the situation, 3bodyproblem.
You cited

Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.
​

They show that using a gray body Sun model and the incident spectral solar irradiance flux allows the calculation of an incident solar entropy flux. That value is 4 times that when it is calculated using a black body Sun model.

You seem to be under the impression that the paper discusses the implication of this on climate sensitvity. You are wrong - the paper never mentions climate sensitivity.

You seem to be under the impression that the paper is correct. This is wrong since the paper was published in 2011. There has been no time for climate scientists to evaluate it.
My uninformed expectation is that it will be found correct since in general more detailed model gives better results. On the other hand a more detailed model also has more room for errors!

Then you asserted:

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

(The bit about the Earth is an obvious misprint since the Sun is the body oin the paper)

So on the 22nd of Feb, 2011 I asked you for the evidence you have to back this up. Since then you have been making vague posts about it being "physics" and generally avoiding answering the question.
FYI, 3bodyproblem - stating that it is physics is obvious, trivial and not a citation to the scientific literature.

So here is the question one more time:
3bodyproblem
First asked 22nd February 2011
You have asserted that an increase in incident solar entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity.
A knowledgeable person would have based this assertion on their research. This means that they would have read the appropriate textbooks or scientific papers discussing the effect of entropy flux on climate sensitivity. They should be able to cite those textbooks or papers.
An intelligent person would have at least based their assertion on the research of a knowledgeable person and would be able to cite them (and so the scientific literature).

Where are your citations for "The increase in [incident solar entropy] flux lowers sensitivity.", 3bodyproblem?

 

[Furcifer]

Really? Here is some physics literature:
http://epaper.kek.jp/p95/ARTICLES/WAC/WAC20.PDF
It says exactly nothing to support the claim "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity". Surely you wouldn't be lying and deliberately playing stupid, would you?

Just because you or I don't know how to apply it to sensitivity calculations doesn't mean it would contradict the basic principles of electrodynamics or Newtonian mechanics.

 

[Furcifer]

You did not present any science supporting your "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity" assertion.

I most certainly did. You're just not capable of understanding it. I suggest you start with the basics about radiation and go from there.

There you go showing an inability to undersand the science.

No, just incapable of teaching it to you. I wouldn't expect a child to understand how flux is related to sensistivity either. If you don't have the capacity to even ask the right questions I doubt if you ever will.

I know that the Wu et al paper clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual grey body flux that they estimate.

Or the diluted black body.

I also know that

1. the Wu et al paper never mentions climate sensitivity.

1. 
   
   It doesn't say the sky is blue either. Are you going to claim that as well? Do you see how your logic fails you here?
   
   

   [*]the fact that this paper was published does not mean that they are right.

   
   Like you would know. Call me skeptical but I'll take their word for it over yours until otherwise noted.
   
   
   

   Just to clarify: I do not know. It sounds reasonable given my knowledge of physics. But according to you, I "don't seem capable of understanding the science I've presented" (not that you have presented any other than the citation to the Wu et al paper which does not mention climate sensitivity)!

   
   TOA solar entropy flux is greater than estimated. Why would you think incresed entropy at the TOA means the climate sensistivity wouldn't be affect, or would go down?
   
   

   That is a rather ignorant statement since I have told you a couple of times that I have a science degree. I have a good general knowledge of physics. I will be able to understand the science when you present it to the forum.

   
   Then why do you think an increase TOA incident solar entropy flux going up would have any other effect on climate sensitivity? It's obvious if more entropy or heat is going out of the planet sensitivity goes up? (or down)
   
   When are we going to define a sign convention? If it takes more energy to warm the planet by 1 degree I say that's up.
   
   

   It looks like you do not know either. Otherwise you could give citations to the papers and textbooks that show that an increase in incident solar entropy flux means a decrease in climate sensitivity.

   
   It looks like you'd prefer down. OK down.
   
   Why do you think more flux would increse sensitivity?

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you think more flux would increse sensitivity?

I do not - I think that more entropy flux would decrease climate sensitivity. This is from my knowledge of what entropy is (not from any knowledge of climate science). My latest reading about entropy is in Roger Penrose's Road to Reality. I think that increasing entropy means moving into a box in phase space that is larger than the previous box. That means that you have to move further in phase space to get to a physically distinguishable state. IOW the system is less sensitive to changes.
I could be wrong.

Are you going to answer:

3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
First asked 22nd February 2011
​

Or am I going to have to assume that you are parroting someone without knowing the science behind the assertion.

 

[Furcifer]

You seem to be under the impression that the paper discusses the implication of this on climate sensitvity. You are wrong - the paper never mentions climate sensitivity.

It doesn't? Are you sure about that? Are you sure you just don't mean it doesn't mention "sensitivity" verbatim? Perhaps it does but because you don't know what you're talking about you didn't recognize it?

Pop quiz hot shot (like my Keanu impression?)

Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers, this finding raises some important questions critical to studying the Earth’s climate system: What is the consequence of the changing TOA SSI to the Earth’s climate system? Could this finding change our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?

Just because you can't interpret the discussion doesn't mean the discussion isn't going on. It's quite clear from the above we're talking about climate sensitivity.

You seem to be under the impression that the paper is correct. This is wrong since the paper was published in 2011. There has been no time for climate scientists to evaluate it.

Another pop quiz. Do you think scientists only publish 1 paper? Do you think this is their first paper on the subject? Do you realize this is just building on previous papers and the specifics might change but the basic principles are sound?

(The bit about the Earth is an obvious misprint since the Sun is the body oin the paper)

Since you were polite enough to not cause I scene I won't either, it's called mutual respect. It is in fact the Earth I was talking about as a grey body. In terms of climate sensitivity the fact that the Earth isn't a blackbody is important. It wasn't a mistake, and is in fact correct, but I can see how you may have got confused.

A knowledgeable person would have based this assertion on their research. This means that they would have read the appropriate textbooks or scientific papers discussing the effect of entropy flux on climate sensitivity. They should be able to cite those textbooks or papers.

See above.

An intelligent person would have at least based their assertion on the research of a knowledgeable person and would be able to cite them (and so the scientific literature).

See above.

Where are your citations for "The increase in [incident solar entropy] flux lowers sensitivity.", 3bodyproblem?

See above.

Now answer my question; where did you get the idea that climate sensitivity already accounts for entropy flux? You know that most estimates of climate sensitivity (1.5-4K) come from GCM's, and that all but 7 GCM's actually have any entropic parameters, and according to this author if they do it's a simple calculation based on monochromatic radiation and is 400% less than this spectral calculation which actually jives with SORCE measurements nicely (depending on the frequency)? Hmmm?

 

[Furcifer]

*sigh

Reading the scientific journals isn't easy work. The scientists are writing for the benefit of other scientists. In doing so they assume everyone reading understands implicitly. If you are writing for the general public they tend to explain things more clearly, give examples and perhaps a history lesson leading up to the paper being discussed.

That means it might take several reads to understand things, or even require you to read cited papers in conjunction with the paper you wish to understand.

Just because a paper doesn't say something explicitly doesn't mean they aren't implying it. Reality Check isn't in on the joke as they say. I've given him time to figure this out for himself, but he is incapable or unwilling to "draw the lines" so to speak.

I hope by now he's capable of understanding what's being discussed here, but usually people are stubborn and unwilling to admit they are mistaken. Especially when they think it conflicts with their beliefs.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry that inference does not always follow, if it is not stated in the paper then it might not be implied at all.

Consequences and implications are different from implying.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity

3bodyproblem: You have not provided an answer yet to

3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
First asked 22nd February 2011
​

However that may be moot because there are many estimates of climate sensitivity.

But you seem to be having problems understanding this. You have stated that

I never said the estimate of entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity, I sad they use a blackbody estimate. That's supported by the paper, which clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual flux.

The errors in that statement are obvious by reading the Wu et al paper (Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF))
which

1. does not mention climate sensitivity at all
2. never states the actual flux. It states their theoretical calculation of entropy flux.

There are many papers that estimate the climate sensitivity using various techniques as listed in

• How sensitive is our climate? or
• Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame

For example look at the response of climate to large volcanic eruptions.
Wigley et al. (2005)

Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."

Forster et al. (2006)

A climate feedback parameter of 2.3 +/- 1.4 W m-2 K-1 is found. This corresponds to a 1.0–4.1 K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide.

3bodyproblem
First asked 3 March 2011
What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?

Did the entropy flux turn off during the volcanic eruptions so that they did not include it in the estimates? What about the paleoclimatic estimates? What about the responses to the solar cycle? What about the oceanic estimates?

Why does the Hanson model match the observed global temperatures when it uses the average estimate for climate sensitivity?

Provide the actual science, e.g. either your own calculations or citations to the scientific literature.
Repeating "it is the increase in entropy flux" without evidence is just avoiding the question. Do it enough and your credibility just goes into the toilet since it makes you seem like the brainwashed "warmers" or "deniers" that pop up on the Web. They have no understanding of the science and so take their position because of religious or political bias.

 

[Reality Check]

It doesn't? Are you sure about that? Are you sure you just don't mean it doesn't mention "sensitivity" verbatim? Perhaps it does but because you don't know what you're talking about you didn't recognize it?
...

They do mention sensitivity - see section 5: Sensitivity of the Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux to TOA SSI variability

It would take a real idiot to think that this is climate sensitivity.

It is in fact the Earth I was talking about as a grey body. In terms of climate sensitivity the fact that the Earth isn't a blackbody is important. It wasn't a mistake, and is in fact correct, but I can see how you may have got confused.
[/.quote]
The fact that the Earth isn't a blackbody is important in the outbound entropy flux from the Earth. That and the incident solar radiation entropy flux is important in the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

The mistake was thinking that a paper about the incident solar radiation entropy flux is about the Earth. I cannot see how you got confused.

Now answer my question:
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011

You know that many of the estimates do not come from GCMs?
That the estimates from GCMs do not disagree with the other estimates?
Hmmm?

 

[Furcifer]

Sorry that inference does not always follow, if it is not stated in the paper then it might not be implied at all.

Consequences and implications are different from implying.

Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers, this finding raises some important questions critical to studying the Earth’s climate system: What is the consequence of the changing TOA SSI to the Earth’s climate system? Could this finding change our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?
If you don't see what's implied here then you don't really understand much about climate science, in particular atmospheric physics. Especially this last line about changing our view of GH induced climate change. It inherently requires a change in climate sensitivity. It's a direct correlation that those of us with an actual science background understand.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem: You have not provided an answer yet to

3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
First asked 22nd February 2011
​

However that may be moot because there are many estimates of climate sensitivity.

Clearly this person doesn't understand the science. He can't even see the answer that has been pointed out time and time again.

 

[Furcifer]

The errors in that statement are obvious by reading the Wu et al paper (Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF))
which

1. does not mention climate sensitivity at all
   [*]never states the actual flux. It states their theoretical calculation of entropy flux.

1. 
   
   lol, 3 weeks and you still can't read the paper.
   
   The whole paper is a comparison between the ACTUAL flux as measured by SORCE and the theoretical based on the blackbody assumption and the theoretical based on the greybody or diluted blackbody which takes into account spectral variation in TSI.
   
   Major fail.Try reading for comprehension and you won't make these mistakes as often.

 

[Reality Check]

Clearly this person doesn't understand the science. He can't even see the answer that has been pointed out time and time again.

Clearly this person doesn't understand the science. He cannot even cite the answers despite being asked time and time again.

And again:
3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
First asked 22nd February 2011

 

[Reality Check]

lol, 3 weeks and you still can't read the paper.

The whole paper is a comparison between the ACTUAL flux as measured by SORCE and the theoretical based on the blackbody assumption and the theoretical based on the greybody or diluted blackbody which takes into account spectral variation in TSI.
...inane insult snipped...

lol, 3 weeks and you still can't read my posts.
You stated

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
I never said the estimate of entropy flux is not included in the estimates of climate sensitivity, I sad they use a blackbody estimate. That's supported by the paper, which clearly states the black body estimate used is 400% lower than the actual flux.

It is the theoretical entropy flux that is 400% bigger than the black body estimate entropy flux. Neither is an "actual flux".

Of course the real mistake in that quote is that al lot of "they" do not use entropy flux at all - they use real measurements of the real world to estimate climate sensitivity.
Strangely the "they" that do use entropy flux seem to get the same range of estimates as the "they" that do not !
See 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity
First asked 3 March 2011

The whole paper is a comparison between the theoretical entropy flux based on the solar blackbody assumption and the theoretical entropy flux based on the solar greybody or diluted blackbody as calculated from the ACTUAL IRRADIANCE flux measured by SORCE.

There is no such thing as a "spectral variation in TSI". The TSI is a number. It has no spectrum.

There is a spectral variation in the incident solar irradiance flux. It is that spectral variation that the paper takes in account.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Citations to the sensitivity of GCMs to the entropy flux

Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers, this finding raises some important questions critical to studying the Earth’s climate system: What is the consequence of the changing TOA SSI to the Earth’s climate system? Could this finding change our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?
If you don't see what's implied here then you don't really understand much about climate science, in particular atmospheric physics. Especially this last line about changing our view of GH induced climate change. It inherently requires a change in climate sensitivity. It's a direct correlation that those of us with an actual science background understand.

You are wrong.
It is a question about [hilite]our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?[/hilite]. They do not answer it.

I understand that the rest of the paper could imply a change in estimates of climate sensitivity that use entropy flux as an input parameter.
I know that it would be fairly ignorant to assume that changing the entropy flux by 400% will result in any (especially a correspondingly large) change in climate sensitivity. So I am content to wait for someone to do chane the entropy flux in a model.

Better yet: 3bodyproblem: You seem to tout yourself as an export in climate science so I think that you will know of many papers that investigate the sensitivity of GCMs to changes in the entropy flux.
Maybe you can cite a few?

There are many papers that estimate the climate sensitivity using various techniques as listed in

• How sensitive is our climate? or
• Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame

GCM estimates agree with the other techniques.

 

[Dancing David]

Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers, this finding raises some important questions critical to studying the Earth’s climate system: What is the consequence of the changing TOA SSI to the Earth’s climate system? Could this finding change our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?
If you don't see what's implied here then you don't really understand much about climate science, in particular atmospheric physics. Especially this last line about changing our view of GH induced climate change. It inherently requires a change in climate sensitivity. It's a direct correlation that those of us with an actual science background understand.

Yes but that is the modeled influence of soalr radiance influences, which is not what the GHG model is about, now I have asked you again and again. What specific evidence is there that this makes the GHGs any less likely of a canidate?

You have yet to discuss error bars on the proxies of solar iradiance, have you? I missed that.

What evidence do you have that the current rise in global temperature is caused by a change in solar irradiance?