Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Dancing David]

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.

Ah, so what evidence is there that this has changed in the last thirty years and caused the global warming which is observed?

Do models normally do that?

 

[Furcifer]

Ah, so what evidence is there that this has changed in the last thirty years and caused the global warming which is observed?

Do models normally do that?

That what has changed? The only thing that's changed significantly is our understanding of atmospheric physics.

 

[Furcifer]

What specific evidence is there that this makes the GHGs any less likely of a canidate?

Nothing. It's the extent of their effect on the climate that changes with this information. It also suggests solar variation plays a bigger role than before.

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

None. The rise in surface temperature is due to the rise in CO2.

 

[Reality Check]

Ah, so what evidence is there that this has changed in the last thirty years and caused the global warming which is observed?

Do models normally do that?

That is not really what 3bodyproblem is asserting.
He is asserting that the

• this 2011 paper is correct, i.e. the solar entropy flux needs to be increased by a factor of 4.
• this increase in solar entropy flux means a decrease in climate sensitivity.

He has no idea how much this decrease will be.
He has no citations to support that there will be a decrease (I think that there will be but what do I know? ).

See Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame for why climate change "skeptics" want climate sensitivity to be lower than what is estimated.
Basically if it is low enough then the observed change in CO2 cannot explain the observed change in global temperature.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

And yet actual scientists are questioning if it will change our view of GHG induced climate change.

Nice to see its fear mongering as usual in the alarmist camp.

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?

No. Since much of this is from December of 2010 I doubt if much has been written in 2 months. Only your junk science would take an idea and start turning out papers in that short of time.

GCM estimates agree with the other techniques.

And yet the models do poorly at regressing the climate form known data let alone projecting it.

Climate sensitivity is a big uncertainty in the current models. Everyone knows that. The just outlines one of the many reasons it is.

 

[Furcifer]

That is not really what 3bodyproblem is asserting.
He is asserting that the

• this 2011 paper is correct, i.e. the solar entropy flux needs to be increased by a factor of 4.
• this increase in solar entropy flux means a decrease in climate sensitivity.

He has no idea how much this decrease will be.
He has no citations to support that there will be a decrease (I think that there will be but what do I know? ).

This suggests to me you don't have any clue how climate science is progressing or even the current state of it. Given the fact that very few GCM's even have entropic parameters I don't expect them all to have completed any changes and run any tests as of now.

There's clear indication of that in the paper:

"It is anticipated that integration of this entropy-related thermodynamic constraint into current global climate models will improve our understanding of the Earth’s climate and climate change.
Shall I explain this to you as well?

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual inane insults...
There's clear indication of that in the paper:

"It is anticipated that integration of this entropy-related thermodynamic constraint into current global climate models will improve our understanding of the Earth’s climate and climate change.
Shall I explain this to you as well?

No it is quite clear:
It is anticipated that integration of this entropy-related thermodynamic constraint into current global climate models will improve our understanding of the Earth’s climate and climate change.states nothing about chnages in climate sensitivity.

 

[Furcifer]

Please don't stop now, you guys are reminding me of a time around the camp fire when I tried to explain thermodynamics to some friends. They were all convinced I was crazy because I insisted they should use a dry cloth the pull the cans of beans out of the fire. The fact that water conducts heat much better than air was lost of them.

It was funny watching them fumble with the hot can until finally one of them dropped it in the fire. Nothing like watching people get burned.

 

[Furcifer]

No it is quite clear:
It is anticipated that integration of this entropy-related thermodynamic constraint into current global climate models will improve our understanding of the Earth’s climate and climate change.states nothing about chnages in climate sensitivity.

It quite clearly does to those of us familiar with the physics involved. Again, I can only lead you to water, I can't make you comprehend the effect of surface tension that allows the bug to walk across it.

 

[Reality Check]

And yet actual scientists are questioning if it will change our view of GHG induced climate change.

And yet I know that actual scientists are questioning if it will change our view of GHG induced climate change.

Nice to see its fear mongering as usual in the alarmist camp.

Nice to see that you are still deuded about me being in the alarmist camp

No. Since much of this is from December of 2010 I doubt if much has been written in 2 months.

Wrong: The question is about the GCMs that have been written about over the past decades. Some according to you include the entropy flux. It is reasonable that the authors would explore the sensitivity of the models to changes in the parameters. That includes entropy flux. So I asked you:
3bodyproblem: Citations to the sensitivity of GCMs to the entropy flux
First asked 3 March 2011
If there are none (or you know of none) just say so.

And yet the models do poorly at regressing the climate form known data let alone projecting it.

Citations please?

Climate sensitivity is a big uncertainty in the current models. Everyone knows that. The just outlines one of the many reasons it is.

Yes it is. Yes everyone knows that. Nothing you have presented makes it more uncertain.

 

[Reality Check]

It quite clearly does to those of us familiar with the physics involved. Again, I can only lead you to water, I can't make you comprehend the effect of surface tension that allows the bug to walk across it.

It quite clearly does to those of us who are able to understand what we read. The quote is about how research improves understanding. Big wow! That is what science does
It states nothing about lowering climate sensitivity. It would be just as deluded to cite the quote as implying that climate sensitivity would increase.

 

[Mikemcc]

3bodyproblem, it take it you feel that the MWP was definitely not as warm as the present. This is a consequence of a low climate sensitivity. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem, it take it you feel that the MWP was definitely not as warm as the present. This is a consequence of a low climate sensitivity. You can't have it both ways.

That's a strawman, I never said it was.

(I've never discussed the MWP, ever)

 

[Furcifer]

Nice to see that you are still deuded about me being in the alarmist camp

Clearly you are. It's amusing to see someone argue outside their knowledge base because they feel it will conflict with their world views.

Some according to you include the entropy flux. It is reasonable that the authors would explore the sensitivity of the models to changes in the parameters.

Nope.

It is anticipated that integration of this entropy-related thermodynamic constraint into current global climate models will improve our understanding of the Earth’s climate and climate change.

I see I do have to explain this to you. The word anticipated implies it hasn't been done yet. Anticipated.

I really suggest you read that paper and try to understand it. You continue to argue like you've never read it or understood a single bit of it.

 

[Furcifer]

That is what science does
It states nothing about lowering climate sensitivity. It would be just as deluded to cite the quote as implying that climate sensitivity would increase.

You clearly don't understand the factors that go into determining climate sensitivity. Nor do you yet understand TOA SSI entropy flux.

Why are you continuing to say things that make you look foolish? It's like you are totally clueless about climate sensitivity. I can't believe anyone can't figure this out. There's really no comprehension beyond your alarmist style copypasta is there?

You're way out of your comfort zone and it shows.

 

[Furcifer]

Here's a quote from an abstract from the RMS

"Since the solution at maximum entropy production by meridional heat fluxes agrees quite well with present mean conditions, this maximum principle is used as a working hypothesis for climate sensitivity studies avoiding the use of fixed cloud amount and meridional heat fluxes."

Understand yet? People with just a basic understanding of physics should get this.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's a strawman, I never said it was.

(I've never discussed the MWP, ever)

Probably because you've never realised that a low climate sensitivity would preclude events of the past. Such as the MWP or the current interglacial.

When Lindzen first dreamt up a reason why climate sensitivity would turn out to be low, AGW would have little effect, and therefore nothing should be done about it, he made the same mistake. In "showing" that Lindzen's Iris would save the day he indavertently showed that glacial/interglacial transitions were impossible. He's been scrabbling to regain ground ever since, to no good effect.

Ther's good evidence for a Medieval Warm Period, and even better evidence for the current interglacial. So while you may not have discussed them directly, your stated views have implications about them. You just didn't realise it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's a quote from an abstract from the RMS

"Since the solution at maximum entropy production by meridional heat fluxes agrees quite well with present mean conditions, this maximum principle is used as a working hypothesis for climate sensitivity studies avoiding the use of fixed cloud amount and meridional heat fluxes."

Understand yet?

What do you understand from it?

People with just a basic understanding of physics should get this.

Implying that you have it, and we don't. We do. Now explain why we should think you do. Which we don't.

 

[CapelDodger]

3bodyproblem, it take it you feel that the MWP was definitely not as warm as the present. This is a consequence of a low climate sensitivity. You can't have it both ways.

Indeed. That said, you're referring to the past, and entropy flux is very now. It's the latest thing, and not a passing fad, no sir. Not like AGW or flared jeans. It's crucial.

Heck 3bodyproblem wasn't even born in Medieval times .

 

[Furcifer]

Ther's good evidence for a Medieval Warm Period, and even better evidence for the current interglacial. So while you may not have discussed them directly, your stated views have implications about them. You just didn't realise it.

What stated views? That the entropy flux isn't calculated properly in current GCM's?

You're grasping at strawmen here.