Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

What do you understand from it?



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

That entropy flux is used in calculating climate sensitivity. Exactly what's been highlighted. I'm surprised you didn't catch that.

 

[Furcifer]

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 .

I've never seen someone take a nonsequitor and run with it.

Perhaps that's what's tripping you up?

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Your stated views that this has any implications for climate sensitivity, estimates of which are not based on "entropy flux" but on physical processes and evidence from the past. "Entropy flux" can be as mysterious as you like, but it's the energy budget which determines what happens to the climate.

GCM's which take account of entropy only do so to ensure that they aren't blatantly breaching any thermodynamic laws. Which, sure enough, they aren't.

You're grasping at strawmen here.

You're grasping at a straw with "entropy flux" not being fully understood. It doesn't matter. Entropy is not a physical process, it is not a forcing, it makes no demands. It is that which increases every step of the way from Big Bang to energy-death of the Universe, and that is all. A measure of where we''ve got to.

Converting physical processes to their equivalent entropy creation is an abstruse (effete, even) exercise but has never changed anything. There's no surprise get-out hidden in it : solar entropy flux and solar spectrum variation across solar cycles are no different now from what they were in 1000CE or twelve thousand years ago. Climate sensitivity, as estimated from the energy budget, accomodates both. Why bring up "entropy flux" at all, if not as some sort of displacement activity?

 

[Dancing David]

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.



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

And so the relevance to the OP is tenuous and all those comments you made dispaging people who perhaps believe in AGW were just troll bait.

fraction of a degree
"It takes an alarmist to extend the consensus opinion that the world has warmed by a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years because of CO2 to mean anything but that."

No you weren't talking about the diameter of the sun
"CO2 is not the only part of the climate. Alarmists think it's the only thing and dismiss things like radiation and the diameter of the sun. That's what I'm takin about. "

So you were agreeing that 'None. The rise in surface temperature is due to the rise in CO2' by contradicting your self with
"Accounting for the underestimate in flux, what percentage of anthropogenic warming is due to CO2 and what percentage due to the sun?"

"Global cooling is still very much on the table. You're going to be huddling around cooking marshmallows in Summer telling your grand kids about the Global Warming scare in '10. It's just a good thing they're bringing back the Woolly Mammoth! "

"In the mean time, it's entirely possible the Earth is cooling."

 

[Furcifer]

"Entropy flux" can be as mysterious as you like, but it's the energy budget which determines what happens to the climate.

lol, and what do you think a change in the flux does to the estimate of the energy budget? I'm mean it's pretty simple.

GCM's which take account of entropy only do so to ensure that they aren't blatantly breaching any thermodynamic laws. Which, sure enough, they aren't.

That's incorrect. If the models say the temperature is going to rise 2 degree in the next 20 years and it only rises 1 they've broken the laws of thermodynamics. It's more a case of not accounting for them, but none the less they've been broken. If the actual temperature rise is more or less than the range they predict, they've broken the laws of thermodynamics.

So you are wrong.

You're grasping at a straw with "entropy flux" not being fully understood. It doesn't matter. Entropy is not a physical process, it is not a forcing, it makes no demands.

The temperature isn't a physical process either. But it's obviously important. The same goes for flux. Making a distinction between a process and a measurement is academic to say the least. Isn't this one of your black swans?

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Absolutely none, of course, but it does introduce a sense of mystery and the possibility of a surprise culprit being revealed in the last act of a dull and predictable play.

 

[Furcifer]

And so the relevance to the OP is tenuous and all those comments you made dispaging people who perhaps believe in AGW were just troll bait.

Incorrect.

It actually suggests the change in SSI has more effect on the climate than you think.

I believe in the science. That's all. If there's science in Astrometria, or science to be gleaned from it, it will be discovered. If it's woo that will be discovered too.

What I'm disparaging is alarmists who tout to know more than they do because they copypasta and argument form some politically motivated website.

 

[Furcifer]

Absolutely none, of course, but it does introduce a sense of mystery and the possibility of a surprise culprit being revealed in the last act of a dull and predictable play.

Again, clearly the ramblings of an alarmist. This has nothing to do with some Hail Mary play. This has to do with properly understanding the role of radiation in atmospheric physics.

Stick around, you may learn something.

 

[CapelDodger]

lol, and what do you think a change in the flux does to the estimate of the energy budget? I'm mean it's pretty simple.

It makes no difference to the energy budget. Simple.

That's incorrect. If the models say the temperature is going to rise 2 degree in the next 20 years and it only rises 1 they've broken the laws of thermodynamics.

The point is to track the models as they go through their cycles, not against what the real situation is twenty years in the future. Which you don't know any more than I or the models do.

What we do know is that the real world won't break the laws of thermodynamics, and will respond to the energy budget, Which is why it's warming just as predicted.

It's more a case of not accounting for them, but none the less they've been broken.

No, they haven't. Unless you'd care to argue that the real world has broken those laws because of the one paper you're using as a crutch?

If the actual temperature rise is more or less than the range they predict, they've broken the laws of thermodynamics.

Since the actual global surface temperature rise isn't outside that range they've broken no laws at all. Entropy would, of course, include sub-surface oceanic warming and other complicating factors.

So you are wrong.

No. I'm not.

The temperature isn't a physical process either.

Obviously not. Temperature is a measure, like weight.

But it's obviously important.

And should therefore be defined. Do you mean the average global surface temperature, the heat-content of the fluid membrane on the planet, how warm it feels in your backyard, or what exactly?

The same goes for flux. Making a distinction between a process and a measurement is academic ...

It's very far from that. It's fundamental.

... to say the least.

That you believe it says a lot about you.

Isn't this one of your black swans?

No.

 

[CapelDodger]

Again, clearly the ramblings of an alarmist. This has nothing to do with some Hail Mary play. This has to do with properly understanding the role of radiation in atmospheric physics.

Stick around, you may learn something.

No from you, sadly. You can't even differentiate between radiation and entropy, nor between process and measurement.

I am not alarmed, nor alarmist. I'm enjoying every minute of denialists eating their own livers rather than go quietly away in the light of reality.

 

[Furcifer]

You can't even differentiate between radiation and entropy, nor between process and measurement.

Not your particular wacky idea of entropy. First you say it travels (a physical process) then you say it isn't a physical process.

 

[Furcifer]

It makes no difference to the energy budget. Simple.

The change in flux makes no difference on the energy budget? Well now that you've broken all the laws of thermodynamics what are you going to do?

What we do know is that the real world won't break the laws of thermodynamics, and will respond to the energy budget, Which is why it's warming just as predicted.

What laws, you just threw them out the window with your claim that the change in flux has no effect on the energy budget.

This is delightfully revealing.

No, they haven't. Unless you'd care to argue that the real world has broken those laws because of the one paper you're using as a crutch?

Come on, you don't have any clue about thermodynamics. You think the change in flux has no effect on the energy budget. That's just priceless.

Since the actual global surface temperature rise isn't outside that range they've broken no laws at all.

Crimes in proximo.

Obviously not. Temperature is a measure, like weight.

It's actually a state variable like entropy. You should enrich you knowledge, base, take a class at the University.

And should therefore be defined. Do you mean the average global surface temperature, the heat-content of the fluid membrane on the planet, how warm it feels in your backyard, or what exactly?

Since we're talking about sensitivity mean global I suppose. 98.6 is another one.

The same goes for flux. Making a distinction between a process and a measurement is academic ...

It's very far from that. It's fundamental.

The fact that it's fundamental is academic. Your sophistry fools only yourself.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual inane insults...
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..

That is insane,3bodyproblem

• The question is not about that papoer.
• I have no problem with the quote from that paper.

What I posted was

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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.

I am asking whether you

1. Have read any papers (or textbooks) on GCMs.
2. Have seen whether they vary their parameters in order to see what effect that has on the outcome of the model.
3. And so whether the models with an entropy flux parameter varies that parameter to determine the sensitivity of the model to that parameter.

 

[Reality Check]

...wow a post just full of insults...

3bodyproblem, read the paper and try to understand it rather going off on yet another rant.
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PD) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.

The authors never state that the increase in incident solar entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity. The authors never even mention climate sensitivity. The term "climate sensitivity" does not appear in the paper.
Thus it is extremely ignorant to cite this paper as evidence for your assertion in answer to:

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

And remember - I think that you are right. So it is weird of you to continuously insult a supporter!
If an increase in entropy means that a system is less sensitive to change then maybe an increase in incident solar entropy flux means the same (with the obvious condition).

 

[Reality Check]

No answer yet to:
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011

 

[Furcifer]

*sigh

I am asking whether you

1. Have read any papers (or textbooks) on GCMs.

1. 
   
   Not specific papers on GCM's. I've never seen any.
   
   
   

   Have seen whether they vary their parameters in order to see what effect that has on the outcome of the model.

   
   Yes, that's how they work.
   
   

   [*]And so whether the models with an entropy flux parameter varies that parameter to determine the sensitivity of the model to that parameter.

   
   Yes, but they use A BLACKBODY ESTIMATE THAT'S OFF BY 400%. That's all that is known. I can't find published results of the effects of varying the parameter, nor any indication it was done in isolation. My understanding comes from the paper which clearly indicates this is currently being carried out. Therefore it's probably never been done correctly before.

 

[Furcifer]

The authors never state that the increase in incident solar entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity. The authors never even mention climate sensitivity. The term "climate sensitivity" does not appear in the paper.
Thus it is extremely ignorant to cite this paper as evidence for your assertion in answer to:

I can't believe you're this ignorant of physics that you need a verbatim quote in order to comprehend what is being discussed.

Are you being serious of are you just pulling my leg? If I told you "The ball fell" would you seriously beg the question "What made it fall?, that doesn't mention gravity, it does not appear in that sentence, obviously gravity didn't make the ball fall"?

This is amusing, but very sad. It's going to take comprehension to discuss this issue and you've continued, despite my patient effort, to fall short of the mark.

The science is very clear, entropy flux is an important part of climate sensitivity calculations. That includes incident solar entropy flux.

 

[Reality Check]

*Yes, but they use A BLACKBODY ESTIMATE THAT'S OFF BY 400%. That's all that is known. I can't find published results of the effects of varying the parameter, nor any indication it was done in isolation. My understanding comes from the paper which clearly indicates this is currently being carried out. Therefore it's probably never been done correctly before.

No: they use A BLACKBODY ESTIMATE THAT MAY BE OFF BY 400%. That is all that is suggested.
Whether that has any effect on the climate sensitivity those models deduce depends on the sensitivity of the model to the entropy flux. Since you do not know what that sensitivity is then you (and I) have no idea what the GCMs would come up with.

Your understanding of the paper is not quite right. They state

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.

The GCMs were "done correctly before".
If the paper is shown to be correct then the GCMs will be done even more correctly.

 

[Reality Check]

...usual rantring snipped...
The science is very clear, entropy flux is an important part of climate sensitivity calculations. That includes incident solar entropy flux.

I know that entropy flux is an important part of climate sensitivity calculations.
I know that entropy flux includes incident solar entropy flux.
The authors of the paper know that entropy flux is an important part of climate sensitivity calculations.
The authors of the paper know that entropy flux includes incident solar entropy flux.

I know that is nothing to do with what I wrote.
Anyone that can read can see that the paper does not address the question.

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

The authors never state that the increase in incident solar entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity. The authors never even mention climate sensitivity. The term "climate sensitivity" does not appear in the paper.
Thus it is extremely ignorant to cite this paper as evidence for your assertion in answer to:

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

Please do not label yourself as ignorant by citing a paper that does not mention climate sensitivity or state that the increase in incident solar entropy flux lowers climate sensitivity.

P.S.
You reminded of a potential problem with the Wu et al paper. They do not look at the outbound entropy flux from the Earth. That raises some questions:

• Would treating the Earth as a grey body increase the outbound entropy flux?
  I would guess yes.
• Would this increase in outbound entropy flux be comparable to the increase in incident entropy flux?
  If yes then it is possible that there will be no change in climate sensitivity.
  Even if they are not comparable then any increase in outbound entropy flux should increase climate sensitivity. Thus the decrease in climate sensitivity will be smaller than the unknown amount that you do not say that it will decrease by.

 

[Haig]

Piers Corbyn now forecasting extreme weather events in 4 continents

· USA forecast add-in spells out 12 tornado / flood / biting cold events through March.

· NEW World (exc USA & Europe) events forecast covers 8 events – Tropical Cyclone formation off Australia, dust storms in North Africa and China, and tornado warnings for Bangla Desh and New Zealand.

· Major deluges floods & tornadoes to hit USA 23/24 March

· Early North Pacific Tropical Cyclone likely to form around 30/31 March and head for Philippines & South China Sea.

"Our close to 100% success with extreme events forecasts for USA this winter and new advances we have made – to SLAT6a - which explain shortfalls in snow in England especially in February, give us great optimism that we will achieve our goal of comprehensive world-wide long range forecasting of extreme events a year ahead”, said Piers.

"We will get there despite the attitude of official bodies and governments around the world!”.