Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Pixel42]

Oh good, more Corbyn predictions to add to my list.

At the end of March I shall award Corbyn hits for those Haig (or anyone who lives in the areas in question) can provide evidence did indeed happen, and misses for those that didn't.

 

[Furcifer]

Since you do not know what that sensitivity is then you (and I) have no idea what the GCMs would come up with.

None really. Except perhaps it changes how we view GHG induced climate change. Maybe instead we look at the sun?

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

Semantics. They've never been done "correctly". Nor will they ever. Horse shoes, had grenades and GCM's.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

I don't think you even know that a discussion about CO2 is a discussion about climate sensitivity.

You're obviously not capable of understanding these complex systems without having a RealClimate paper to run to. It's certainly not for lack of my trying. Make no mistake however; it's as ridiculous to claim entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity as it is to say gravity has nothing to do with force.

It's literally that ridiculous. (the exceptions being Coca Cola and rechargable batteries, but I doubt you'll understand this either)

 

[Furcifer]

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:

• 
  
  Terrestrial-Stephens, G. L. and O’Brien, D. M.: Entropy and climate, I, ERBE observations of the entropy production, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 119, 121–152, 1993 or reflected Wu, W. and Liu Y.: Radiation entropy flux and entropy production of the Earth system, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG2003, doi:10.1029/2008RG000275, 2010a.?
  
  

  [*]Would treating the Earth as a grey body increase the outbound entropy flux?
  I would guess yes.

  
  Terrestrial or relected or both?
  
  

  [*]Would this increase in outbound entropy flux be comparable to the increase in incident entropy flux?

  
  I need more information.
  
  

  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.

  
  I'm not sure what you are saying here, but yes it may be small. Not for the reason you seem to be saying, but because it happens in the mesosphere.

 

[CapelDodger]

The change in flux makes no difference on the energy budget?

The change in entropy flux makes no difference to the energy budget.

Well now that you've broken all the laws of thermodynamics what are you going to do?

Summon up your inner lawyer and tell me how I've broken any laws of thermodynamics.

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

The change in entropy flux has no effect on the energy budget. The energy budget (like any budget) is the balance of energy in against energy out.

This is delightfully revealing.

Do tell what I've revealed.

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.

The change in entropy flux has no effect on the energy budget.

Crimes in proximo.

You've been reading too much Monckton.

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

Temperature is not a "state variable", it is a measurement.

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

Global what? Surface temperature, fluid heat-content, total entropy-flux?

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


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

I don't need to open the Sophistry locker for this nonsense, I can handle it in Plain English.

Entropy is not a physical process, it doesn't force anything, entropy and energy are not the same thing. I was brought up on the Laws of Thermodynamics; they are, so to speak, in my blood. They clearly aren't in yours.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh good, more Corbyn predictions to add to my list.

At the end of March I shall award Corbyn hits for those Haig (or anyone who lives in the areas in question) can provide evidence did indeed happen, and misses for those that didn't.

I'm depending on that .

There's quite a wealth for March, isn't there? I've yet to pick through it for how unlikely they are to be wrong (Corbyn always predicts UK gales in January and February, which is, like, duh?) but I'll get around to it.

Interesting to see that Corbyn has a New Model which explains (after the event) why the UK's February snowfall failed to comply to post-normal astrology. No doubt the code for this model will be released shortly for proper auditing.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

And if he doesn't get there it won't be because he's talking bollocks. It will be because of the enormous forces ranged against him!

irony

 

[CapelDodger]

Piers Corbyn now forecasting extreme weather events in 4 continents

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

In any mix. That's frickin' desperate.

For flood read warm. For biting cold ... well, cold. And for tornado, what exactly?

· 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.

Bengal, North Africa and China are New World since when? There's Atlantocentric and there's insane, and this isn't Atlantocentric.

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

Standard Corbyn-speak is "within 6-8 days", so that would be from 15th March to not in March at all. Deluge, flood or tornado. What exactly do they have so much in common that Corbyn can't distinguish between them in the signals he's getting?

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

Would that be unusual?

"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.

Close to 100% now, apparently. Heck, if you can't defend 85% why not go higher? It impresses the proles. The royal "our" is all Corbyn IMO.

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

Non sequitur, of course, and rather paranoid to boot. If SLAT6a can do what it's credited with why the world ignoring it have any impact? There's nothing holding Corbyn back - look at SLAT6a, after all, a great advance which actually makes him retrossectively right about "England's" February snow(in his own eyes and those of his acolytes, anyway).

 

[Reality Check]

I don't think you even know that a discussion about CO2 is a discussion about climate sensitivity.

I do hope that remark is not about Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PD) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.
There is no discussion about CO2 in that paper.

You're obviously not capable of understanding these complex systems without having a RealClimate paper to run to.

How ignorant of you 3bodyproblem

1. I have the understanding. Many years in university tends to do that for a person. The sclimate science knowldege though is a bit lacking.
2. RealClimate does not publish papers.
3. I usually cite the Skeptical Science articles.

It's certainly not for lack of my trying. Make no mistake however; it's as ridiculous to claim entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity as it is to say gravity has nothing to do with force.

Now there are signs of delusion from you:

1. You have not tried to explain anything. Maybe you think that insults are explanations !
2. I have never claimed that entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity

I have repeatably aked for you to back up your claim

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

It is becoming obvious that you have no basis for that claim. If that is right just say so.

My education in physics suggests that you are right. 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. Of course the result of Wu et al may mean a corresponding increase in outbound solar entropy, i.e. no change in total entropy flux and so no change in the theoretical value of climate sensitivity.

What luck that we have actual estimates of climate sensitivity!

 

[Reality Check]

None really. Except perhaps it changes how we view GHG induced climate change. Maybe instead we look at the sun?

Maybe their result means that we have to increase the effect of GHG induced climate change?
Maybe their result means that we have to decrease the effect of GHG induced climate change?

Semantics. They've never been done "correctly". Nor will they ever. ...snipped gibberis...

Science. Models are always done correctly until a better model or better input data comes along. That includes GCMs.

But I bet that you have your own personal definition of "correctly". Perhaps you would like to llist all of the GCMs, how they were not done "correctly" in the past and will never be done "correctly" in the future?

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe their result means that we have to increase the effect of GHG induced climate change?
Maybe their result means that we have to decrease the effect of GHG induced climate change?

I see 7 pages of explaining things to you have been for nothing. This is proof positive you don't know what we are talking about, and don't have the capacity to learn. tsk tsk.

 

[Reality Check]

Terrestrial-Stephens, G. L. and O’Brien, D. M.: Entropy and climate, I, ERBE observations of the entropy production, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 119, 121–152, 1993 or reflected Wu, W. and Liu Y.: Radiation entropy flux and entropy production of the Earth system, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG2003, doi:10.1029/2008RG000275, 2010a.?

You do realize that neither of theses papers is the subject of the question?

Terrestrial or relected or both?

Strange question: Entropy cannot be reflected ("relected") - it is a state variable. That is like talking about reflecting temperature or pressure.
But to make the point clearer:
The outbound terrestrial irradiance flux + an Earth model = a outbound terrestrial entropy flux.

I need more information.

If you want to answer it then get the information but it was a general one not for you specifically.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but yes it may be small. Not for the reason you seem to be saying, but because it happens in the mesosphere.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
The "it" does not sound like any subject of the quote (climate senstivity or entropy flux or ?). Outbound entropy flux affects the mesosphere - and the troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere and exosphere - as outbound irradiance flux goes on the way to space.

What "it" happens in the mesosphere?
What effect does happening in the mesosphere have in "it"?

 

[Reality Check]

I see 7 pages of explaining things to you have been for nothing. This is proof positive you don't know what we are talking about, and don't have the capacity to learn. tsk tsk.

I see that that any pages of explaining things to me do not exist. This is proof positive you don't know what we are talking about, and don't have the capacity to learn.

I see that you continue to be unable to back up your assertion:

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

It is becoming obvious that you have no basis for that claim. If that is right just say so.

Or how about linking to the posts where you explain the physics behind your claim to anyone?


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

 

[Furcifer]

There is no discussion about CO2 in that paper.

No pictures either. I bet that was disappointing.

How ignorant of you 3bodyproblem

1. I have the understanding. Many years in university tends to do that for a person.

1. 
   
   I think you may forgot the most important part of University, how to learn. All the information has been laid out for you and you have begun to piece it together. It's not particularly difficult material. Maybe you didn't pay attention in Thermodynamics?
   
   

   Now there are signs of delusion from you:

   1. You have not tried to explain anything. Maybe you think that insults are explanations !

   1. 
      
      Again incorrect. Numerous times I've tried to explain the effect of increased flux on climate sensitivity. You don't seem to be able to grasp anything beyond the effect of CO2. It's relatively simple, you only need to look at the units I've given it in to determine it's important to climate sensitivity.
      
      

      [*]I have never claimed that entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity

      
      Since you didn't correct CD it's assumed you don't understand or you agree.
      

   I have repeatably aked for you to back up your claim
   Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."

   
   And numerous times you've been told why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity. Still you don't understand.
   
   

   [/INDENT]It is becoming obvious that you have no basis for that claim. If that is right just say so.

   
   Yes, it's physics. Gravity goes down force goes down, flux goes up sensitivity goes down. The basis is basic physics. If you don't understand basic physics just say so. I don't know what more I can tell you
   
   

   My education in physics suggests that you are right. 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. Of course the result of Wu et al may mean a corresponding increase in outbound solar entropy, i.e. no change in total entropy flux and so no change in the theoretical value of climate sensitivity.

   
   The why not try and work out what the change is if you know it exists instead of arguing? This seems like an awful lot of posturing to me.
   
   The answer doesn't exist in academic form yet so RealClimate doesn't have a go to page. The best we can do is discuss what we know and how it applies to come to some logical conclusion.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual insults and the lie about explaining...
Since you didn't correct CD it's assumed you don't understand or you agree.

I do understand. I have never claimed that entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity.
I have stated several times that I expect that it to have affect on climate sensitivity.
I have stated several times that I think that an increase in entropy flux will decrease climate sensitivity.

You assuming that my silence about whatever CD stated is rather dumb given those statements.

And numerous times you've been told why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity.

And you lie again. You have never explained why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity.
I expect that it to have an affect on climate sensitivity.
I think that an increase in entropy flux will decrease climate sensitivity. N.B. That includes incident and outbound entropy flux.

Yes, it's physics.
...nipped yet more insults...

Endlessly repeating that it is physics is stupid, 3bodyproblem .
I know that it is physics. I have known that entropy is physics since high school (40 years ago ).

The why not try and work out what the change is if you know it exists instead of arguing? This seems like an awful lot of posturing to me.

Because you made the assertion not me.
If you were too lazy to "work out what the change is" before making an unsupported claim then why should I do your work for you?

If you did not bother to look up the actual science before making an unsupported claim then be honest and say so. Then we can both agree that neither of us has any idea whether an increased incident solar entropy flux means a lower climate sensitivity.

I now say definitely not for just increased incident solar entropy flux because we need to consider incident and outbound entropy flux.
I think that a change in incident and outbound entropy flux means a lower climate sensitivity based only on my knowledge of physics. I may be wrong.

The answer doesn't exist in academic form yet so RealClimate doesn't have a go to page. The best we can do is discuss what we know and how it applies to come to some logical conclusion.

What answer to which question?

It sounds like you are saying that there is no "academic form" for the answer to whether a change in entropy flux causes a change in climate sensitivity. That is unlikely given your statement that it does.
If you mean that no one has plugged the Wu et al numbers into an equation or model for climate sensitivity then that is obvious given the recent publication.

I am willing to discuss what we know.
What do you know?
I know a lot, e.g. how to find scientific papers as evidence for my statements.

 

[Furcifer]

I do understand. I have never claimed that entropy flux doesn't have anything to do with climate sensitivity.

And yet you supported CD's version of events. Your intellectually dishonest at best, and worst willfully complicit in a deception.

And you lie again. You have never explained why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity.

Countless times. The flow of entropy or heat is ver important in climate sensitivity calculations.

That includes incident and outbound entropy flux.

lol, how about you cite source reference for "inbound entropy flux"? I've tried to explain to you how it works and you refuse to read and try to learn. Now you're just making up words.

Endlessly repeating that it is physics is stupid, 3bodyproblem .
I know that it is physics. I have known that entropy is physics since high school (40 years ago ).

And yet you make mistakes I would expect from someone with no training whatsoever.

Because you made the assertion not me.
If you were too lazy to "work out what the change is" before making an unsupported claim then why should I do your work for you?

Because you're the one insisting on academic gymnastics. (so far you haven't sticked the landing either)

Then we can both agree that neither of us has any idea whether an increased incident solar entropy flux means a lower climate sensitivity.

It's quite clearly going to cause a drop in sensitivity (depending on your perspective and preferred units)

You've made some very basic mistakes that clearly suggest you don't have any clue what you are talking about. I'm quite certain you have some misguided vision of what is happening and it is completely incorrect. I'm not fooled, just so you know. I'm quite certain you are fooling yourself at this point, but feel free to define the "inbound entropy flux".

 

[Reality Check]

And yet you supported CD's version of events. Your intellectually dishonest at best, and worst willfully complicit in a deception.

You are lying - I have not replied to (and so not "supported") any of CD's posts in this thread. The posts that I have made are independant of CD's "version of events".

Countless times. The flow of entropy or heat is ver important in climate sensitivity calculations.

And you lie again. You have never explained why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity.
I know that the flow of heat is very important in climate sensitivity calculations.

lol, how about you cite source reference for "inbound entropy flux"? I've tried to explain to you how it works and you refuse to read and try to learn. Now you're just making up words.

And repeating the lie: You have never explained why the change in flux affects climate sensitivity.

I do not need to cite a reference because I am not making any assertions about outbound entropy flux other than it exists. I am probably using the wriong terminology though.
You on the other hand:
3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
First asked 22nd February 2011

And yet you make mistakes I would expect from someone with no training whatsoever.

I make mistakes, I am honest enough to own up to them.

Because you're the one insisting on academic gymnastics. (so far you haven't sticked the landing either)

Because you made the assertion not me. The burden of proof in scince is tone the person making the assertion.

It's quite clearly going to cause a drop in sensitivity (depending on your perspective and preferred units)

I agree - but according to you I make mistakes that you "would expect from someone with no training whatsoever". So my agreeing is bad news for your unsupported assertion !

You've made some very basic mistakes that clearly suggest you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
...snipped usual inane insults...

I do not recall any "basic mistakes" so perhaps you can list thsm.

I can list yours:

• Asserting something without having any evidence for it (3bodyproblem: Citations for "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?)
• The really basic mistake of citing of the Wu et al paper as evidence when that paper does not give any such evidence and does not even mention climate sensitivity.

P.S.
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (5 days and counting)

 

[Reality Check]

Just to for 3bodyproblem I will reply to CD

The change in entropy flux makes no difference to the energy budget.

This is correct: The energy budget is a budget of energy . By definition it does not include entropy.

Entropy is not a physical process, it doesn't force anything, entropy and energy are not the same thing. I was brought up on the Laws of Thermodynamics; they are, so to speak, in my blood. They clearly aren't in yours.

That is correct.
This emphasizes why entropy flux is not part of the energy budget.
Energy (e.g. the raddiation fron the Sun and outward from the Earth) is the physical process.
Entropy is a change in the state of the system caused by that energy.

Unfortunately the Laws of Thermodynamics are not in my blood. The last involvement that I had was post-graduate work on the theory of surfactants many years ago.

 

[Zeph]

I'm having some trouble understanding why folks bother responding ad infinitum to those who clearly are not operating from reason. For example:

> What is climate sensitivity, [frequent poster]?
> A: The amount of energy needed to change the temperature by 1 degree.

After this (among many things), I'm not seeing the value of discourse with such folks.
Are you hoping to "score points" that get acknowledged? To convince them of even some small iota of inconvenient fact? To shout louder or digress further than they into namecalling? To embarass them? It's obviously not working and more of the same won't either.

I would suggest either ignoring these non-starters, or keeping very firmly in mind that the only worthwhile point it so educate lurkers who might otherwise think there is fire beneath that smokescreen, rather than hoping to make a dent on certainty with which such people operate. Getting drawn into name calling or lying accusations etc doesn't help that education.

If somebody keeps getting your goat, treat them like a troll. And get back to the real substance. So I appreciate the useful countering references some people post in response to such trolls, but getting into the back and forth of "you're lying" & "no, you're lying" is like dealing with the tarbaby.

 

[Haig]

Oh good, more Corbyn predictions to add to my list.

At the end of March I shall award Corbyn hits for those Haig (or anyone who lives in the areas in question) can provide evidence did indeed happen, and misses for those that didn't.

PC seems to getting noticed more and if he's right, that the Sun determines our weather and climate, then we'd best prepare for a cooling climate as he and the head of the Astrometria project both predict.

Comments from Piers

Special SNOW warnings now added on request to WeatherAction March Forecast

In response to requests from farmers impressed by WeatherAction forecasts we have now added - at no extra charge - important snow warnings for parts of USA for this March.
"We are developing this essential weather extremes service for the USA in conjunction with users", said Piers Corbyn astrophysicist and chief forecaster of WeatherAction.com

There is no extra charge for this add-on pdf which is available to subscribers via the member area of WeatherAction.com