Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

Note that climate sensitivity is described entirely as energy flux. Entropy flux is something else entirely, and while it’s possible it could impact the value for climate sensitivity no evidence has been presented that it will and certainly no evidence has been presented for any quantified value for such a change.

That's correct, although it's common to see sensitivity expressed in degrees. No value exists because the most common way of determining sensitivity it by running the GCM's and they have yet to be run.

The simplest answer is that GCM’s already have nearly the right answer and the big issues have already been addressed in them.

This is the very definition of alarmist. Making definitive statements about climate models when nothing could be further from the truth. Climate models don't come close to accurately modeling entropy, a very fundamental principle when describing heat transfer. I think people should chose their words more wisely. When you say "nearly the right answer" what you probably mean is "CO2 is a dominant forcing and they've got a pretty good idea of what it does to the climate".

If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles is the climate going to warm? You bethcha, "GCM's already have nearly the right answer" when it comes to that. To what extent and effect, that's and entirely different question.

There's plenty more to learn about the sun and its effect on the climate.

 

[Reality Check]

That's correct, although it's common to see sensitivity expressed in degrees. No value exists because the most common way of determining sensitivity it by running the GCM's and they have yet to be run.

A nit pick: it's common to see sensitivity expressed in degrees per forcing, e.g. 3 C per doubling of CO2.

You are wrong. Using GCMs is only one of many ways of determining climate sensitivity:
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (5 days and counting)
It cannot be described as "common" unless you mean the trivial fact that there are a lot more runs of GCMs but a relatively few number of calculations done using observations.
Or maybe there are just more GCM papers?


What if we have a GCM that uses incident solar entropy flux and outbound terrestrial entropy flux as input parameters. We do the Wu et al analysis of the solar and terrestrial fluxes to get new values. These values are plugged into the GCM. Then there are a couple of possible results

1. The climate sensitivity remains in the range of the other techniques.
2. The climate sensitivity goes outside of the range of the other techniques.

The first case is easy - there is no problem with the science.

The second case is more complex.

The climate sensitivity range is established by many other techniques using real world observations. So the initial thought would be that this GCM is wrong. But maybe we do the same for all the appropriate GCM's and they all fall in into the second case? Then we have that either

1. there is something wrong with the real world observations or
2. there is something wrong with these specific GCM's.

Personally I would go for the second option unless flaws with the real world observations are found.

 

[Pixel42]

There's a solar flare prediction now? I missed that.

There was a solar flare observation which Haig quoted Corbyn as saying meant that there would be extreme weather events in several countries significantly worse than conventional weather forecasters were predicting. Needless to say this did not happen, and I recorded it as a miss. Corbyn is currently 1 for 4, with 6 predictions left from my original list.

 

[Furcifer]

You are wrong. Using GCMs is only one of many ways of determining climate sensitivity:

Nice strawman.I would be wrong if I had said it was the only way of determining sensitivity. Of course I never did or never would.

Reading shouldn't be this hard for someone who claims to have a University education.

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

Again, try reading for comprehension. The problem has been has been discussed ad naeseum. There are considerable uncertainties in the calculations or climate sensitivity. Clouds are hard to account for but flux isn't.

It cannot be described as "common" unless you mean the trivial fact that there are a lot more runs of GCMs but a relatively few number of calculations done using observations.
Or maybe there are just more GCM papers?

What are you talking about? Climate sensitivity is usually taken from GCM's. These are the figures "commonly" cited.

You seem to be suffering from a knee jerk reaction to disagree without thinking things out first.

The climate sensitivity range is established by many other techniques using real world observations.

What "techniques"? Real world observations get fed into GCM's and they spit out estimates of sensitivity.

I'm not following your new line of reasoning here.

 

[Reality Check]

Nice strawman.I would be wrong if I had said it was the only way of determining sensitivity. Of course I never did or never would.

Nice strawman. You never said that GCMs were the only way of determining sensitivity. I never said that you said that they were.

There are considerable uncertainties in the calculations or climate sensitivity. Clouds are hard to account for but flux isn't.

So your answer to
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
is the obvious fact that there are considerable uncertainties?
So what - that is why there is a range of climate sensitivity..
You remain ignorant that the estimates from real world measurement include the real world. This includes clouds and flux.

What are you talking about? Climate sensitivity is usually taken from GCM's. These are the figures "commonly" cited.

What are you remaining ignorant of? Climate sensitivity is usually taken from many sources. These are the figures "commonly" cited.

What "techniques"? Real world observations get fed into GCM's and they spit out estimates of sensitivity.

I see that you are actually ignorant of how climate sensitivies are estimated and cannot click on links or read posts.
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?[

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)
Forster et al. (2006)

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?

 

[Furcifer]

Nice strawman. You never said that GCMs were the only way of determining sensitivity. I never said that you said that they were.

lol, then what exactly was I "wrong" about?

So what - that is why there is a range of climate sensitivity..

No the range is within the known variability, not the unknown.

You remain ignorant that the estimates from real world measurement include the real world. This includes clouds and flux.

lol, you don't even know what sensitivity is do you? I'm curious how you think you measure cloud cover 20-30 maybe 50 years down the road when CO2 has doubled. You're getting more preposterous with every post now. Time to consider reeling it in a bit.

Climate sensitivity is usually taken from many sources. These are the figures "commonly" cited.

lol, that's funny.

I see that you are actually ignorant of how climate sensitivies are estimated and cannot click on links or read posts.

Now it's plural? Is there no end to the stuff you are willing to make up?

This has to be the convoluted response to a straightforward question I have ever seen. From lying to denying the principles of physics to outright lying all to keep a belief system intact. Shameful.

Regardless of "sensitivities" , the sun's influence on our climate is still poorly understood. Dismissing a theory because it conflicts with your preconceived notion about the distant future climate is far from skeptical and really has no place here in the science forum. Take your religion elsewhere please!

 

[Reality Check]

lol, then what exactly was I "wrong" about?

You were wrong about the GCM estimates being "common" There are other techniques. They are just as "common"and maybe more "common" There are certaily more of them..

No the range is within the known variability, not the unknown.

Duh - the known range of climate sensitivities is within the known range of climate sensitivities.
The range is established through the many estimates using several techniques.

lol, you don't even know what sensitivity is do you? I'm curious how you think you measure cloud cover 20-30 maybe 50 years down the road when CO2 has doubled. You're getting more preposterous with every post now. Time to consider reeling it in a bit.

lol, you are spouting preposterous inane insults and lies as per you usual MO. Are you hiding a deep ignorance of climate science or is this just a bad personality fault or something else?
I know what climate sensitivity is.
I know there are various ways of estimating climate sensitivity, e.g. the lists in

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

And the list in climate sensitivity.

Time to consider learning to read, Start with the estimates of climate sensitivity from large volcanic eruptions. Wigley et al. (2005) Forster et al. (2006)

Now it's plural? Is there no end to the stuff you are willing to make up?

Now you cannot even understand English .
"climate sensitivities" is short for "the many estimates of climate sensitvity".

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (6 days and counting)

 

[Furcifer]

You were wrong about the GCM estimates being "common" There are other techniques. They are just as "common"and maybe more "common" There are certaily more of them..

That's a load of garbage. I don't understand why you keep making up stuff? Do you know what the "common" climate sensitivity is? 1.5-4.5 degrees? Do you know where that came from and how?

Duh - the known range of climate sensitivities is within the known range of climate sensitivities.
The range is established through the many estimates using several techniques.

Yes, they're called "GCM's".

I know what climate sensitivity is.
I know there are various ways of estimating climate sensitivity,

What no measurement?

Time to consider learning to read, Start with the estimates of climate sensitivity from large volcanic eruptions. Wigley et al. (2005) Forster et al. (2006)

Oh you mean that "common" sensitivity.

Now you cannot even understand English .
"climate sensitivities" is short for "the many estimates of climate sensitvity".

In English could you explain how this derail has anything to do with solar entropy flux.

Are you saying any of them account for the proper estimate as per SORCE data? If so, using your words, point them out I would very much like to read them. Or is this just what I suspect is another one of your "Look what I can Google!" expeditions into things you don't, can't understand?

 

[Furcifer]

So your answer to3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
is the obvious fact that there are considerable uncertainties?

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (6 days and counting)

Why do you continue to lie? I think perhaps you are blocking out stuff that doesn't fit with your beliefs.

Again, the problem with climate sensitivity estimates is that they don't properly account for things like SSI entropy flux, or even the variation in solar diameter or sun spots. These variations can have profound effects on our climate, just like CO2.

 

[Reality Check]

..snipped inane insults... Do you know what the "common" climate sensitivity is? 1.5-4.5 degrees? Do you know where that came from and how?

Yes I do: The "common" climate sensitivity is a delusion that you have.
There are some commonly cited ranges of estimates of climate senstivity. The "1.5-4.5 degrees" seems to be the AR4 analysis:
A detailed look at climate sensitivity

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

Yes, they're called "GCM's".

No, they're called

• GCM's and
• Paleoclimate and
• Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions and
• Empirical Observations and
• Probabilistic Estimate Analysis .

Oh you mean that "common" sensitivity.

No I mean it is about time that you learned to read and read this technique (among others) of estimating climate sensitivity from large volcanic eruptions. Wigley et al. (2005) Forster et al. (2006)

In English could you explain how this derail has anything to do with solar entropy flux.

In real simple Engish just for you, 3bodyproblem:
The real world has solar entropy flux.
If you make a measurement of the real worlld like temperature you are including the effects of solar entropy flux.
If you take those measurements of the real world (that include solar entropy flux) and estimate climate sensitivity the nyour estimate includes solar entropy flux.

Are you saying any of them account for the proper estimate as per SORCE data?

The following papers include whatever solar entropy flux exists in the real world no matter what instrument measured the solar irradiance flux or whatever model is used to convert that to a solar entropy flux

• Wigley et al. (2005)
• Forster et al. (2006)
• Zeebe 2009
• Gregory et al. (2002)

For a comprehensive review see Knutti and Hegerl (2008).

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Why do climate sensitivity estimates have similar ranges

Again, the problem with climate sensitivity estimates is that they don't properly account for things like SSI entropy flux, or even the variation in solar diameter or sun spots. These variations can have profound effects on our climate, just like CO2.[/

Again: We are talking about estimates of climate sensitivity. CO2 is a driver, and does not effect climate sensitivity.
Where is your evidence that:

• SSI entropy flux has an influence on climate sensitvity that somehow vanishes in real world measurements?
  Some GCMs apparently include solar entropy flux but they give similar ranges to the other techniques despite having the wrong value according to you (not the Wu et al paper because that has not been confirmed yet and does not even give any testable, falsifiable predictions).
• that the variation in solar diameter has an effect on climate sensitivity?
• that the variation in sunspot numbers has an effect on climate sensitivity?

I have given you the scientific evidence that a wide range of techniques for estimating climate sensitivity come up with similar ranges of values.
You need to show that they are all wrong .

So 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (6 days and counting)
Could be inverted: 3bodyproblem: Why do climate sensitivity estimates have similar ranges?
GCM (with solar entropy flux included) estimates give similar ranges to GCM (without solar entropy flux included) estimates and to other techniques that use real world measurements (solar entropy flux implicitly included).

The fact is that

• if we use a different value for solar incident entropy flux (and terrestrial outbound entropy flux and whatever else needs to be recalculated because of the implications of the Wu et al paper)
• and this is pluged into the GCM's (with solar entropy flux included)
• and this results in a different range of estimates
• and that range is lower then the other estimate ranges
• then it is more probable that the GCM's (with solar entropy flux included) are wrong because the other techniques (including GCMs!) confirm each other.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes I do: The "common" climate sensitivity is a delusion that you have.
There are some commonly cited ranges of estimates of climate senstivity. The "1.5-4.5 degrees" seems to be the AR4 analysis:
A detailed look at climate sensitivity

Yes because it is the latest and most commonly referred to.

I can't believe you are citing old papers as evidence of multiple estimates. lol, it's as if you don't understand science at all.

No I mean it is about time that you learned to read and read this technique (among others) of estimating climate sensitivity from large volcanic eruptions.

I don't think you understand progression. There aren't multiple "sensitivities", there is only one. There are multiple estimates of sensitivity, but only one true sensitivity (for each assumed conjecture, ie: CO2 doubling, 1% increase in CO2 yearly etc.)

If you take those measurements of the real world (that include solar entropy flux) and estimate climate sensitivity the nyour estimate includes solar entropy flux.

Yes, although you wouldn't know it.

If it's not modeled or identified as variable then it would most likely appear as a constant. This may be part of the problem with tuning models and not getting results that closely match past climate history.

 

[Reality Check]

Why are multiple papers with estimates not evidence of multiple estimates

Yes because it is the latest and most commonly referred to.

Provide the numbers: What exactly is the % of times the the GCM estimates are refered to?
But if you are really obsessed with this word "common" then I will let you have it. GCM climate sensitivity estimates are "common". So what?

I can't believe you are citing old papers as evidence of multiple estimates. lol, it's as if you don't understand science at all.

I can't believe you are ignorant enough to think that citing papers that are a few years old is invalid.
I can't believe you are ignorant enough to think that citing multiple papers containing estimates of climate sensitivity is not evidence of multiple estimates.

lol, it's as if you don't understand science at all.

• Wigley et al. (2005)
• Forster et al. (2006)
• Zeebe 2009
• Gregory et al. (2002)

There aren't multiple "sensitivities", there is only one.

That is right - there is only one climate sensitivity. I never stated anything else..
There are multiple estimates of that one climate sensitivity. Each estimate gives a range of that one climate sensitivity. There are several different techniques to estimate that one climate sensitivity.

Yes, although you wouldn't know it.

Yes you will not know the actual value.
That will not matter because you have implicitly included the actual value in the real world mesurement.

If it's not modeled or identified as variable then it would most likely appear as a constant. This may be part of the problem with tuning models and not getting results that closely match past climate history.

That is the problem with the GCMs with solar entropy flux parameters: They already are tuned to fit to match the past climate history.

If you change the solar entropy flux parameters then they will probably not match the past climate history. That means that that GCM model is wrong.

Luckily we have GCM without solar entropy flux parameters, e.g. Hansens model that matches the past climate history with a climate sensitivity of 3 C per doubling of CO2.

 

[Furcifer]

Again: We are talking about estimates of climate sensitivity. CO2 is a driver, and does not effect climate sensitivity.

This really goes all the way back to beginning doesn't it. If you define the sensitivity as the energy required to raise the temperature by 1 degree CO2 does affect the sensitivity doesn't it?

Please tell me you understand at least that much.

Where is your evidence that:

• SSI entropy flux has an influence on climate sensitvity that somehow vanishes in real world measurements?

• 
  
  Sensistivity is an estimate of all the flux, that includes the entropy flux. Did you even read any of the papers you Googled? I doubt it. It's all laid out for you in the Gregory 2002 paper.
  
  

  Some GCMs apparently include solar entropy flux but they give similar ranges to the other techniques despite having the wrong value according to you

  
  lol, funny stuff. The range varies widely in the papers you've cited. Similar ranges, you're such a kidder.
  
  
  

  (not the Wu et al paper because that has not been confirmed yet and does not even give any testable, falsifiable predictions).
  [*]that the variation in solar diameter has an effect on climate sensitivity?
  [*]that the variation in sunspot numbers has an effect on climate sensitivity?
  I have given you the scientific evidence that a wide range of techniques for estimating climate sensitivity come up with similar ranges of values.
  You need to show that they are all wrong .

  
  No I don't, all I have to do is show you don't have any idea what "similar ranges" means and be done with it.
  
  1-10 is not similar to 1.5-4.5. Done.
  
  
  

  Could be inverted: 3bodyproblem: Why do climate sensitivity estimates have similar ranges?

  
  lol, they don't. They vary widely and it's due to the uncertainty.
  
  I'd suggest not basing your entire post on a faulty premise. It makes it very easy to refute. Even easier than lies. Much easier than lies.

 

[Reality Check]

This really goes all the way back to beginning doesn't it. If you define the sensitivity as the energy required to raise the temperature by 1 degree CO2 does affect the sensitivity doesn't it?

CO2 does not effect climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is not a function of CO2. Climate sensitivity is a constant.

You multiply climate sensitivity by the change in CO2 radiative forcing to get the change in termpertaure.

Please tell me you understand at least that much.

Sensistivity is an estimate of all the flux, that includes the entropy flux. Did you even read any of the papers you Googled? I doubt it. It's all laid out for you in the Gregory 2002 paper.

I have read Gregory et al. (2002) An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity.
They do not say what you assert. They mention radiative flux and heat flux.
FYI: Climate sensitivity

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing. It is usually expressed as the temperature change associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

lol, funny stuff. The range varies widely in the papers you've cited. Similar ranges, you're such a kidder.

lol inane, ignorant stuff.
Scientific calaculations include such things as error estimates. That changes numbers into ranges of numbers.
The papers I cited do have wide ranges in the estimates. They are similar (i.e. close but not very close) ranges, i.e. mostly within the range of 1.5 to 6 C per doubling of CO2.
You're such a kidder showing off your ignorance this way.

1-10 is not similar to 1.5-4.5. Done.

1-10 is similar to 1.5-6.5. Done.

A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Read Knutti and Hegerl (2008) to see the similarity of the ranges.

In their paper, they present a figure which neatly encapsulates how various methods of estimating climate sensitivity examining different time periods have yielded consistent results, as the studies described above show. As you can see, the various methodologies are generally consistent with the range of 2-4.5°C, with few methods leaving the possibility of lower values, but several unable to rule out higher values.

lol, they don't. They vary widely and it's due to the uncertainty.

lol, they do. They vary widely within similar, i.e. close but not very close ranges and it's due to the uncertainty and the different methodologies.

 

[Furcifer]

CO2 does not effect climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is not a function of CO2. Climate sensitivity is a constant.

We all wish it was a constant. You're the only one that thinks it is. Something you may want to consider.

 

[Furcifer]

1-10 is similar to 1.5-6.5. Done.

lol, do you understand the difference in energy associated with a 4 degree difference in temperature? That's twice the peak to peak difference in Milankovitch cycles.

There's no rationalizing with someone that doesn't understand the variables they are talking about. You've essentially set the entire field of climate science back 20 years.

I suppose the sky really is purple, I mean, close enough, it's in the range of the actual spectrum.

 

[lomiller]

Furthermore there are completely separate lines of evidence for climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity is to low it’s not possible for the earth to enter of exist a glaciations, if it’s too high the earth’s climate would swing wildly and we need to revise our estimate of greenhouse warming upwards. Climate models already give sensitivities that are within this range so any significant change to their sensitivity estimates would mean there are not 1 but 2 problems. The first would take you outside the plausible range for sensitivity which would be an indicator that there is a second missing element in the other direction. Once both are accounted for, sensitivity would need to be around what the models already say.

While this scenario isn’t impossible Occam’s razor says we don’t invoke it unless we have strong evidence there is a need. The simplest answer is that GCM’s already have nearly the right answer and the big issues have already been addressed in them.

This is the very definition of alarmist. Making definitive statements about climate models when nothing could be further from the truth.

Occams’s razor is a basic principle needed to evaluate any argument properly. If you feel such basic principles are alarmist then there is really no point in going further, it’s impossible for you to either advance a constructive argument or defend your claims.

 

[lomiller]

I can't believe you are ignorant enough to think that citing papers that are a few years old is invalid.
I can't believe you are ignorant enough to think that citing multiple papers containing estimates of climate sensitivity is not evidence of multiple estimates.

I lol’ed as well. He seems to be trying to argue that all the papers you cite to support the claim of multiple estimates must be newer then the most recent paper on the topic, which of course makes the whole “multiple” thing impossible.

 

[lomiller]

We all wish it was a constant. You're the only one that thinks it is. Something you may want to consider.

While it’s true, climate sensitivity can chance if the system hits a non-linearity, sometimes called a “tipping point” but the existence of tipping points means more cause for alarm not less so you are shooting down your own arguments here.