Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

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

You are lying.
Climate sensitivity is defined as a constant.
Climate scientists state it as a constant (not a function of time or temperature or anything else).
For example read Gregory et al. (2002) and their equation 1.

I expect that this is one of a couple of approximations that climate scientists make for climate sensitivity. Do you know the other approximations 3bodyproblem?

 

[Reality Check]

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.

lol, do you understand the word similar?
lol, do you understand the term strawman argument?

Most of the ranges are similar (there are outlier estimates). The consequences of the differences are enormous as you raise in your straw man.

Per doubling of CO2:

• IPCC: 1.5–4.5°C
• Zeebe 2009: 1 and 3.5°C
• Forster et al. (2006) : 1.0–4.1 K
• Tung and Camp (2007) : 2.3-4.1°C
• Gregory et al. (2002) : 1.5–4.5 K
• The Knutti and Hegerl (2008) review has most of the ranges between 1.5 C and 8 C for the 90% certainty.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Thanks.

 

[Reality Check]

Let's throw another tiny spanner in what seems to be 3bodyproblem's expectation that the unconfirmed Wu et al paper that calculates an incident solar entropy flux of 4 times the usual. 3bodyproblem expects this woulod lower the climate sensitivity. I agree with this.

3bodyproblem seems to expect that this unconfirmed result would lower climate sensitivity enouygh to remove CO2 as the dominant cause of global warming.
(tell me if I have misinterpreted your position, 3bodyproblem).

The problem with this is that the different estimates of climate sensitivity come from both general circulation models (GCMs) and instrumental (and proxy) observations. The instrumental observations obviously include all the effects on climate sensitivity including entropy flux. What is important is that GCMs and instruments give roughly similar estimates.

Thus I asked him
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (7 days and counting)

What I had not noticed is that GCMs give estimates that are higher than the instrumental estimates!
Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame quotes IPPC AR4 for various different instrumental observations

"Most studies find a lower 5% limit of between 1°C and 2.2°C, and studies that use information in a relatively complete manner generally find a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C…. Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS [Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity] is very likely larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C…constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C.”

and for GCMs

“Equilibrium climate sensitivity [from GCMs] is found to be most likely around 3.2°C, and very unlikely to be below about 2°C…A normal fit yields a 5 to 95% range of about 2.1°C to 4.4°C with a mean value of equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3.3°C (2.2°C to 4.6°C for a lognormal distribution, median 3.2°C)”

In short:

• instrumental = most likely value between 2°C and 3°C.
• GCMs = most likely around 3.2°C

Not all GCMs include explicit entropy flux as a parameter, none of these has been run (as far as 3bodyproblem and I know) with the Wu et al value) and neither 3bodyproblem nor I know if the sensitivity to entropy flux has been studied for those GCMs.

But IMO if the entropy flux parameter GCMs were to be run with the Wu et all value it seems probably that they would come out with lower climate sensitivity estimates that are closer to the instrumental estimates.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's throw another tiny spanner in what seems to be 3bodyproblem's expectation that the unconfirmed Wu et al paper that calculates an incident solar entropy flux of 4 times the usual. 3bodyproblem expects this would lower the climate sensitivity. I agree with this.

I'm unconvinced.

Climate sensitivity is the ratio between global surface temperature change and W/m² forcing, assuming we're on a linear part of the response curve. I can see no connection between that and solar entropy flux.

 

[CapelDodger]

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?

No.

Please tell me you understand at least that much.

Please explain your "understanding" of something which isn't so.

Sensistivity is an estimate of all the flux, that includes the entropy flux.

Does it include the micrometeorite flux then?

Sensitivity is a measure of the ratio between forcing and global surface temperature rise.

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.

Not the way you read it it isn't.

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

Yes, similar.

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.

That, of course, is where you're wrong.

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.

Nonsense and cryptic references are impossible to refute. That makes them an easy route to go for people who have nothing to say.

Even easier than lies. Much easier than lies.

Glad you're not going down the climategit path anymore, unlike the fair and balanced WattsUpMyButt.

 

[Trakar]

I'm unconvinced.

Climate sensitivity is the ratio between global surface temperature change and W/m² forcing, assuming we're on a linear part of the response curve. I can see no connection between that and solar entropy flux.

Agreed, to the extent that the findings of the currently appended and revised Wu paper may eventually lead to a slight revision of climate sensitivity constraints/range, but the primary point of relevence, IMO, is that the varience is actually quite small when comparing the new numbers with the traditionally employed estimations, and thus, it's impact in derivations that employ its value is going to be quite small.

To my understandings the attempted focus on entropy and entropy flux smells more than a bit "fishy," and not Pike's Street fresh if you get my drift. More like buzz-word, quantum understandings. But I have been rather distracted from this discussion and have only skimmed most of the exchanges.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem seems to expect that this unconfirmed result would lower climate sensitivity enouygh to remove CO2 as the dominant cause of global warming.
(tell me if I have misinterpreted your position, 3bodyproblem).

You're finally correct, you've misinterpreted the science and my "position".

The change in climate sensitivity wouldn't be large enough to "remove CO2 as the dominant cause of GW". It just means changes in SSI would have a more pronounced effect on the climate and establish a different equilibrium point. Model predictions will in fact change and most likely we will see ranges on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Furcifer]

No.

I'm not really surprised you don't actually understand the basics of atmospheric physics. Not having a easily "googable" answer most alarmists are at a complete loss. I'm afraid the change in atmospheric CO2 does change sensitivity and therefore the energy required to raise the temperature by 1 degree. Your begging won't change physics.

Does it include the micrometeorite flux then?

Nor magnetic flux. Obviously this discussion has progressed well beyond your ability to identify and distinguish the relevant fluxes.

 

[Reality Check]

You're finally correct, you've misinterpreted the science and my "position".

The change in climate sensitivity wouldn't be large enough to "remove CO2 as the dominant cause of GW". It just means changes in SSI would have a more pronounced effect on the climate and establish a different equilibrium point. Model predictions will in fact change and most likely we will see ranges on the lower end of the spectrum.

So now we have your official position:

3bodyproblem seems to think that the unconfirmed Wu et al result will do what the science says it will do: A change in climate sensiitvity will "establish a different equilibrium point".
​

Well duh .

Why did you ignore the rest of the post?

• instrumental = most likely value between 2°C and 3°C.
• GCMs = most likely around 3.2°C

Not all GCMs include explicit entropy flux as a parameter, none of these has been run (as far as 3bodyproblem and I know) with the Wu et al value) and neither 3bodyproblem nor I know if the sensitivity to entropy flux has been studied for those GCMs.

But IMO if the entropy flux parameter GCMs were to be run with the Wu et all value it seems probably that they would come out with lower climate sensitivity estimates that are closer to the instrumental estimates.

Do you agree with:
The model estimates will still have to match the estimates from empirical data and so CO2 will remain as the primary driver of climate change.

Or have you have evidence that there are problems with the other techniques:
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (9 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.

 

[Furcifer]

So now we have your official position:

3bodyproblem seems to think that the unconfirmed Wu et al result will do what the science says it will do​

What do you mean "unconfirmed"? Physics is "confirmed". This is just a mathematical technique that allows GCM's to properly model TOA SSI entropic flux. It's confirmed by empirical evidence.

I honestly don't believe you have any idea what's being discussed, the more you post the more this is confirmed.

Why did you ignore the rest of the post?

Because it's unintelligible.​

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not really surprised you don't actually understand the basics of atmospheric physics. Not having a easily "googable" answer most alarmists are at a complete loss. I'm afraid the change in atmospheric CO2 does change sensitivity and therefore the energy required to raise the temperature by 1 degree. Your begging won't change physics.

Your claims won't change physics. The amount of energy required to raise the surface temperature by 1C remains the same whatever the atmosphere's CO₂ content. It is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of the atmosphere and the mixable ocean layer by 1C. Of that, CO₂ is a negligible quantity; in fact the atmosphere is a damn small quantity (in heat capacity terms) compared to the mixable layer of the oceans.

Nor magnetic flux. Obviously this discussion has progressed well beyond your ability to identify and distinguish the relevant fluxes.

"Sensistivity is an estimate of all the flux ...". All the flux. Micrometeorite flux is a flux. Ergo ...

So how would you account for solar entropy flux in the energy budget? Entropy isn't energy, so you can't just add or subtract it. Is multiplication or division involved? Does solar entropy flux form a mist reflecting solar radiation away from the top-of-atmosphere? Just how does it have its effect?

In the simple, common world an energy budget is energy-in minus energy-out, which can be in or out of balance. If there's more energy-in than energy out energy accumulates; in the case of the climate-system (atmosphere plus ocean) that energy would manifest as extra heat (the 2nd Law pretty much determines that). The amount of energy necessary to warm the atmosphere plus ocean by 1C is a lot, but there's a lot of energy involved.

You'll notice that this simple, common world exposition does not feature entropy at all. Only you can explain why, and how, you think it should.

 

[Furcifer]

Your claims won't change physics. The amount of energy required to raise the surface temperature by 1C remains the same whatever the atmosphere's CO₂ content.

That's incorrect of course, the more CO2 the less energy that escapes.

It takes more air to blow up a balloon with a hole in it, it takes less energy to warm up a planet with more CO2 in it.

 

[Reality Check]

What do you mean "unconfirmed"?

Unconfirmed as in not confirmed by other scientists.

...snipped usual pathetic insults...
Because it's unintelligible.

Maybe I can make it simple enough for you by stating it in general terms.
We have a measurement that is done by various methods.
We have an adjustmnent to one of the methods.
If the adjusted method omes out with a measurement that agrees with the other methods then there is no problem.
If that method comes out with a measurement that disagrees with the other methods and their results then there are 2 posibbilities

1. The adjusted method is wrong.
2. The other methods are wrong.

Simple enough for you 3bodyproblem?

Getting specific again:
The adjusted method is GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters.
The other methods include (see A detailed look at climate sensitivity):

• GCMs that do not have entropy flux as parameters.
• Paleoclimate data
• Oceanic data
• Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
• Last Glacial Maximum (models)
• Last Glacial Maximum (data)

So I asked you if you agreed with:
The model estimates will still have to match the estimates from empirical data and so CO2 will remain as the primary driver of climate change.

This is what someone with any knowldege of science (or any commonsense) woud agree with unless they had evidence of problems with the other methods.

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (9 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe I can make it simple enough for you by stating it in general terms.
We have a measurement that is done by various methods.
We have an adjustmnent to one of the methods.
If the adjusted method omes out with a measurement that agrees with the other methods then there is no problem.
If that method comes out with a measurement that disagrees with the other methods and their results then there are 2 posibbilities

1. The adjusted method is wrong.
2. The other methods are wrong.

Simple enough for you 3bodyproblem?

Simple? Yes. Applicable or even relevant? No. Not unless this is your foray into false dichotomy. In that case it's very well done.

This is just a way of refining the GCM's to properly account for TOA SSI entropy flux.

The model estimates will still have to match the estimates from empirical data and so CO2 will remain as the primary driver of climate change.

This is what someone with any knowldege of science (or any commonsense) woud agree with unless they had evidence of problems with the other methods.

Nothing "matches". The general consensus now, according to the IPCC is that the low and high estimates from various sources are "unlikely" and the actual climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees.

I believe new methods will improve resolution and we will probably see climate sensitivity fall to about 1-1.5 degrees by AR5.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's incorrect of course, the more CO2 the less energy that escapes.

That does not alter the amount of energy needed to heat the atmosphere and ocean mixing layer by 1C, which is climate sensitivity.

More CO₂ may be the reason why energy is accumulating (a surplus in the energy-budget) but that's a different subject from climate sensitivity. An energy-budget surplus due to some other cause, such as increased TSI, would similarly have no effect on the climate sensitivity.

It takes more air to blow up a balloon with a hole in it, it takes less energy to warm up a planet with more CO2 in it.

A hole in an inflatable object changes the air-budget of said object vis-a-vis an unpunctured equivalent, but does not change the amount of air needed to inflate it by some amount (lets call that "volume sensitivity", for convenience). In directly analogous manner, CO₂'s influence on the energy-budget has no effect on climate sensitivity.

(By the way, the vast bulk of the planet is entirely oblivious of what's happening at the surface. The Sun could blink out tomorrow and the planet would carry on regardless, except for a very thin fluid skim on the surface. AGW is not about the planet, it's about that miniscule fluid skim in which we and everything else lives. The climate system, in a nutshell.)

 

[CapelDodger]

What do you mean "unconfirmed"? Physics is "confirmed". This is just a mathematical technique that allows GCM's to properly model TOA SSI entropic flux. It's confirmed by empirical evidence.

Despite your claims of confirmation the science is not settled.

I honestly don't believe you have any idea what's being discussed, the more you post the more this is confirmed.

I doubt anybody but you has any idea what you think you're discussing. Reality Check (like me) is trying to get something to go on. A discussion is not something that goes on in your own head.

Because it's unintelligible.

It is entirely intelligble. You may not find it so because it is not part of your internal discussion, but in the simple, common world of understanding there's no problem.

 

[Trakar]

That does not alter the amount of energy needed to heat the atmosphere and ocean mixing layer by 1C, which is climate sensitivity.

More CO₂ may be the reason why energy is accumulating (a surplus in the energy-budget) but that's a different subject from climate sensitivity. An energy-budget surplus due to some other cause, such as increased TSI, would similarly have no effect on the climate sensitivity.
...

Which reminds me, I haven't looked at any comparative sensitivity studies lately, Ramstorf's and Hansen's both in 2008 were the most recent 2 I recall,...anyone familiar with any more recent studies? I was intending to beef up on the subject ahead of Glory's first data sets. IIRC, the current mainstream consideration is somewhere ~3.5ºC/CO2 doubling (at least with regards to fast-feedback, immediate responses - and considerably greater - I want to say 5ºC for longer term equilibrium states - according to the paleoclimate record). Does that sound about right, or am I mis-remembering the values?

 

[Furcifer]

That does not alter the amount of energy needed to heat the atmosphere and ocean mixing layer by 1C, which is climate sensitivity.

Yes it does.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation in the science forum.

 

[Furcifer]

Despite your claims of confirmation the science is not settled.

On the contrary, Planck and Stephan are settled.

I doubt anybody but you has any idea what you think you're discussing. Reality Check (like me) is trying to get something to go on. A discussion is not something that goes on in your own head.

It may as well when the audience doesn't have the necessary skills.

It is entirely intelligble. You may not find it so because it is not part of your internal discussion, but in the simple, common world of understanding there's no problem.

No, it's in no way cogent, hence it is unintelligible. Just because there are multiple ways of calculating the sensitivity range doesn't mean you can disregard things like entropy flux, which is what I can get from RC's derail.

This is a statistical range, not an exact number, so I don't see the relevance of other "sensitivities".