Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Trakar]

The Warming Papers
By David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert

http://books.google.com/books?id=lh...&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-David-Archer/dp/1405196165

Global warming is arguably the defining scientific issue of modern times, but it is not widely appreciated that the foundations of our understanding were laid almost two centuries ago with the postulation of a greenhouse effect by Fourier in 1827. The sensitivity of climate to changes in atmospheric CO2 was first estimated about one century ago, and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration was discovered half a century ago. The fundamentals of the science underlying the forecast for human-induced climate change were being published and debated long before the issue rose to public prominence in the last few decades.

The Warming Papers is a compendium of the classic scientific papers that constitute the foundation of the global warming forecast. The paper trail ranges from Fourier and Arrhenius in the 19th Century to Manabe and Hansen in modern times. Archer and Pierrehumbert provide introductions and commentary which places the papers in their context and provide students with tools to develop and extend their understanding of the subject.

The book capture the excitement and the uncertainty that always exist at the cutting edge of research, and is invaluable reading for students of climate science, scientists, historians of science, and others interested in climate change.

Good book for those trying to get a grasp of the science from many of the leading climate scientists of the last 2 centuries. The Google books version is pretty good, but it is frustrating in the parts missing. Should be available in most public libraries.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Wrong: It is relevant unless you have a third possibility for the conclusion of:
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.
3. Whatever 3bodyproblem can come up with.

Simple enough for you 3bodyproblem?

The adjusted method is GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters.
There are several other methods - see A detailed look at climate sensitivity
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 (10 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.

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

I know.

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.

The ranges of values from the various methods roughly "match".
I know that the IPCC AR4 analysis 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.

I know that new methods will improve resolution and there will probably be more estimates from empirical measurements.

We will probably see climate sensitivity fall to about 2.235 - 2.654 degrees by AR5. Hey I can speculate about stuff too , 3bodyproblem!

But seriously, 3bodyproblem:
When I see a measurement that is derived from methods that include several different derivations from empirical data and derivations from computer models then I trust the derivations from empirical data.

That is why I expect the current split between the two methods

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

to be fixed by updates to the GSM.

 

[Furcifer]

Wrong: It is relevant unless you have a third possibility for the conclusion of:
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.
3. Whatever 3bodyproblem can come up with.

Simple enough for you 3bodyproblem?

This is just nonsense. None of the methods have ever "agreed". I don't see why you persist in this fallacy of a false dichotomy?

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.

I believe it will, although I'm not exactly sure why the author has called into question the role of GHG's in climate change. It seems to me the sun plays a larger role in climate change than was previously thought.

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.

The "problem" is evident, at least as your are presenting it, in the varying ranges each method yields. If there was no "problem" they would be identical.

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (10 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.

^This is only serving as a running measure of your continued ignorance on this topic.

The ranges of values from the various methods roughly "match".

Nonsense. If they did climate sensitivity wouldn't remain the greatest uncertainty in climate change. Again, this is just alarmist misrepresentation of the science.

I know that the IPCC AR4 analysis is that the low and high estimates from various sources are "unlikely" and the actual climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees.

Wait, what? You know this and yet you continue to beg the question "What's the problem?".

We will probably see climate sensitivity fall to about 2.235 - 2.654 degrees by AR5. Hey I can speculate about stuff too , 3bodyproblem!

Since it's within the range of current climate sensitivity measures it's accurate speculation. If you had said 22.35 degrees it wouldn't.

When I see a measurement that is derived from methods that include several different derivations from empirical data and derivations from computer models then I trust the derivations from empirical data.

The scientists don't, so neither do I. YMMV.

 

[Reality Check]

This is just nonsense. None of the methods have ever "agreed". I don't see why you persist in this fallacy of a false dichotomy?

This is just nonsense. None of the methods have ever "agreed" - they agree in their ranges of estimates.
The idiocy of thinking that this is something to do with fallacy of a false dichotomy is obvious unless you can think of another reason.

I believe it will, although I'm not exactly sure why the author has called into question the role of GHG's in climate change. It seems to me the sun plays a larger role in climate change than was previously thought.

What author?
Who cares what you think?
I care what evidence you can present. You have presented none that makes all of the methods of determining climate sensitivity wrong except the single one that you are obsessing about (GCMs that have entropy flux as a parameter)

The "problem" is evident, at least as your are presenting it, in the varying ranges each method yields. If there was no "problem" they would be identical.

That is really ignorant. If they agree within error limits then there is no problem. There is a slight problem that

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

But you are proposing a solution - change one of the parameters of some of the GSM estimates so that the GSM average estimate is lower.

But because we have the instrumental estimates the GSM estimates will not be lower or you would have an answer to:
3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (10 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
^This is only serving as a running measure of your continued ignorance on this topic.

Nonsense. If they did climate sensitivity wouldn't remain the greatest uncertainty in climate change. Again, this is just alarmist misrepresentation of the science.

Nonsense: The estimate of climate sensitivity all roughly match - see Knutti and Hegerl (2008) .

And you are continuing in your delusion that I am an "alarmist " and lying about me misrepresenting the science.

Wait, what? You know this and yet you continue to beg the question "What's the problem?".

So you cannot understand the IPCC AR4 report.
"What's the problem?".

Since it's within the range of current climate sensitivity measures it's accurate speculation. If you had said 22.35 degrees it wouldn't.

Thanks
A pity that you selected such an unlikely range for your guess .
See A detailed look at climate sensitivity.
Most studies indicate a range of 2 to 3 degrees for doubling of CO2.
Many of these use real world data and so are not affected by any theoretical, unconfirmed change in the incident solar entropy flux.

The scientists don't, so neither do I. YMMV.

Your ignorance is showing, 3bodyproblem !

Empirical data always takes precedence over theory in science.
Results based on empirical data generally takes precedence over results from computer simulations. The obvious exception is if there is evidence that the empirical results are wrong, e.g. incorrect assumptions in the calculations. Which brings me back to 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?

 

[Furcifer]

This is just nonsense. None of the methods have ever "agreed" - they agree in their ranges of estimates.
The idiocy of thinking that this is something to do with fallacy of a false dichotomy is obvious unless you can think of another reason.

The immature parroting has rendered this even more unintelligible than usual. Was it intentional or just an accident describing your entire post in the first sentence?

What author?

Is this rhetorical or are you genuinely confused as to the author of the aforementioned paper?

Who cares what you think?

Skeptics.

I care what evidence you can present. You have presented none that makes all of the methods of determining climate sensitivity wrong except the single one that you are obsessing about (GCMs that have entropy flux as a parameter)

You still don't understand there is no "wrong" or "problem". There is only "better", "more accurate" and "encompassing".

That is really ignorant. If they agree within error limits then there is no problem. There is a slight problem that

There is or isn't? Make up your mind already.

But because we have the instrumental estimates the GSM estimates will not be lower or you would have an answer to:

Unintelligible.

Nonsense: The estimate of climate sensitivity all roughly match - see

I don't believe the term "roughly" appears in any scientific literature I'm aware of. I believe it is a construct of your imagination, an attempt to allow yourself to indulge in this nonsense about "problems" and "wrongness". I believe it may be called a fallacy of generalizations, but I'm just guessing.

And you are continuing in your delusion that I am an "alarmist " and lying about me misrepresenting the science.

I'm just telling you alarmists tend to overstate the actual level of scientific understanding when it comes to climate change. Saying things like "it's settled" and "consensus" when there is actually "uncertainty" and "general agreement" is indicative of alarmism.

So you cannot understand the IPCC AR4 report.

I wouldn't claim to have read enough to say I understood it, no. What I have read was rather easy to understand.

A pity that you selected such an unlikely range for your guess .

It's actually more inline with the newer GCM's I've seen from NASA. It's amazing what a little extra water vapour can do.

Many of these use real world data and so are not affected by any theoretical, unconfirmed change in the incident solar entropy flux.

What change? Are you really sure you know what we are talking about? The entropy flux hasn't changed

Empirical data always takes precedence over theory in science.

Not if it's taken by proxy.

Results based on empirical data generally takes precedence over results from computer simulations.

Then we're in quite a predicament about predicting future climate aren't we

The obvious exception is if there is evidence that the empirical results are wrong, e.g. incorrect assumptions in the calculations. Which brings me back to 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?

Not only have I answered this question multiple times, you have as well.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped usual inane insults...
Is this rhetorical or are you genuinely confused as to the author of the aforementioned paper?

What author of what aforementioned paper?

You still don't understand there is no "wrong" or "problem". There is only "better", "more accurate" and "encompassing".

There is wrong and problem and better and more accurate and encompasing. These are words in English .

But maybe you mean that the answer to:

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (10 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
​

is that you know of no problems.

Unintelligible.

Ignorance.



The GSM estimates cannot be lower than the instrumental estimates whiltough there instrumental estimates being wrong, i.e. you need to show the problems with them (3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?)

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

...snipped usual inane insults...
I'm just telling you alarmists tend to overstate the actual level of scientific understanding when it comes to climate change. Saying things like "it's settled" and "consensus" when there is actually "uncertainty" and "general agreement" is indicative of alarmism.

I am merely telling you that I know what alarmists do. However you seem confused - consensus is general agreement. And 95% is general agreement:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

It's actually more inline with the newer GCM's I've seen from NASA. It's amazing what a little extra water vapour can do.

So it looks like the GCM model estimates are getting closer to the empirical data estiamtes as would be exected.

What change? Are you really sure you know what we are talking about? The entropy flux hasn't changed

I guess you have proven Wu et al wrong . But I meant that the entropy flux paramter in some GCMs would be changed.

Not if it's taken by proxy.

Even if it is taken by proxy or indirect methods.
However several empirical estimates of climate sensitivity are taken from instrumental data.

Then we're in quite a predicament about predicting future climate aren't we

No we are not.

Not only have I answered this question multiple times, you have as well.

No you have not except maybe in this post (see above).

I will answer it: There are no problems that I know of with the many estimates of climate sensitivity. Given that all of these methods are independent measurements of the same thing, they should give similiar average value. GCMs tend to give slightly higher estimates.

Any method that gives values outside of the confidence limit for the estimates is suspect.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, 3bodyproblem the author question was raised by:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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.

I believe it will, although I'm not exactly sure why the author has called into question the role of GHG's in climate change. It seems to me the sun plays a larger role in climate change than was previously thought.

None of the papers cited so far in our discuassion have "called into question the role of GHG's in climate change".
The Wu et al paper did state the obvious - their results could affect climate science and might cause reevaluation of the role of GHGs.
As I have pointed out this is unlikely:
Their paper does not address any impact on climate change. Their paper has been updated (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss....supplement.pdf ) and they expressly mention this

It is noted that although the significance of the impact of TOA SSI variability on the entropy production inside the Earth’s climate system is beyond the scope of this work, a substantial impact is possible and expected critical to determining the Earth system’s thermodynamic quantities such as energy transport, temperature or humidity profiles, cloud processes.

Their result will (if confirmed) change estimates of climate sensitivity from GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters.

These updated estimates of climate sensitivity are likely to match the independent estimates of climate sensitivity from

• other GCMs
• empirical data

If they do not match then the posibiliities are

1. The Wu et al result is wrong.
   That might be relatively easy to determine from the GCMs - plug in empirical estimates for climate sensitivity and see what entropy flux is needed to match the temperature record. If the range of values is not centered around the Wu et al value then that is evidence that there is something wrong in the paper.
2. The GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters are wrong.
3. All of the other methods are wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

None of the papers cited so far in our discuassion have "called into question the role of GHG's in climate change".
The Wu et al paper did state the obvious - their results could affect climate science and might cause reevaluation of the role of GHGs.

I don't know if you're trying to play semantics or just don't get it, but these are one in the same.

As I have pointed out this is unlikely:

And as I have pointed out; 400% is statistically significant and the scientists felt the need to point this out, so your assessment is at odds with science.

If the range of values is not centered around the Wu et al value then that is evidence that there is something wrong in the paper.
[*]The GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters are wrong.
[*]All of the other methods are wrong.

This is just "hedging" plain and simple.

 

[Furcifer]

The GSM estimates cannot be lower than the instrumental estimates whiltough there instrumental estimates being wrong, i.e. you need to show the problems with them

I don't need to show this, it's a well established fact that climate sensitivity is highly "uncertain". This is exactly the reason I called it alarmist. You have defaulted to the erroneous notion that there is no "problem" or "uncertainty" in the climate sensitivity calculations. This is the furthest thing from the truth and highly unskeptical. It is what one would expect from a believer forcing a negative proof on the "unenlightened".

I am merely telling you that I know what alarmists do. However you seem confused - consensus is general agreement. And 95% is general agreement:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

This has nothing to do with climate sensitivity. Again, it is alarmist misrepresentation. There is no consensus on climate sensitivity.

However several empirical estimates of climate sensitivity are taken from instrumental data.

Really? And what instrument yields "estimates"? None that I have ever used. You should be able to see the fallacy inherent in this statement.

I will answer it: There are no problems that I know of with the many estimates of climate sensitivity.

Only if you remain ignorant of the "uncertainty". Again this is alarmist misrepresentation.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't need to show this, it's a well established fact that climate sensitivity is highly "uncertain". This is exactly the reason I called it alarmist. You have defaulted to the erroneous notion that there is no "problem" or "uncertainty" in the climate sensitivity calculations. This is the furthest thing from the truth and highly unskeptical. It is what one would expect from a believer forcing a negative proof on the "unenlightened".

Then you are wrong: If an estimate is uncertain then it is uncertain, e.g. has a large standard deviation.
You calling it "alarmist" is your personal abuse of the English langage, not scientific terminology.

I have "defaulted" to the position that there are wide ranges in the estimates of climate sensitivities. I have cited the papers that show those wide ranges in estitmats, e.g. the review by Knutti and Hegerl (2008). You are deluded if you think that means that I think that there are no uncertainies in the estimates.

That is the scientific evidence, i.e. that the climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees per doubling of CO2 with an range of 2 to 4.5 °C. That is the scientific "truth" and very skeptical. It is what one would expect from someone who reviews the literature and evaluates it with a skeptical mind.

This has nothing to do with climate sensitivity. Again, it is alarmist misrepresentation. There is no consensus on climate sensitivity.

Again with the alarmist delusion .
There is a scientific consensus on global warming bing caused by CO2 increases. That includes the estimates of climate sensitivity being large for the observed increases in CO2 to produce the observed increase in global temperatures.

Really? And what instrument yields "estimates"? None that I have ever used. You should be able to see the fallacy inherent in this statement.

You should be able to see the ignorance inherent in your statement, 3bodyproblem. "instrumental estimates" == "estimates from instrumental data"

Only if you remain ignorant of the "uncertainty". Again this is alarmist misrepresentation.

Once again you spout your delusion about "alarmist".

I have cited A detailed look at climate sensitivity many times. I have quoted climate sensitivity estimates often. Only an idiot would think that I am unaware of the uncertainties of the estimates.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know if you're trying to play semantics or just don't get it, but these are one in the same.

Not quite: "called into question" has the connotation that the role of GHGs will be eliminated.
Wu et al's reevaluation merely means that the role of GHGs will change. Since they have not done the work they cannot say whether the role will be more or less.

And as I have pointed out; 400% is statistically significant and the scientists felt the need to point this out, so your assessment is at odds with science.

No you have not pointed that out.
Can you give a citation to the post? Or quote the paper?
Statistically significant how?
Did they use a Gaussian distribution for the significance?
Is there a chi-squared test against a null hypothesis?

This is just "hedging" plain and simple.

That is just ignorance plain and simple.

These updated estimates of climate sensitivity are likely to match the independent estimates of climate sensitivity from

• other GCMs
• empirical data

because that is how independent measuremts of the same quantity work in science.

If they do not match then the posibiliities are

1. The Wu et al result is wrong.
   That might be relatively easy to determine from the GCMs - plug in empirical estimates for climate sensitivity and see what entropy flux is needed to match the temperature record. If the range of values is not centered around the Wu et al value then that is evidence that there is something wrong in the paper.
2. The GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters are wrong.
3. All of the other methods are wrong.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes it does.

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

It really doesn't. The heat-capacity of the atmosphere plus oceans does not vary with forcing. I can't imagine why you think it does.

 

[CapelDodger]

On the contrary, Planck and Stephan are settled.

I don't doubt you believe that, whatever you mean by it.

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

I imagine you find that a lot - that people don't understand you, nor recognise what you regard as physics. It must be lonely on the intellectual high-ground.

If you actually tried to explain the background to some of your claims you might find that people can understand you.

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.

You found it unintelligible, but you're pretty much on your own there. One can disregard entropy flux because (quite apart from it having no physical influence) it is not a variable.

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

The point is that a number of independent methods of estimating climate sensitivity come to similar conclusions. As you'll be aware, the gold-standard of theory is supporting evidence from unrelated methods of observation and interpretation. In the case of climate sensitivity there are multiple independent estimations which are in the same ball-park. This is good enough for me.

You apparently prefer to believe that climate sensitivity is deeply mysterious still and so will turn out to be on the side you'd prefer - the low side. Low enough to require new physics to explain glacial/interglacial transitions, but that's a small price to pay for a pleasing fantasy.

The realist approach has served me well, and I've seen a lot of fantasists fall by the wayside in my time, so I'll stick to it.

 

[CapelDodger]

"It is noted that although the significance of the impact of TOA SSI variability on the entropy production inside the Earth’s climate system is beyond the scope of this work, a substantial impact is possible and expected critical to determining the Earth system’s thermodynamic quantities such as energy transport, temperature or humidity profiles, cloud processes."

Their result will (if confirmed) change estimates of climate sensitivity from GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters.

Entropy flux as a parameter of a GCM is something I have a problem with. I can see entropy flux as a check of a model's performance (if it backs-up, something is adrift) but I don't understand its role in all those partial differential equations we loved so much at school .

These updated estimates of climate sensitivity are likely to match the independent estimates of climate sensitivity from

• other GCMs
• empirical data

Once you've tried emprical you'll never go back.

If they do not match then the posibiliities are

1. The Wu et al result is wrong.
   That might be relatively easy to determine from the GCMs - plug in empirical estimates for climate sensitivity and see what entropy flux is needed to match the temperature record. If the range of values is not centered around the Wu et al value then that is evidence that there is something wrong in the paper.
2. The GCMs that have entropy flux as parameters are wrong.
3. All of the other methods are wrong.

4. Nothing is certain so anything can be true. Ain't that a relief.

 

[Reality Check]

Entropy flux as a parameter of a GCM is something I have a problem with. I can see entropy flux as a check of a model's performance (if it backs-up, something is adrift) but I don't understand its role in all those partial differential equations we loved so much at school .

I am not an expert on GCMs. So I am doing the (probably dumb ) step of trusting that 3bodyproblem knows what he was talking about when he asserted that there are GCMs that have incident solar entropy flux as an input parameter.
It may be that there are no such models and that entropy production is an output from the GCMs.

 

[CapelDodger]

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?

That's about right from what I've read. Nothing is rocking the consensus, or demanding new physics to explain glacial/interglacial transitions. The medium-term estimate is pretty stable around 2.5-3C per doubling.

Personally, I find it a bit of a distraction. Palaeo proxies are used to estimate temperatures and climate sensitivity, future temperatures are predicted and then have to be re-translated into the proxies. It's not actually temperature we're concerned about (except in heat-waves), it's the physical effects.

So the line "only 0.8 C in the last century" draws on the fallacy of small numbers to distract from what climate change has done to the planet's surface already. Ice (including permafrost, which is just muddy ice) has demonstrated just what that small number means in real terms, and it's a lot. Droughts, downpours, retreating ice and rising sea-levels - we are living the proxies of climate change.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am not an expert on GCMs. So I am doing the (probably dumb ) step of trusting that 3bodyproblem knows what he was talking about when he asserted that there are GCMs that have incident solar entropy flux as an input parameter.
It may be that there are no such models and that entropy production is an output from the GCMs.

Quite possibly.

The reason for climate modelling is the fact that all the identified physical interactions have spilled way off the blackboard. There comes a point when slide-rules and argumentation don't hack it, you have to build a prototype on what's generally agreed and try it out. If it runs amok and destroys New Jersey for no discernible reason, there's something amiss in the assumptions. (Programmers still get the blame, of course .)

Given the multiple simultaneous interactions being modelled some checks are needed along the way to ensure the model isn't going rogue, and what better than the Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws which don't dictate what physically happens, but absolutely ban certain behaviours.

I've read the discussion paper this whole " solar entropy flux" digression is based on, and it strikes me as very lightweight and rather self-referential. Entropy occupies a hazy region between Science and Philosophy, which is why it's the favoured pursuit of few scientists but a big favourite with snake-oil salesmen.

Which brings the thread crashing back to Piers Corbyn

 

[Trakar]

...Once you've tried emprical you'll never go back...

provided you acknowledge, accept and account for the problems inherent to the long-term instrument record as discussed by many researchers,...Wigley has done multiple in-depth studies of this issue, starting back in the mid eighties, IIRC.

of ancilliary interest to the ongoing discussion here, if you track Wrigley's papers from the early 90s through 2011 you can see how as he assesses the mainstream climate science sensitivity estimates, that they seem to have steadily tracked upward from around 2.5ºC per doubling of CO2 in the early 90s to its current average estimate value of around 3.4ºC/(CO2)2.

An early paper - The observed global warming record: What does it tell us? - http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8314.full

Climates of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries Simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0485:COTTAT>2.0.CO;2

Estimation of global temperature trends: what’s important and what isn’t - http://www.springerlink.com/content/74731m62483l72m7/

 

[Trakar]

Quite possibly.

The reason for climate modelling is the fact that all the identified physical interactions have spilled way off the blackboard. There comes a point when slide-rules and argumentation don't hack it, you have to build a prototype on what's generally agreed and try it out. If it runs amok and destroys New Jersey for no discernible reason, there's something amiss in the assumptions. (Programmers still get the blame, of course .)

Given the multiple simultaneous interactions being modelled some checks are needed along the way to ensure the model isn't going rogue, and what better than the Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws which don't dictate what physically happens, but absolutely ban certain behaviours.

I've read the discussion paper this whole " solar entropy flux" digression is based on, and it strikes me as very lightweight and rather self-referential. Entropy occupies a hazy region between Science and Philosophy, which is why it's the favoured pursuit of few scientists but a big favourite with snake-oil salesmen.

Which brings the thread crashing back to Piers Corbyn

LOL, I always thought there was a connection between oil for the snake and mathturbation, and now it all seems so clear,...if a bit disturbing!

 

[Furcifer]

Then you are wrong: If an estimate is uncertain then it is uncertain, e.g. has a large standard deviation.
You calling it "alarmist" is your personal abuse of the English langage, not scientific terminology.

Perhaps you should learn to ask more specific questions instead of vague generalities like "What's the problem?".

You are deluded if you think that means that I think that there are no uncertainies in the estimates.

Why beg the question "What's the problem?" then? You either understand the discussion is about the uncertainty in climate sensitivity calculations that allows for more than just CO2 to dominate climate change or you don't.

There is a scientific consensus on global warming bing caused by CO2 increases. That includes the estimates of climate sensitivity being large for the observed increases in CO2 to produce the observed increase in global temperatures.

This is incorrect and the cause of many alarmist delusions.