Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

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

I believe you are suffering from some misconceptions about equilibrium and a steady state. Possibly the difference between an open and closed system.

 

[Furcifer]

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?

Stats Salad.

You want to do a Gaussian distribution to show an estimate that is 400% out is significant? And a chi-square test? Are you serious or did you Google up more stuff that you really don't understand? You don't have to be a mathematician, heck you don't even need to know math to know 400% is significant.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Perhaps you should learn to read the post: 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.

The question is very specific. Do you know of any problems?

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.

The uncertainty in climate sensitivity calculations has a low probability (about 10%) of being outside of the 2 to 4.5°C range. It can be higher or lower.

This is incorrect and the cause of many alarmist delusions.

That is incorect and a sign of a profound ignorance of science or delusion.
There is a scientific consensus on global warming being caused by increases in CO2 . That includes the estimates of climate sensitivity being large for the observed increases in CO2 to produce the observed increase in global temperatures. If the estimates of climate sensitivity were not large enough for the CO2 to cause the temperature change then scientists would not have a consensus that it did.

 

[Reality Check]

Stats Salad.

You are wrong again : 400% is not significant unless

1. statistcially significant (the usual scientific meaning)
2. or has a large effect (the usual meaning)

You have no statistics
You have no idea what the size of the effects of the change would be.
You are thus wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter

If the diluted grey body value has been known and verified for decades why do you suppose only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter?

3bodyproblem, I trusted your assertion that 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar (entropy) flux as a parameter.
But it is becoming clear that your knowledge of science is doubtful, e.g. you do not understand that if you have independent methods to measure a quantity then if one method gives different results from the others then

• The most likely reason is a problem with that method.
• The less likely reason is that all of the other methods have problems.

So can you give citations to the 7 GCM's that input the solar entropy flux as a parameter? Even one as an example would be enough.

 

[Furcifer]

Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
The question is very specific. Do you know of any problems?

Still begging the question I see. I'm afraid if you can't figure this out for yourself at this point (probably because RealClimate doesn't have a handy indexed reference guide for alarmists) then there really is no point. It's been answered numerous times and it just isn't sinking in. I think you're being coy, but perhaps it really is above your level of understanding. Comprehension does not always follow from being able to read.

The uncertainty in climate sensitivity calculations has a low probability (about 10%) of being outside of the 2 to 4.5°C range. It can be higher or lower.

This is just a "best guess" from already flawed estimates. In some cases parameters are out 400%!

That is incorect and a sign of a profound ignorance of science or delusion.
There is a scientific consensus on global warming being caused by increases in CO2 . That includes the estimates of climate sensitivity being large for the observed increases in CO2 to produce the observed increase in global temperatures. If the estimates of climate sensitivity were not large enough for the CO2 to cause the temperature change then scientists would not have a consensus that it did.

Nope. You are lying because you can't possibly be this ignorant of the science at this point. This is false and you made it up.

I'm sure if this was actually the case you could easily find some RealCrapScience.com website to confirm it. Evidence? Link?

 

[Furcifer]

You are wrong again : 400% is not significant unless

1. statistcially significant (the usual scientific meaning)
2. or has a large effect (the usual meaning)

You have no statistics
You have no idea what the size of the effects of the change would be.
You are thus wrong.

You're just making stuff up now. Even people without any knowledge of math can tell you 400% is significant. I suggest you read this wiki on Statistical significance

Look at the first line: In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance

Now do you understand what this says? Do you know what chance is? Now do you think it happened by chance that they are using a value 400% less to measure entropy flux?

It isn't by chance, it was done deliberately. If you don't understand that I suggest you run a p-test. If you don't get that I suggest you figure out how many standard deviations 0.32 is from 0.08.

You're hand waving here is a joke. You have to be lying, nobody can be this ignorant of science to think an error of 400% is not significant.

Try putting 400% more foot in your mouth next time, see if it's significant.

 

[Reality Check]

You're just making stuff up now. Even people without any knowledge of math can tell you 400% is significant. I suggest you read this wiki on Statistical significance
...snipped....

You are just displaying your ignorance now. I suggest you read this wiki on Statistical significance and try to understand it .

Look at the first line: In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1] As used in statistics, significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech.

To evaluate statistical significance you need statistics to see if the measurements may have occured by chance. A typical test is to construct a null hypothesis and do a chi-squared test.

Now do you understand what this says? Do you know what chance is in statistics?

Can you understand that there are no statistics in the Wu et al paper and so it is idiotic to call their result statistically significant?

ETA
Can you understand that it is equally idiotic to call the Wu et al results significant (important in climate science) if there is no analysis of the effect of the result on the climate? No one knows if the result is even right yet!

 

[Reality Check]

I'm sure if this was actually the case you could easily find some RealCrapScience.com website to confirm it. Evidence? Link?

You really showing your total inability to understand simple logic there, 3bodyproblem.

I have given you a link to the papers that show that climate sensitivity has an mean value of around 3 degrees (A detailed look at climate sensitivity) and very unlikely to be below 1.5 degrees.

That means that estimates of climate sensitivity are large enough for the observed increase in CO2 to cause the observed temperature change.

If that were not the case then no competent climate scientist (or any one with 2 brain cells!) would think that CO2 was the cause of global warming.

 

[Furcifer]

You are just displaying your ignorance now. I suggest you read this wiki on Statistical significance and try to understand it .

Look at the first line: In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1] As used in statistics, significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech.

To evaluate statistical significance you need statistics to see if the measurements may have occured by chance. A typical test is to construct a null hypothesis and do a chi-squared test.

Now do you understand what this says? Do you know what chance is in statistics?

Can you understand that there are no statistics in the Wu et al paper and so it is idiotic to call their result statistically significant?

ETA
Can you understand that it is equally idiotic to call the Wu et al results significant (important in climate science) if there is no analysis of the effect of the result on the climate? No one knows if the result is even right yet!

Why are you being ridiculous? This is getting absurd. You don't have any clue what you are talking about. Please enlighten us, do a chi-square test and a null hypothesis on the two figures, 0.08 and 0.32!

Hehe, this should be good

Anyhoo, 400% is significant. The measure is out significantly.

Will it have a significant effect on the calculation of sensitivity? I really don't know. The paper suggests it, the fact that it represents 75% of the atmospheric latent heat should be a pretty good clue, even for someone with no experience or knowledge of climate science to pause for a second and say "Yeah, that's significant, that's a lot of energy"

 

[Furcifer]

I have given you a link to the papers that show that climate sensitivity has an mean value of around 3 degrees (A detailed look at climate sensitivity) and very unlikely to be below 1.5 degrees.

Yes you have. This is an educated guess from averaging a bunch of flawed methods and, what do they call them, Supermodels?, it's just a mean average from multiple GCM's is what it is. So what?

That means that estimates of climate sensitivity are large enough for the observed increase in CO2 to cause the observed temperature change.

Did you do a chi-square test, then perform a linear regression to determine the statistical significance? hehe.

If that were not the case then no competent climate scientist (or any one with 2 brain cells!) would think that CO2 was the cause of global warming.

This is again incorrect.

Since you don't know I'll tell you, the consensus is about anthropogenic CO2 being a "significant" (their words) factor in the observed warming over the last 150 years.

It has nothing to do with consensus about climate sensitivity. Given the simple fact that climate sensitivity is HIGHLY uncertain, there is no "consensus". These are alarmist lies you continue to perpetuate. I don't know why you feel the need to do this, or why you think it is going to fly here in the science forum? I'm actually shocked no one has corrected you, but I'm not totally surprised. The level of intellectual dishonesty in this forum when it comes to climate science is off the charts. There is no actual furthering of the discussion on climate science, just hand waving.

It's entirely possible the changes in TSI may have a more profound effect on the climate than many people here are giving it credit. They're misinformed about the effect of CO2 on the climate because they don't fully understand the science, specifically radiation. Even more specifically the reflection at the TOA and absorption at the surface of the Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped stupid insults...
Anyhoo, 400% is significant. The measure is out significantly.

Will it have a significant effect on the calculation of sensitivity? I really don't know. The paper suggests it, the fact that it represents 75% of the atmospheric latent heat should be a pretty good clue, even for someone with no experience or knowledge of climate science to pause for a second and say "Yeah, that's significant, that's a lot of energy"

Now you finally manage to express what you mean coherently !

400% is not statistically significant because there are no statistics.
400% is not significant by itself. It is a just a number.
The Wu et al value for incident solar entropy flux is 400% that of the accepted value. That is a big difference. It is even significantly different!

It is unknown whether the Wu et al result is correct yet.

We agree that it is unknown if it will have a significant effect on GCM estimates of climate sensitivity.

However we (the royal we that does not include you, 3bodyproblem ) know that GCMs are not the only method of estimating climate sensitivity. There are GCMs estimates that do not include entropy flux. There are estimates from empirical data.
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."

Or the more current review

Knutti and Hegerl (2008) presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity. 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.

The conclusion is that if the adjusted GCMs give values below 2°C then the adjusted GSMs are likely to be wrong because the independent estimates give different results.
If the adjusted GCMs give values below 1.5°C then they are very likely to be wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes you have. This is an educated guess from averaging a bunch of flawed methods and, what do they call them, Supermodels?, it's just a mean average from multiple GCM's is what it is. So what?

Still shouting ypour ignorance from the rooftops , 3bodyproblem.
One more time for the simple minded :
A detailed look at climate sensitivity lists some papers that show the various techniques that are used to estimate climate sensitivity. These include

• Paleoclimate data, e.g. Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
• Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
• observed interior-ocean temperature changes
• GCMs

And just what are the flaws in all of these methods, 3bodyproblem:

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (12 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
​

This is again incorrect.

Since you don't know I'll tell you, the consensus is about anthropogenic CO2 being a "significant" (their words) factor in the observed warming over the last 150 years.

Since you don't know I'll tell you, part of the evidence for CO2 (whatever the source) being being a significant factor in the observed warming over the last 150 years is the estimates of climate sensitivity.
These group around a value (~3 degrees per doubling of CO2) that show the observed warming is primarily forced by CO2.
If the estimates of climate sensitivity were grouped around a much lower value (e.g. 1 degrees per doubling of CO2) then the CO2 could not be the primary driver of warming.

P.S.
Asked today but you may have missed it: 3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter?

 

[Furcifer]

It is unknown whether the Wu et al result is correct yet.

*sigh

For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter if it's correct or not. The value is 0.32, they're using 0.08, whether this technique allows them to properly model flux or not is irrelevant. You have to understand this by now no?

The question is does this difference allow for the project Astrometria observations to become more relevant to the discussion of climate change. I said, yes in fact they do.

We agree that it is unknown if it will have a significant effect on GCM estimates of climate sensitivity.

Yes. I don't see how it couldn't be. Not only because the author indirectly mentions it by questioning the role of greenhouse gases in climate change, but by comparing it to the latent heat and finally for the simple fact it's out by 400%!

However we (the royal we that does not include you, 3bodyproblem ) know that GCMs are not the only method of estimating climate sensitivity.

Yes, you can get to work by horse, ox and buggy or on the back of your Golden Retriever. Today most of us use cars and most of us get our climate sensitivity from GCM's!

The conclusion is that if the adjusted GCMs give values below 2°C then the adjusted GSMs are likely to be wrong because the independent estimates give different results.
If the adjusted GCMs give values below 1.5°C then they are very likely to be wrong.

No. The value (for flux) is right and matches empirical data. If sensitivity drops below 2 degrees you either have to give up the last 20 years of climate science modeling or accept it as a likely result.

I'm afraid you're all too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because you're not a skeptic, you're perhaps a believer? Just sayin.

 

[Furcifer]

Still shouting ypour ignorance from the rooftops , 3bodyproblem.

Far from it, if I'm ignorant I'm ignorant of the fact that you may never understand what is being discussed here and continue to try despite your obvious lack of aptitude for the subject.

One more time for the simple minded :

I love how you continue to insult me, but edit my posts to try and seem like I'm the one doing the insulting. It just serves to show how dishonest you are.

A detailed look at climate sensitivity[/COLOR][/URL] lists some papers that show the various techniques that are used to estimate climate sensitivity. These include

• Paleoclimate data, e.g. Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
• Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
• observed interior-ocean temperature changes
• GCMs

And just what are the flaws in all of these methods, 3bodyproblem:

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (12 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
​

Case in point, your dishonesty here. This has been answered, even discussed by yourself, and you still beg the question. I'm afraid if you don't understand the "problem" you never will. It should be relatively easy to comprehend from reading this discussion, and the numerous answers I've given you, what the "problem" is.

I don't see what your purpose of being deliberately dense is? Do you really not understand the "problem"? If that's the case you can ask and I will explain the answer to you in a more direct and simple fashion. I may have given you too much credit, but this was based on your own claim of having some University education.

Since you don't know I'll tell you, part of the evidence for CO2 (whatever the source) being being a significant factor in the observed warming over the last 150 years is the estimates of climate sensitivity.

That's a lie. Stop lying and source your claim.

I'll be waiting for your source on this and your chi-square test! First asked March 14th 2001, 11:39 EST blah blah blah

 

[Reality Check]

*sigh

For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter if it's correct or not. The value is 0.32, they're using 0.08, whether this technique allows them to properly model flux or not is irrelevant. You have to understand this by now no?

*sigh For the purposes of this discussion it does not matter and I did not say that it matters.

The question is does this difference allow for the project Astrometria observations to become more relevant to the discussion of climate change. I said, yes in fact they do.

Wrong: The project Astrometria are about the TSI. The TSI has been ruled out as a cause of the current global warming.

Yes. ... finally for the simple fact it's out by 400%!

A nitpick: The fact that it may be out by 400% does not mean anything until the effects are evaluated.
As noted before the effects are unlikely to change the value of climate sensitivity since there are other independent methods that give an average value of ~3 degrees per doubling of CO2.

Yes, you can get to work by horse, ox and buggy or on the back of your Golden Retriever. Today most of us use cars and most of us get our climate sensitivity from GCM's!

Yes, you can get to work by horse, ox and buggy or on the back of your Golden Retriever. Today most of us use cars and most of us get our climate sensitivity from GCM's and empirical methods!

No. The value (for flux) is right and matches empirical data. If sensitivity drops below 2 degrees you either have to give up the last 20 years of climate science modeling or accept it as a likely result.

No. The value for flux (for this discussion) is wrong. The Wu value is right and has not been matched to empirical data yet.
If sensitivity drops below 2 degrees you either have to give up the some of the last 20 years of climate science modeling and empirical estimates or accept it as a result.
That is not likely for the simple reason that science is driven by empirical results. If something does not agree with the real world then it is thrown away.
We have real world results. If the GCMs that do include entropy flux disagree then they are wrong - unless 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?

'm afraid you're all too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because you're not a skeptic, you're perhaps a believer? Just sayin.

Wrong: I know you're all too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because you're not a skeptic, you're perhaps a believer? Just sayin
You are saying that we would throw away the estimates from

• Paleoclimate data, e.g. Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
• Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
• observed interior-ocean temperature changes
• GCMs that do not include entropy flux.

just because a set of computer models (GCMs that do include entropy flux) give a different result. That is not science. It is a belief that one method is right while the others are wrong without any evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem, What did Wigley et al. (2005) get wrong in their empirical estimate

Case in point, your dishonesty here. This has been answered, even discussed by yourself, and you still beg the question. I'm afraid if you don't understand the "problem" you never will. It should be relatively easy to comprehend from reading this discussion, and the numerous answers I've given you, what the "problem" is.

Once again you are shoiwn your ignorance of what the question is.
You have not given me any answers to the question.

So I guess I will have to ask you about every paper in

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (12 days and counting)
Remember that "you know of no problems" is a valid answer.
​

3bodyproblem, What did Wigley et al. (2005) get wrong in their climate sensitivity estimate using empirical data.

Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."

First asked 3 March 2011 (12 days and counting)

That's a lie. Stop lying and source your claim.

Stop being so ignorant and learn something about climate science. I have sourced the claim that the estimates of climate sensitivity support that CO2 is the primary diriver of climate chnage, e.g. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report or if you want:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

This is part of the evidence for CO2 (whatever the source) being being a significant factor in the observed warming over the last 150 years, i.e. the scientific consensus.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem, What did Forster et al. get wrong in their empirical estimate

3bodyproblem, What did Forster et al. (2006) get wrong in their climate sensitivity estimate using empirical data.

A climate feedback parameter of 2.3 +/- 1.4 W m-2 K-1 is found. This corresponds to a 1.0–4.1 K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide.

First asked 3 March 2011 (12 days and counting)

 

[Furcifer]

*sigh For the purposes of this discussion it does not matter and I did not say that it matters.

What's with the parroting? No original thoughts of your own?

I suppose this:

It is unknown whether the Wu et al result is correct yet.

Was just another inane rambling then. Gotcha.

Wrong: The project Astrometria are about the TSI. The TSI has been ruled out as a cause of the current global warming.

Again you're incorrect. It's only been determined that CO2 plays a bigger role. Perhaps this is why you continue to make some many mistakes in your reasoning?

A nitpick: The fact that it may be out by 400% does not mean anything until the effects are evaluated.

Nonsense, it means it's out by a considerable amount, on the order of 75% of the atmospheric latent heat. Do you know what latent heat is? Do you realize how much water there is in the atmosphere? I suppose you don't know what it means, but I do. So do the scientists, that's why they are writing papers and questioning the role of GHG's in climate change.

As noted before the effects are unlikely to change the value of climate sensitivity since there are other independent methods that give an average value of ~3 degrees per doubling of CO2.

lol, again incorrrect. If that were true they wouldn't be in the process of making changes to the GCM's. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, you can get to work by horse, ox and buggy or on the back of your Golden Retriever. Today most of us use cars and most of us get our climate sensitivity from GCM's and empirical methods!

Again, your immature parroting suggests you are lying about your level of education. This is the behavior of children not adults.

No. The value for flux (for this discussion) is wrong. The Wu value is right and has not been matched to empirical data yet.

You don't understand the paper at all. It's quite clear it does approach estimating the SORCE data, that's the entire purpose of the paper. Try reading it again.

That is not likely for the simple reason that science is driven by empirical results. If something does not agree with the real world then it is thrown away.

Once again, you don't understand any of this science so I'm not surprised at this statement. There's no empirical or direct measure of sensitivity. You simply don't understand sensitivity and how it is calculated using various techniques. Once again, all of these techniques give a range, the actual sensitivity isn't a range. These are estimates, if the new estimate is or isn't within the range it won't be "thrown away", it will be evaluated for accuracy and that accuracy will be given a weight for use in determining the new range of climate sensitivity.

Your entire position is based in some very fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. There's no question in my mind that you don't have the education you say you do.

 

[Furcifer]

You have not given me any answers to the question.

You're a liar, the answer has been given and even you have, unwittingly perhaps, participated in the discussion. I don't see the purpose of lying when you know the answer?

Stop being so ignorant and learn something about climate science. I have sourced the claim that the estimates of climate sensitivity support that CO2 is the primary diriver of climate chnage,

There is absolutely no agreement on what climate sensitivity is. The idea that there is because there is consensus on anthropogenic warming is laughable. This is exactly what alarmists do, they make wild claims based on inference. I'm sure this is exactly why climate scientists don't have any confidence in the media.