Was just another inane rambling then. Gotcha.
No - it a reply to one of your inane inane ramblings.
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?
For once you are correct and as usual including a pathetic insult.
So I will be pedantic just for you:
Wrong, 3bodyproblem: The project Astrometria are about the TSI. The TSI has been ruled out as a prrimary driver of the current global warming.
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.
Obviously you cannot understand the
Wu et al paper so here is the pertinant quote from the summary:
It is worth emphasizing that the difference (0.23 W m-2 K-1) between the estimate under the assumption I and the estimate under the assumption II (or the estimate from the conventional approach) represents about 77% of the typical entropy production rate associated with the atmospheric latent heat process (Peixoto et al., 1991).
My emphasis added.
It is the entropy production rate from the atmospheric latent heat process. It is not 77% of the latent heat.
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.
lol, again ignorant and a pathetic insult.
GCM's are always being updated. That is a basic scientific process. As new information about reality is gained, models are always updated.
I also cannot see where the
Wu et al paper states that they are going to plug their value into a GSM. I expect someone will.
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.
I did not parrot it - I corrected it. If you write something immature that suggests that you are lying about your level of knowledge then I will correct it.
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.
Try to not display yout inability to understand the paper so clearly, 3bodyproblem.
The entire purpose of the paper is to calculate a value for the incident solar entropy flux using two models for the Sun (black and grey body). They do this from the model and the SORCE data.
Thus I stated
No. The value for flux (for this discussion) is wrong. The Wu value is right and has not been matched to empirical data yet.
As anyone with a knowledge of climate science would know and was not a total pedant, the "empirical data" not the SORCE data since entropy flux cannot be measured directly.
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.
Once again, you don't understand what you read so I'm not surprised at this rant.
Originally Posted by
Reality Check 
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.
The subject is science in general. For example the geocentric model of the solar system was thrown away when evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun was found (e.g. the phases of Venus).
Geting specific: There's no empirical or direct measure of climate sensitivity. There are the estimates of climate sensitivity from empirical data and GCMs:
A detailed look at climate sensitivity.
Once again:
- All of these techniques give a range.
- Read Knutti and Hegerl (2008) especially figure 3.
There are a few papers that derive estimates of less than 0 or greater than 10 degrees per doubling of CO2.
There are papers that derive estimates of that are outside of the range of similar techniques.
These results are known as outliers. They are generally ignored since it is likely that the papers are incorrect.
If the new estimate is not within the GSM range then it is an outlier. That makes it likely that the
Wu et al paper is incorrect. But there alternatives:
- GSMs that have entropy flux as a parameter are incorrect.
- The real world is wrong (or at least the estimates made using the real world).
There's no question in my mind that you don't have the education you say you do.
Then you are deluded:
I spent 7 years at university gaining a MSc in solid state physics. My thesis is not online but the paper from it is:
Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model
Fischer's calculations of the electrical resistivity, thermal resistivity, and thermopower of dilute alloys with nearly magnetic impurities are extended, using the one-band Wolff model, to the case where magnetic impurity scattering is large. A close similarity is seen to resistivities calculated in the two-band Wolff model, and a comparison is given with experimental data on RhFe and IrFe alloys.
.
