Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Trakar]

I'm sure you still pull it off most times.

Most times, any more, I forget what it was I was doing before I get both gloves on. Besides, that is why God made executive assistants and grad students.

...wait a minute, are we still talking about mathturbation?

 

[Trakar]

I doubt it. I've tried to talk science and all I get here is nonsense. The vast majority of AGW believers on this forum can't comprehend much, they read what they think is science regurgitated to them by biased and decidedly politically motivated websites like UnrealClimate and the like.

I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizable error in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity. It opens the door to possibilities like Astrometria being a viable way of determining climate and climate change.

All I've got in response is nonsensical responses like "It's not significant, do a chi-square test, lolz" and immature parroting from people claiming to be educated adults? Not likely.

It's because of things like this the JREF is not a place to discuss climate science. Sad but true.

In the mean time I enjoy pointing out how intellectually dishonest, nay, outright deceitful, the AGW alarmists on this site really are. They've taken a page right out of the Conspiracy Theorist handbook.

You guys have a handbook!!?!? do you have secret handshakes and stuff too?!

 

[Furcifer]

So there is a "significant difference in magnitude.".
But that is not what you said to begin with You said "400% is significant". That is not quite right. It is the 400% difference that is significant. 400% is just a number.

This is hilarious. Do you believe your own lies or do you figure if you tell enough of them they will become truth?

May I offer your observation to the ESD as a response to the paper? You seem reluctant to do so, so I will. I think it could be a learning experience you would benefit from greatly.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped consiracy theory stuff....
I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizable error in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity. It opens the door to possibilities like Astrometria being a viable way of determining climate and climate change.

Not right: There is no error in the way we calculate TSI.
The Wu et al paper proposes a method in which that they can get a different incident solar entropy flux from the existing method.

Plugging that entropy flux into a GCM that that it as a parameter might get a different estimate of climate sensitivity from the GCM. The estimate is constrained by the other estimates from other GCMs and especially the other estimates from empirical data. It is unlikely to change much. If it did stray outside of the existing estimate range then it is more likely that the Wu et al paper is incorrect than all of the other estimates are incorrect.

There is little possibiulity that Astrometria will be a viable way of climate and climate change since it measures TSI and for the past 30 years TSI has not been a primary diriver of climate change. Read the papers cited in Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

 

[Reality Check]

This is hilarious. Do you believe your own lies or do you figure if you tell enough of them they will become truth?

This is pathetic. You are obsesseded with a bit of semantics. Do you believe your pathetic insults are science or do you figure if you tell enough of them they will become truth?

 

[CapelDodger]

In more general usage, however, groupthink contains the element of consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating the ideas and concepts to which they are ascribing ...

I remember when the term was first formulated, and straightaway recognised that this was something that needed a word. Group-think is more active than you describe : the group defends its philosophical position as if its life depended on it. It automatically rejects any evidence or message that runs counter to it, and will go to any lengths to justify that rejection. Even lying will serve the purpose, since the group-truth is unassailable so the evidence must exist but is missing. In which case lying serves the truth.

It manifests at all sorts of levels. I've seen it directly in corporations and indirectly through history.

This is the sense in which deniers use it.

... and while this may be rather common among some types of science "fans," I just don't see this behavior as widespread within the upper-level academic or professional scientific communities (not that there aren't occassionally obvious exceptions to this, of course).

I rather fancied the academic life, but money spoke louder.

Well,...without pretty good ice understanding/modelling, your climate understanding/modelling is going to be much more general and imprecise, so its probably not accurate to imply that it is easier to get a comprehensive and precise climate model without having a pretty good ice dynamics understanding built into your climate model.

I disagree. Ice-cover, even in the Arctic, is a pretty minor influence given how little ice-cover we have at this point in the glacial cycle.

... perhaps, especially in the more casual discourse of impacts, mitigation and the whole range of socio-economic issues and I look forward to that becoming the main thrust of discussion with regards to AGW ...

Social sensitivity is a meta-level above Earth sytem sensitivity. That's where lots of detail comes into play. Not so much that it's imponderable, though. Good history (history that's as close to Science as it can be) can help and as the the great Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes".

It's not going to be pretty.

The big common point of "alarmism" definitions is the idea of "needless" or "without merit/substantiation."

The way it's commonly used these days is as a prelude to "not what I want to hear", followed by some specious reasoning and/or apocalyptic consequences if any attention is paid.

People that are genuinely concerned about issues with a high likelihood of coming to pass, and a demonstrated history of having occurred under similar conditions in the past, aren't alarmists, merely concerned individuals.

Agreed. We didn't get where we are as a species by never being alarmed. The occasional false-alarm has done little harm in comparison to none at all.

At the moment, major alarms are the continuing fall-out from a major financial bubble collapse, unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, and a potential economic melt-down in Japan. None of which the community of nations is showing any skill at dealing with.

We're screwed.

 

[Furcifer]

Not right: There is no error in the way we calculate TSI.

This is about as close to being right as you have ever been, but none the less you are still wrong. (poor comprehension on your part of course)

Calculating backwards from the wrong value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI.

If you don't believe me, try it! I would find it highly entertaining for you to support your claims for once

Plugging that entropy flux into a GCM that that it as a parameter might get a different estimate of climate sensitivity from the GCM. The estimate is constrained by the other estimates from other GCMs and especially the other estimates from empirical data. It is unlikely to change much. If it did stray outside of the existing estimate range then it is more likely that the Wu et al paper is incorrect than all of the other estimates are incorrect.

More nonsense. The Wu value closely matches empirical data collected from SORCE. You continue to make very poor assumptions based on your inability to decipher what the paper is actually about.

There is little possibiulity that Astrometria will be a viable way of climate and climate change since it measures TSI and for the past 30 years TSI has not been a primary diriver of climate change. Read the papers cited in Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Perhaps. The scientists who study this seem to suggest otherwise. Since you don't know what you are talking about, and they do, I'm inclined to believe them.

 

[CapelDodger]

I doubt it. I've tried to talk science and all I get here is nonsense. The vast majority of AGW believers on this forum can't comprehend much, they read what they think is science regurgitated to them by biased and decidedly politically motivated websites like UnrealClimate and the like.

Decided by whom? What motivations do you assign to RealClimate?

RealClimate (as its name implies) was started after the pseudoscience of McIntyre and Watts started to create its on-line group-think. We could already see what was going on because it's been seen before - on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion and all the other alarms which have been raised and denied in the same manner and often by the same people.

Around here we don't care about politics, we care about being right. For that we need facts and understanding of what they might mean.

I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizableerror in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity.

You've done no explaining of anything. You also still seem unaware that solar entropy flux is not solar irradiance, and that climate sensitivity is not a function of TSI anyway, despite the fact that these have been explained in very simple terms.

It opens the door to possibilities like Astrometria being a viable way of determining climate and climate change.

Which is, of course, your intent - to comfort yourself with the idea that there's no certain cause for alarm. Something as obscure as Project Astrometria (any interim results from them in yet? I've asked Haig, but no response yet) might just save the day.

All I've got in response is nonsensical responses like "It's not significant, do a chi-square test, lolz" and immature parroting from people claiming to be educated adults? Not likely.

The insults simply reveal your growing uncertainty. That and gibbering.

It's because of things like this the JREF is not a place to discuss climate science. Sad but true.

Are you leaving us then?

In the mean time I enjoy pointing out how intellectually dishonest, nay, outright deceitful, the AGW alarmists on this site really are. They've taken a page right out of the Conspiracy Theorist handbook.

You just keep doing that. Alone. You're making a great impression. I could hardly ask for better.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is about as close to being right as you have ever been, but none the less you are still wrong. (poor comprehension on your part of course)

Calculating backwards from the wrong value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI.

No, it wouldn't. TSI is directly measured.

If you don't believe me, try it! I would find it highly entertaining for you to support your claims for once

How would you go about this calculation? I'm not asking you to actually do it, just explain how you would. Explanation being your aim, after all.

More nonsense. The Wu value closely matches empirical data collected from SORCE. You continue to make very poor assumptions based on your inability to decipher what the paper is actually about.

The Wu et al value is derived from SORCE data. That features quite prominently in the paper.

Perhaps. The scientists who study this seem to suggest otherwise.

The scientists? All of them? As revealed in this discussion document and supplement(s)?

Since you don't know what you are talking about, and they do, I'm inclined to believe them.

"They" - who are they? Are they as gratuitously insuting as you?

As I may have mentioned before, mincing around with a superior air cuts no ice around here.

 

[Furcifer]

You are obsesseded with a bit of semantics.

What? you don't want your keen observation that 4 times isn't "significant" but "the difference is" published?

Come on, you could have your name in a published paper on climate science! Think of what the authors will say: "Statistical genius", "A four star contribution by a climate science legend, Thanks for the reality check, Reality Check!"

So when can I submit your observation to the ESD? Comments will close in April.

Or maybe perhaps you mean instead that you think it might not be significant as it relates to Astrometria? Now would be a good time to back peddle, so here's the opportunity.

 

[Furcifer]

How would you go about this calculation? I'm not asking you to actually do it, just explain how you would. Explanation being your aim, after all.

How about using the paper we've been discussing for the last 20 pages?

Are you being serious? You really don't see how a paper on calculating solar entropy flux from TSI could be used to calculate TSI from solar entropy flux?

That's just awesome. You made my day.

 

[Furcifer]

Around here we don't care about politics, we care about being right. For that we need facts and understanding of what they might mean.

Nonsense. This slight derail just proves how politically motivated people in this forum really are. You have no interest in understanding anything you think violates your group think.

You've done no explaining of anything.

I've explained how I believe the wrong estimate of entropy flux can lead to changes in how we perceive GHG's and climate sensitivity. There's been no constructive discussion, only some very sorry hand waving. The scientists say it's significant, but you don't. The scientists say it may change how we perceive GHG's, but you don't.

You claim to know more than the scientists. I find that hysterically funny because that's exactly what the conspiracy theorists say all the time!

You also still seem unaware that solar entropy flux is not solar irradiance,

Of course it isn't. They are merely DIRECTLY related. That's the key piece of the puzzle here you continue to remain willfully unaware of.

and that climate sensitivity is not a function of TSI anyway, despite the fact that these have been explained in very simple terms.

Again incorrect. I've never said anything was a "function" of anything. That's your strawman. They are of course "related" by way of the calculations carried out in some GCM's. I don't think you really understand what a "function" is. Feel free to explain it as you like, either way your above statement will quickly be proven wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

Your belief is erroneous. None of that has anything to do with the fact that the heat capacity of the atmosphere and oceans is a fixed quantity, which is to say the amount of energy required to raise their combined temperature by 1C is fixed. This is, of course, directly related to climate sensitivity and is not influenced by the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary? Is there some mechanism by which you think atmospheric CO₂ changes the specific heat of water? Or failing that, solar entropy flux? If so I'd love to hear it. In your own words.

I don't think you have the experience in thermodynamics to fully understand but I will try to explain it as simply as I can.

The Earth's climate system is not in an actual state of equilibrium, nor is it a closed system. These terms, "equilibrium" and "closed system" have precise meanings in thermodynamics which I don't' expect you to understand, suffice to say the result of releasing CO2 previously sequestered in the ground, into the atmosphere, results in less energy from the sun being needed to raise the temperature of the Earth's surface by 1 degree.

 

[Reality Check]

Calculating backwards from the wrong value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI

That is not what you stated and is not in the paper.

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizable error in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity. It opens the door to possibilities like Astrometria being a viable way of determining climate and climate change.

That is obviously wrong: The Wu et al paper proposes a method in which that they can get a different incident solar entropy flux from the existing method.
It does not calculate the TSI. The paper uses the TOA SSI data(and the TOA TSI as constraint.

2. Data and Methodology
Daily observations of TOA SSI between 200 nm and 2400 nm have been produced through the SIM instrument on SORCE satellite since February 2003. Discussions on the SORCE SIM instrument and its product of TOA SSI data can be found in Harder et al. (2005) and Rottman et al. (2005). We use the daily SIM-based TOA SSI observations from 04/2004 to 10/2010 for this study of investigating the magnitude and spectral distribution of the Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux. The corresponding daily TOA TSI observations from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument on SORCE satellite are also used as a constraint of the overall solar irradiance reaching the Earth’s climate system.

More nonsense. The Wu value closely matches empirical data collected from SORCE. You continue to make very poor assumptions based on your inability to decipher what the paper is actually about.

More ignorance. The Wu value is derived from the SORCE data and a model of the Sun. There are no empirical measurements of the "Wu value" which is the incident solar entropy flux.

The Wu et al paper proposes a method in which that they can get a different incident solar entropy flux from the existing method by using a grey body spectrum and the incident solar irradiance flux. Oviously you cannot even read the paper's total: Spectral Solar Irradiance and Its Entropic Effect on Earth's Climate.
You continue to display your ignorance based on your inability to understand what the paper is actually about.

Perhaps. The scientists who study this seem to suggest otherwise. Since you don't know what you are talking about, and they do, I'm inclined to believe them.

No perhaps about it. Since you don't know what you are talking about, and they are astrophysists not climate scientists, I'm inclined to believe actual climate scientists.
Read Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.

Or maybe you can understand the basic version

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

Maybe that will be simple enough for you, 3bodyproblem.

 

[Reality Check]

What? you don't want your keen observation that 4 times isn't "significant" but "the difference is" published?

Ok so you want to contimue to fixate on semantics instead of thinking about the science. (not that you think about the science)
I know the difference is published. The point are is that you never said that it was a difference. You stated "400% is significant" thta is obviously wrong. 400% is just a number . It is not significant.
The 400% difference stated in the Wu et al paper is a significant difference from the usually stated value.

So when can I submit your observation to the ESD? Comments will close in April.

You can make a fool of yourself any time by submitting your observation to the ESD: "400% is significant".
Add in my observation: "The 400% difference stated in the Wu et al paper is a significant difference from the usually stated value".

Or maybe perhaps you mean instead that you think it might not be significant as it relates to Astrometria? Now would be a good time to back peddle, so here's the opportunity.

Now you are being dumb, 3bodyproblem.
The result in the Wu et al paper does not have any impact on the Astrometria project which is about measuring the solar diameter and limb and its impact on the TSI.
It is nothing to do with the TSI that the Astrometria astrophysicists wrongly think is currently a primary driver of climate change (Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?)


Now would be a good time to learn some science or even basic reading skills, so here's the opportunity.

• Wu et al paper
• Astrometria project

Note how many times the Astrometria project. mentions entropy flux!

 

[Furcifer]

That is obviously wrong: The Wu et al paper proposes a method in which that they can get a different incident solar entropy flux from the existing method.

And using the wrong entropy flux the same method would result in an incorrect calculation of TSI.

This math stuff can be tricky, but unlike entropy this process is reversible. It's called integration and differentiation. You would know that if you had attended University for science.

More ignorance. The Wu value is derived from the SORCE data and a model of the Sun. There are no empirical measurements of the "Wu value" which is the incident solar entropy flux.

Nope wrong again, had you read and understood the paper you would know it is a comparison to the SORCE data. You've confused the entropy flux calculation with our discussion on sensitivity.

Once again your entire argument is based in erroneous assumptions about the paper and climate sensitivity.

You should include this observation in your comment to the author, just for fun.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok so you want to contimue to fixate on semantics instead of thinking about the science. (not that you think about the science)

If you continue to lie it should be pointed out. I know you would like people to forget about your deception and lies but they are an important part of this discussion. It shows how alarmists should not be trusted when it comes to interpreting scientific data. I believe you lied when you read the paper and saw the author's reference to the "significance" of the 400% difference (that's how you get the 400%, it's a difference in the measurements, it's explicitly stated in the mathematics, but people who know this stuff would never make this mistake in the first place) was incorrect and needed to be chi-squared tested and undergo a null hypothesis.

The point are is that you never said that it was a difference. You stated "400% is significant" thta is obviously wrong. 400% is just a number . It is not significant.

lol, you can't have 400% without there being a "difference". You would have to know absolutely nothing to think 400% was just a number and not the difference between "something" and "4 times something".

I will prepare a demonstration, see if you can follow.

Johnny has 1 apple
Sue has 4 apples.

Sue has 400% the apples of Johnny.

In order for that to happen THERE HAS TO BE A DIFFERENCE!

This is REALLY easy stuff. This is taught in grade 4 and children understand, so I doubt if you didn't understand THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE. You have to be lying, or not know what a percentage is.

 

[Reality Check]

And using the wrong entropy flux the same method would result in an incorrect calculation of TSI.

That is not what you said.

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizable error in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity. It opens the door to possibilities like Astrometria being a viable way of determining climate and climate change.

That is obviously wrong: The Wu et al paper proposes a method in which that they can get a different incident solar entropy flux from the existing method.
It does not calculate the TSI. The paper uses the TOA SSI data(and the TOA TSI as constraint.

This math stuff can be tricky, but unlike entropy this process is reversible. It's called integration and differentiation. You would know that if you had attended University for science.

That is idiotic. You continue with the insane delusion that I have not attended university. I have a M.Sc.

Nope wrong again, had you read and understood the paper you would know it is a comparison to the SORCE data. You've confused the entropy flux calculation with our discussion on sensitivity.

Nope totally wrong again, had you read and understood the paper you would know that the Wu value is derived from the SORCE data and a model of the Sun. There are no empirical measurements of the "Wu value" which is the incident solar entropy flux.

You should include this observation in your comment to the author, just for fun.

You should include this ignorance of the paper contents in your comment to the author, just for fun. It would be quite a laugh for everyone
I am not going to comment on it just because of your inability to understand it. I understand the paper quite well.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper

The Wu et al paper (Spectral Solar Irradiance and Its Entropic Effect on Earth's Climate) is a calculation of the incident solar entropy flux from the top of atmosphere spectral solar irradiance (TOA SSI) using

1. the conventional assumption that the Sun emits as a black body.
   They get the usual value for flux.
2. an assumption that the Sun emits as a gray body
   They get a value that is "4 times larger than that estimated from the conventional blackbody approach".

The data used is listed in section 2.

2. Data and Methodology
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Daily observations of TOA SSI between 200 nm and 2400 nm have been produced through the SIM instrument on SORCE satellite since February 2003. Discussions on the SORCE SIM instrument and its product of TOA SSI data can be found in Harder et al. (2005) and Rottman et al. (2005). We use the daily SIM-based TOA SSI observations from 04/2004 to 10/2010 for this study of investigating the magnitude and spectral distribution of the Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux. The corresponding daily TOA TSI observations from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument on SORCE satellite are also used as a constraint of the overall solar irradiance reaching the Earth’s climate system. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

(my emphasis added)

3bodyproblem has stated

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
I've tried to explain an interesting paper outlining a sizable error in the way we calculate TSI and hence climate sensitivity

That is obviously wrong. The paper calculates the incident solar radiation entropy flux not the TSI.

3bodyproblem asserts that

Calculating backwards from the wrong value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI.

No evidence that people do this calculation.
He seems ignorant that the TSI is actually measured. e.g. by SORCE. If the conventional (wrong) value of entropy flux which has been about for decades was used to calculate TSI then it would get the wrong value! Climate scientists wouold notice this

and another mistake

More nonsense. The Wu value closely matches empirical data collected from SORCE.

That is totally wrong.
The Wu value is incident solar radiation entropy flux. The SORCE instruments do not measure the incident solar radiation entropy flux. No instrument that exists measures incident solar radiation entropy flux.
As the authors state above - the empirical data collected from SORCE is used to derive the entropy flux ("Wu value").

 

[Reality Check]

If you continue to lie it should be pointed out.
...snipped insane rant...

That is stupid, 3bodyproblem. I did not lie.
Read what you stated:

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

I made the mistake of assuming that you knew where you were posting (the Science section of the forum). So significant would be significant in science which is usually statistically significant.
That was obviously wrong because there are no statistics in the Wu et al paper. Thus I pointed it out.

After a few rounds of your inane insults and delusions, you quoted the paper.
Now we both agree that 400% is a significant difference for the conventional value.

So if I am lying then so are you !