Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

It does not calculate the TSI. The paper uses the TOA SSI data(and the TOA TSI as constraint.
That is idiotic. You continue with the insane delusion that I have not attended university. I have a M.Sc.

Despite your claims you don't understand the operations of differentiation and integration that make it possible to calculate flux from TSI and TSI from flux. Although the math may be 2nd or 3rd year, a 1st year student and most high school students would know this.

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.

Again incorrect, you don't seem to know what the SORCE value and the SIM values are. You've confused entropy flux with sensitivity.

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.

Again more childish parroting, obviously not from an educated person. This is behaviour associated with children, not adults. I"m skeptical that someone with this level of maturity would have the credentials you claim.

The reason you would never, ever, make these claims outside of this forum is clearly because you know they would be exposed by more educated people as the nonsense they truly are.

 

[Furcifer]

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

In order to claim you did not know 400% was indicative of a "difference" you would have to be below a 4th grade level of math. You claim to have University education, so you are a liar.

That was obviously wrong because there are no statistics in the Wu et al paper. Thus I pointed it out.

Nonsense, there are plenty of "statistics" in the paper. That you cannot readily identify them because you rely on googled information is your own failing.

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.

It's amusing you think the addition of "difference" changes the meaning entirely. By the fourth grade (7th?), a student should be aware that in order to have 400% more (or less) of anything, there has to be a difference.

Again you are either lying and misrepresenting your educational level, or you don't have the basic understanding of mathematics to discuss this. Either way you are perpetuating a falsehood.

 

[Reality Check]

In order to claim you did not know 400% was indicative of a "difference" you would have to be below a 4th grade level of math. You claim to have University education, so you are a liar.

That is a delusional assumption.
It really needs paraphrasing:

In order to claim you did not know significance was indicative of statistical significance you would have to be below a 4th grade level of math. You claim to have know something about science, so you are a liar.
​

Fixating on a semantic argument is fun !
Lets do this for ever and ever and ever so that you can avoid understanding the simple science that the Wu et al result is significant different from the conventional result and is very unlikely to produce a significant difference in estimates of climate sensitivity.

Nonsense, there are plenty of "statistics" in the paper. That you cannot readily identify them because you rely on googled information is your own failing.

Nonsense, there are no statistics other then averages in the paper otherwise you would quote them. That you have no idea what statistically significant means and cannot even see the lack of it in the paper is a sad reflection of a really bad education.
And the stupidity of thinking that Google has anything to do with this is obvious - I read the paper. I have a universtity education. I used to know a lot more about statistics than you (it has been a long time since I was a scientist).

ETA
Maybe I should add this delustion about statistical significance being in the Wu et al paper to: 3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper
So short a paper - so many delusions about its contents!

 

[Reality Check]

Despite your claims you don't understand the operations of differentiation and integration that make it possible to calculate flux from TSI and TSI from flux. Although the math may be 2nd or 3rd year, a 1st year student and most high school students would know this.

More inane, pathetic insults.
I know the operations of differentiation and integration. My thesis usesw contour intergration!

It is possible to calculate entropy flux from TSI - try readind the Wu et al paper .
It may be possible to calculate TSI from entropy flux but this is not done in the Wu et al paper and you give no citation.

Again incorrect, you don't seem to know what the SORCE value and the SIM values are. You've confused entropy flux with sensitivity.
...the rest is just your usual inane pathetic insults...

Again idoicy: There is no climate sensitivity in the Wu et al paper.
I know what SORCE is.
I know what the SIM values - they are the spectral irradiance values used in the Wu et al paper.

 

[Reality Check]

Otustanding questions for 3bodyproblem

There are many estimates of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data. There are many estimates of climate sensitivity derived from GCMs.
A GCM that has entropy flux as a parameter must give results that fall within the other estimates of climate sensitivity.
The existing range of climate sensitivity estimates shows that CO2 is (very likely in IPCC-speak) the primary driver of climate change.
Thus the Wu et al paper results will not impact climate sensitivity estimates enough to remove CO2 as the primary driver of climate change.

The exception is if all of the estimates of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data and other GSMs are incorrect, i.e. they have one or more problems. So I asked you whether you know of any in general or for a couple of specific papers.

3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity?
First asked 3 March 2011 (14 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 empirical estimate

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

So far no answer so maybe you do not know of any problems with the estimates of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data and other GSMs.

If that is the case just say so, 3bodyproblem​

​

You asserted that "only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter" so I asked

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15 March 2011
​

 

[Furcifer]

More inane, pathetic insults.
I know the operations of differentiation and integration. My thesis usesw contour intergration!

That's not possible, you didn't know "400%" implies a difference. Likewise, you can't see how a paper on calculating entropy from flux could be used to calculate flux from entropy. Both of these are very basic principles in mathematics.

It may be possible to calculate TSI from entropy flux but this is not done in the Wu et al paper and you give no citation.

I don't have a citation because this is my observation of how the current GCM's are being run. You'd have to look through the raw data to see how this inconsistency is being dealt with. I'm assuming at some point in the perturbation this would have to be calculated, but I'm not certain. None the less the principle at least mathematically is sound.

 

[Reality Check]

That's not possible, you didn't know "400%" implies a difference.

That is possible. I know the operations of differentiation and integration. My thesis uses contour integration! To be more exact I calculate the self-energy of an impurity site (a transition metal atom) diluted in a metal. That needs the Green's function and the local magntic susceptibility. The self-enegy is done in the renormalized random phase approximation. It is a summation over certain phase points (basically temperates). The summation needs to be analytically continued to be valid over the entire complex plane. That involves contour integration. The results is a large equation with lots of integration over complex digamma functions.

I know that "400%" implies a difference. I also know that significance in science implies "statistcally significant".

Likewise, you can't see how a paper on calculating entropy from flux could be used to calculate flux from entropy.

Likewise that is dumb.

• It may be possible to calculate TSI from entropy flux (via the irradiance) but this is not done in the Wu et al paper and
• you give no citation.

Iindefinite integrations result in functions. Those functions can generally be differentiated to get the original function that was integrated. I seem to recall (and so may be wrong!) that there are pathological functions that do not do this.

But the Wu et al paper does definite integration. This gives a number.

I would be interested in how you differentiate the Wu et al result of a number for the entropy flux to get a function for the irradiance.

I don't have a citation because this is my observation of how the current GCM's are being run.

GCMs do not calculate flux from entropy or vice versa. You claim that some GCMs have entropy flux as a parameter. But you cannot name one:

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15 March 2011
​

You'd have to look through the raw data to see how this inconsistency is being dealt with.

What inconsistency?
The raw data for the Wu et al paper is the SORCE TOA SSI data.
The raw data is for GCMs whatever their parameters are.

I'm assuming at some point in the perturbation this would have to be calculated, but I'm not certain. None the less the principle at least mathematically is sound.

What perturbation?
What is the "this" that is calculated (irradiance flux? entropy flux?)?
What principle?
Where is your source that the principle is mathematically sound?

 

[Reality Check]

I just had a read through the material cited in my thesis.
One interesting paper is
Properties of the Renormalized Random-Phase Approximation for Dilute Magnetic Alloys
Haman n D.R. Phys. Rev. 186, 549, (1969)

The Anderson model for dilute magnetic alloys is studied in the renormalized random-phase approximation recently applied to the Wolff model by Suhl and co-workers. The resulting integral equations are solved analytically in an approximation which treats the key logarithmic divergence correctly. The solution indicates that the characteristic temperature in this theory depends exponentially on (U/Δ)2, where U is the Coulomb interaction and Δ the d- level width. This shows that the Kondo effect is not properly included in the basic approximation.

If you have access to Phys. Rev then it is a good read (I just have a rather tattered photocopy)

 

[Furcifer]

There are many estimates of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data.

I don't believe that makes sensitivity "empirical". Perhaps you have a different definition of "empirical" than the rest of us?

The existing range of climate sensitivity estimates shows that CO2 is (very likely in IPCC-speak) the primary driver of climate change.
Thus the Wu et al paper results will not impact climate sensitivity estimates enough to remove CO2 as the primary driver of climate change.

Probably not, no.

The exception is if all of the estimates of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data and other GSMs are incorrect, i.e. they have one or more problems.

This is just faulty logic on your part. I've pointed out numerous times you need to define what you mean by "problem". If multiple sources yielding wildly different ranges of climate sensitivity is acceptable, then there is no "problem". If instead you mean "Why do these techniques yield wildly different ranges of climate sensitivity" then yes, there is a "problem".

I've tried explaining both answers to you, that there is no "problem" and that there are "problems" within some of these estimates. Either way this question has been answered and you continue to beg it. I'm at a loss as to how to explain this to you so you can comprehend it.

 

[Furcifer]

I would be interested in how you differentiate the Wu et al result of a number for the entropy flux to get a function for the irradiance.

This is again proof you don't know anything about math and in particular calculus. Anyone who has taken calculus would know the derivative of a constant is zero.

This discussion is well beyond your understanding.

 

[Furcifer]

I know that "400%" implies a difference. I also know that significance in science implies "statistcally significant".

And yet you don't seem to know that 400% is statistically significant. That alone suggests you don't know anything about stats, but I encouraged you to do a p-test on the values, 0.08 and 0.32 to determine if the latter was "statistically significant". You weren't able to do that. You obviously googled something you don't understand well enough to apply yourself. Given that this is fairly basic math I was able to determine you're either lying, and you know it's "significant" or you are lying and you don't have the credentials you claim.

Either way you are lying.

GCMs do not calculate flux from entropy or vice versa. You claim that some GCMs have entropy flux as a parameter. But you cannot name one:

Not off hand, no. I'm not that familiar with the numerous climate models. I know from reading the actual science, and not googling RealCrapClimateScience.com there are 7 models that use this parameter.

I imagine once the changes have been made and the results published I will be able to tell you.

What inconsistency?

The difference in ranges of climate sensitivity the GCM's estimate.

What perturbation?

This is a technical term for how GCM's work.

What principle?

Differentiation is the reverse of integration. Again this is basic calculus and had you taken any math in University you would know this

Where is your source that the principle is mathematically sound?

Sir Isaac Newton

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: What are the problems with the estimates of climate sensitivity

I don't believe that makes sensitivity "empirical".

I never said that makes the estimates of climate sensitivity empirical, except may in shorthand, e.g. "empirical estimates" = estimates of climate sensitivity from empirical data.

Probably not, no.

As last we agree on something ! The Wu et al paper results will not impact climate sensitivity estimates enough to remove CO2 as the primary driver of climate change.

I've pointed out numerous times you need to define what you mean by "problem".

Do you mean that you do not know what the word "problem" is?

If multiple sources yielding wildly different ranges of climate sensitivity is acceptable, then there is no "problem".

How big is "wildly". Is it bigger than large? Smaller than humongous?
There are multiple sources using several methods yielding different ranges of climate sensitivity. This is not a problem.

If instead you mean "Why do these techniques yield wildly different ranges of climate sensitivity" then yes, there is a "problem".

That is not a problem because there is no scientific definition of "wildly"

I've tried explaining both answers to you, that there is no "problem" and that there are "problems" within some of these estimates. Either way this question has been answered and you continue to beg it. I'm at a loss as to how to explain this to you so you can comprehend it.

If you explained it then it must of got lost in all of your inane insults.


I comprehend that (maybe) you mean

1. The answer to 3bodyproblem: What is the problem with the published estimates of climate sensitivity? First asked 3 March 2011 is that there is no "problem" whatever you mean by "problem".
2. There are "problems" with some of these estimates.
   That sounds like excessive pedantry but maybe the question stated be stated as:
   3bodyproblem: What are the problems with the published estimates of climate sensitivity? First asked 3 March 2011

I hope that this is not a repeat of a "the estimate has a range and that is a problem" ignorance because all scientific measurments have ranges.

 

[Reality Check]

This is again proof you don't know anything about math and in particular calculus. Anyone who has taken calculus would know the derivative of a constant is zero.

This discussion is well beyond your understanding.

Your assertion that the Wu at al result (a number) can be turned back into irradiance (a function of wavelength)

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
Likewise, you can't see how a paper on calculating entropy from flux could be used to calculate flux from entropy

is definite proof you don't know anything about math and in particular calculus. Anyone who has taken calculus would know the derivative of a constant is zero.

This discussion is thus well beyond your understanding.

 

[Reality Check]

And yet you don't seem to know that 400% is statistically significant.

That is ignorant of you, 3bodyproblem.
In order for something to be statistically significant you have to have statistics. There are no statistics in the paper to support that the 400% difference is statistically significant.
The diffierence is significant because a 400% different is a large difference. That is all that can be said.

...snipped usual rant...there are 7 models that use this parameter.

How do you know there are 7 models? Name the 7 models that use this parameter. Or even one:
3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15 March 2011
(N.B. it does sound like a reasonable parameter but your inane practice of arguing by insults suggests that you are foundering about without any idea what you are taling about.)

The difference in ranges of climate sensitivity the GCM's estimate.

That is not really an inconsistancy. That is a result of the models.

This is a technical term for how GCM's work.

As far as I can see that is not quite right. GCM's work like any other computer model. However they are run multiple times with their input p

Differentiation is the reverse of integration. Again this is basic calculus and had you taken any math in University you would know this

Differentiation is the reverse of integration. Again this is basic calculus and since I have taken math in University I know this !
I also know that an definite integration (as in the Wu paper) gives a number (as in the Wu paper) and differentiating that gives zero. Again this is basic calculus and had you taken any math in your education (high school?) you would know this

Sir Isaac Newton

He would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that someone would think of differentiating a number and expect to get a function out of it.
So would Gottfried Leibniz

 

[Trakar]

That is ignorant of you, 3bodyproblem.
In order for something to be statistically significant you have to have statistics. There are no statistics in the paper to support that the 400% difference is statistically significant.
The diffierence is significant because a 400% different is a large difference. That is all that can be said...

Well, and as you've said, you can't even say that without the reference of other statistics and a general yardstick to compare them to. If I have one tenth of an inch of rain in a month and then the next month have 4 tenths of an inch of rain, I can have a 400% increase in rain from the first month through the second month, but I still don't have very much rain. And if these are normally the monsoon rains, then I'm looking at an epic drought regardless of the fact that there was a 400% increase in rain.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, and as you've said, you can't even say that without the reference of other statistics and a general yardstick to compare them to.

Which of course was never the case, it was noted that this represents 75% of the entropy due to latent heat on this planet.

Of course if you were clueless as to how much energy that represents, or maybe what latent heat was, you might still not understand.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you mean that you do not know what the word "problem" is?

A little lesson on the English language and comprehension may be in order here.

I got a flat tire on the way to work, that was a "problem".

None of the mentioned GCM's have flat tires, so they don't have "problems" if you define them to be similar to the inconvenience of changing a tire on the side of the road and being late for work.

That's why I asked you to clarify what you consider a "problem", then I can answer your question. At the moment I believe you are being deliberately vague because you don't really know what you are talking about.

How big is "wildly". Is it bigger than large? Smaller than humongous?
There are multiple sources using several methods yielding different ranges of climate sensitivity. This is not a problem.

Recent studies suggest the sensitivity due to CO2 alone is about 1.2 degrees. The additional positive feedbacks ie; change in albedo, water vapour etc. contribute another 2 degrees to the current mean sensitivity of around 3.2 degrees.

Any range larger than 1.2 degrees in a sensitivity study would be considered "wild". I'll let you go 1.5 degrees if you wish.

That is not a problem because there is no scientific definition of "wildly"

Good thing there's a definition of "pedantry"

If you explained it then it must of got lost in all of your inane insults.

If you explained it then it must of got lost in all of your inane insults.

I hope that this is not a repeat of a "the estimate has a range and that is a problem" ignorance because all scientific measurments have ranges.

No there's some sciency stuff you probably wouldn't understand that shows the deviation () in the ranges.

 

[Furcifer]

There are no statistics in the paper to support that the 400% difference is statistically significant.

And I said you're full of hogwash, if that's the case bring it to the attention of the author.

Then you back peddled and made some excuse about the 400% wasn't significant, but the difference was.

It's not my intent to publicly embarrass you, but if you don't admit this is BS I'm tempted to leave the comment myself, just for S and G's. The author knows it's significant, I know it is, and anyone with a University education () should know this as well.

How do you know there are 7 models? Name the 7 models that use this parameter. Or even one:

The precursory paper by the same author mentions it.

He would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that someone would think of differentiating a number and expect to get a function out of it.
So would Gottfried Leibniz

Is that why you said it, to upset Newton? You were the one wondering "how you differentiate the Wu et al result of a number for the entropy flux to get a function for the irradiance.

I don't think you really know how absurd your questions are.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations of studies suggest the sensitivity due to CO2 alone is about 1.2 degrees

I got a flat tire on the way to work, that was a "problem".

None of the mentioned GCM's have flat tires, so they don't have "problems" if you define them to be similar to the inconvenience of changing a tire on the side of the road and being late for work.

So we agree: None of the GCM's have problems ("flat tires").

And your answwer to 3bodyproblem: What are the problems with the published estimates of climate sensitivity? First asked 3 March 2011
is that there are no problems.

Recent studies suggest the sensitivity due to CO2 alone is about 1.2 degrees. The additional positive feedbacks ie; change in albedo, water vapour etc. contribute another 2 degrees to the current mean sensitivity of around 3.2 degrees.

Citations of "recent studies suggest the sensitivity due to CO2 alone is about 1.2 degrees"?

Any range larger than 1.2 degrees in a sensitivity study would be considered "wild".

Citations to papers labeling "any range larger than 1.2 degrees in a sensitivity study" as "wild" ?
Seriously: I hope that you know that "wildly" is a subjective term and has no place in science.

Good thing there's a definition of "pedantry"

Good thing there's a definition of "wildly"
But this has nothing to do with what I stated

Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is not a problem because there is no scientific definition of "wildly"

(emphasis added)

No there's some sciency stuff you probably wouldn't understand that shows the deviation () in the ranges.

How idiotic of you to assume that I cannot understand the science. This is especially true since I have pointed out many times now that I have a post-graduate education in physics.

I have evidence that you cannot understand sciency stuff (e.g. 3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper) but this does not stop me from pointing you to resources that you shoule be able to understand.

I have cited sources that list papers that show the deviations in the estimates, e.g. How sensitive is our climate? and Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame. The science is summarized in Knutti and Hegerl (2008) who have a great graphic (it is a bit big but you seem not to have seen it before)

Figure 4: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively

 

[Reality Check]

And I said you're full of hogwash, if that's the case bring it to the attention of the author.

I know that you are full of hogwash bacuase I have read the paper and there are no statistic in it, if that's the case bring it to the attention of the author

Then you back peddled and made some excuse about the 400% wasn't significant, but the difference was.

I did not back peddled - I pointed out the ambiguity in your original statement. I know the the 400% difference to the usual value is significant.

Now you are continuing with your delusion that the 400% difference between the entropy flux is statistically significant. That is idiotic because because that are no statistics about the values in the paper.

The precursory paper by the same author mentions it.
...snipped usual inane stuff...

Citation to the "precursory paper by the same author"? (Wu and his colleagues have published lots of papers).