Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[CapelDodger]

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.

Can there even be a meaningful statistical significance in 2 data-points? I think not. I think 3bodyproblem used a buzz-phrase to make himself sound sciency but just made another mud-pool to flounder around in. Or the same one deeper, whatever.

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

Wu and colleagues do reference each other a lot. It seems to be a tight-knit world they inhabit, comfortably divorced from reality. Like, for instance, Philosophy. Or the world where nothing is certain so anything is possible.

 

[lomiller]

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

There is no point even if the number is pretty close to accurate (it is) it's irrelevant since he's either misinterpreted it or deliberately attempted to deceive in his presentation of it. Citation showing it's accurate would change nothing.

There is no such thing as the "sensitivity due to CO2 alone" you can't decouple a feedback loop that way and still have a system that makes physical sense. CO2 is still directly responsible for that warming from feedback as that warming would not occur without the change in CO2 so regardless of feedback all the change is caused by CO2 and all the 2-4.5 deg sensitivity is attributable to CO2.

Essentially what he's attempting to argue is that if we lived on a different plant that had none of these feedback effects climate sensitive would be lower, but who cares?

 

[Reality Check]

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

A thought: That number 1.2 degrees looks familiar
It is contained in the How sensitive is our climate? article. It is not climate sensitivity. It is how much the global temperature would rise if the CO2 doubled from its pre-industrial level when considering the CO2 only:

However, this doesn't account for feedbacks, for example ice melting and making the planet less reflective, and the warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas).

Climate sensitivity is the amount the planet will warm when accounting for the various feedbacks affecting the global climate.
...goes onto the actual formula and calculations...

 

[Furcifer]

There is no such thing as the "sensitivity due to CO2 alone" you can't decouple a feedback loop that way and still have a system that makes physical sense.

Perhaps you can't, but climate scientists can. An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models

It's important that all of the AR4 climate models have a "benchmark". What doesn't make "physical sense" is having one model with sensitivity of 3 degrees upon doubling CO2 and another having sensitivity of 1.4 degrees upon doubling CO2 when all of the parameters known to cause positive or negative feedback are set to zero.

It might not make sense to you but this is an essential figure in climate modeling.

 

[Furcifer]

A thought: That number 1.2 degrees looks familiar
It is contained in the How sensitive is our climate? article. It is not climate sensitivity. It is how much the global temperature would rise if the CO2 doubled from its pre-industrial level when considering the CO2 only:

Not surprisingly you were the very person to introduce multiple "sensitivities" into this discussion. It's not THE sensitivity, but it's one of many control "sensitivities" ie. one for a water planet, one for solid land planet, one for a frozen planet, one for a thawed planet etc. (the one with the proper entropy flux, the one without )

 

[Furcifer]

Can there even be a meaningful statistical significance in 2 data-points? I think not. I think 3bodyproblem used a buzz-phrase to make himself sound sciency but just made another mud-pool to flounder around in. Or the same one deeper, whatever.

It's the authors words, not mine. You obviously haven't even read the paper we are talking about.

This is just another example of the alarmist thinking in this forum. You don't have any clue what the paper is about, or the science involved, you just object to my bringing it up. The same way the alarmists objected to project Astrometria because Haig brought it up.

As a heads up, just to prove how intellectually dishonest people are around here I'm going to start bringing up and citing papers that clearly support current AGW theory and see who catches on and who doesn't.

Or maybe I already have

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Correct, none have made me late for work.

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

See post above to lomiller.

Seriously: I hope that you know that "wildly" is a subjective term and has no place in science.

This is a science discussion forum. As such it belongs here. If I write any papers for publication I'll certainly heed your warning.

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.

That remains to be seen. You've asked for the derivative of a number, you didn't know what entropy flux was or which way it was going. In addition to that you've displayed some childish behaviour. If you do have a MSc in physics you've obviously forgot a lot since then. There's nothing in your posts to indicate you have any education beyond the 12th grade. It's time to step up your game.

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.

The only mistake I've made is trying to explain all of this to you. If you feel the author is wrong state your case here and now.

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)
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=4385&albumid=666&dl=1300408508[/qimg]
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

Yes that's nice, you googled some stuff. Now you just need to tie that in to the discussion at hand. I'm going to assume that the author of the paper I've cited is aware of your climate sensitivity pictograph. Why would he/she make mention of the significant amount of entropy not being accounted for in climate models and then question how we would view the role of GHG's in climate change? This time, instead of googling something try using that Masters instead.

 

[Furcifer]

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

I'm smart enough to know how stupid that would be. If you've got the stones go right ahead. I know you don't.

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.

That's a lie. You really need to stop parroting because you've no idea what you're saying anymore. Nor does a parrot. (although there was an African Grey that had a vocabulary of some 1500 words if memory serves, traditionally "parroting" is absent of cogent thought, which is exactly why you don't know what you are saying!)

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.

There's no need for any. As Tshaitanaku incorrectly pointed out there is a comparative value to give some perspective as to why a value of 400% is significant. Unless you think 75% of the entropy due to latent heat isn't significant either!

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

Why? Academic gymnastics? You don't have the faculties to prove me wrong do you! If you admit you don't know enough about GCM's to figure this out yourself I'll gladly look it up for you. Until then I'm happy to watch you beg for everything like you have this entire thread

(fyi I may be mistaken as to the source (not th number). I read a lot of papers. Unlike some people, I focus on what is said, not who said it)

 

[Reality Check]

Not surprisingly you were the very person to introduce multiple "sensitivities" into this discussion.
...

Not surprisingly you are wrong - you misinterpreted what I stated as multiple "sensitivities". It was multiple estimates of the climate sensitivity (what you refered to as "mean sensitivity" in the original 1.2 degrees post).

You wrote:

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.

So the rest of your post makes that more understandable:

• The first "sensitivity" is a control senstivity without any feed backs.
• The mean senstivity is the one that is that climate scientists plug into climate models and shows that the current global warming is primarily driven by CO2.

(pretty much what the How sensitive is our climate? article states)

Thanks, 3bodyproblem

 

[Reality Check]

I'm smart enough to know how stupid that would be. If you've got the stones go right ahead. I know you don't.

I also am smart enough to know how stupid that would be. I also have the knowldege to know how dumb that would be. Remember to quote the statistics in the Wu et al paper .
If you've got the stones go right ahead. I know you don't.

That's a lie.
...

Thats a lie (see I can be as childish as you, 3bodyproblem )

Seriously

• I did point out the ambiguity in your original statement.
• I know that the 400% difference to the usual value is significant.

There's no need for any.

You are wrong. You cannot say that something is statistically significant unless you have the statistics to back it up.
No statistics = not evidence that the value is statistically significant .

Why?
...snipped rant...

Because you did not cite the paper .

(fyi I may be mistaken as to the source (not th number). I read a lot of papers. Unlike some people, I focus on what is said, not who said it)

FYI I read a lot of papers. Unlike some people, I can understand what the authors state (mostly !)

FYI: All I want is a reference to any of the 7 GSMs. Your extensive knowledge of climate science should make this easy!

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

But if you have no evidence that such a GCM exists then I will have to conclude that it is unlikely that the Wu et al result will be used in such a GSM.

 

[Reality Check]

That remains to be seen. You've asked for the derivative of a number,

I did not: You stated that differentiation is the inverse of integration.
It is for indefinite integration.
But the Wu et al paper calculates a value not a function. That is because they use definite integration (with a domain).
That means that it is idiotic to think of getting the original function that was integrated over by differentiation because the differentiation of a number gives zero.

The only mistake I've made is trying to explain all of this to you. If you feel the author is wrong state your case here and now.

The authors are not wrong. You are wrong about the contents of the paper: 3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper

Yes that's nice, you googled some stuff.

That's nice - you made a stupid assumption.

The graph was made by Knutti and Hegerl (2008). It is in their paper.

It shows the ranges of the various methods used to estimate climate sensitivity. That happens to be what we (or at least I) am trying to discuss.

The figure number and caption though is taken from the blog article because it is shorter and the graphic is fairy big. The full caption is (with the correct figure number)

Figure 3 ​

​

​

​

Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. a, The most likely values (circles), likely (bars, more than 66% probability) and very likely (lines, more than 90% probability) ranges are subjective estimates by the authors based on the available distributions and uncertainty estimates from individual studies, taking into account the model structure, observations and statistical methods used. Values are typically uncertain by 0.5 °C. Dashed lines indicate
no robust constraint on an upper bound. Distributions are truncated in the range 0–10 °C; most studies use uniform priors in climate sensitivity. Details are discussed in refs 18, 24, 75 and in the text. Single extreme estimates or outliers (some not credible) are marked with crosses. The IP CC24 likely range and most likely value are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively. b, A partly subjective classification of the different lines of evidence for some important criteria. The
overall level of scientific understanding (LOSU ) indicates the confidence, understanding and robustness of an uncertainty estimate towards assumptions, data and models. Expert elicitation90 and combined constraints are difficult to assess; both should have a higher LOSU than single lines of evidence, but experts tend to be overconfident and the assumptions are often not clear.​

 

[Furcifer]

Not surprisingly you are wrong - you misinterpreted what I stated as multiple "sensitivities". It was multiple estimates of the climate sensitivity (what you refered to as "mean sensitivity" in the original 1.2 degrees post).

lol, I'm wrong because I quoted you! Well I'm wrong because I paraphrased you actually. I'd better get that right if we're being this pedantic.

Anyhow...

 

[Furcifer]

I also am smart enough to know how stupid that would be. I also have the knowldege to know how dumb that would be. Remember to quote the statistics in the Wu et al paper .
If you've got the stones go right ahead. I know you don't.

Again, no cogent thought, you're just parroting. Now if I thought you could actually plagiarize your way to a Masters I might be inclined to believe your credentials.

Thats a lie (see I can be as childish as you, 3bodyproblem )

No you're just parroting again. I find it amusing, but that's because I know what parroting means.

You are wrong. You cannot say that something is statistically significant unless you have the statistics to back it up.
No statistics = not evidence that the value is statistically significant .

Nope, this is incorrect. It's a matter of looking where the burden of proof lies. Given the fact that "statistical significance" isn't that extraordinary, and the fact that 400% is well beyond 3 SD's, and the fact that 75% of the entropy due to latent heat is large, the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn't significant.

If the value was 125% or 75% you would be well within your rights to call for proof of the claim. Since it isn't the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. (plus the author is the expert, you obviously aren't, there is a case for authority here)

Plus I know you're just parroting what you read on some website about claims of "statistical significance"

FYI I read a lot of papers. Unlike some people, I can understand what the authors state (mostly !)

Parroting-One who imitates the words or actions of another, especially without understanding them.

Especially

But if you have no evidence that such a GCM exists then I will have to conclude that it is unlikely that the Wu et al result will be used in such a GSM.

Wow, now you call the author a liar. That's just weak in addition to intellectually dishonest.

I know you don't believe this because if you did you would certainly make such comments to the author. I'm genuinely curious why you would make such a ludicrous statement? If I had to speculate it's a combination of the anonymity the internet affords people and the fact that you're just flailing along in this discussion grasping at the straws hemorrhaging from most of your own posts.

Nah, that's not speculating, that's fact.

 

[Furcifer]

That means that it is idiotic to think of getting the original function that was integrated over by differentiation because the differentiation of a number gives zero.

I know, and you were the one that thought that!

I really wish I knew what you were trying to get at here? Do you really not understand how the math is reversible, and that you can calculate TSI from entropy flux using this paper? Or do you know it can be done but just want me to show you how to go about doing so?

If it's the latter (I hope) the mistake your are making is simple, the value of entropy flux comes from a function. You would put the value into the function, then differentiate the function.

Once again, this is first year stuff. Any physics major would have experience with position, velocity and acceleration and know how to differentiate and integrate the equations of motion to arrive at the values.

 

[Dancing David]

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.


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


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 "wildly"
But this has nothing to do with what I stated

(emphasis added)


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)
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=4385&albumid=666&dl=1300408508[/qimg]
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

Nice post.

 

[Dancing David]

There is no point even if the number is pretty close to accurate (it is) it's irrelevant since he's either misinterpreted it or deliberately attempted to deceive in his presentation of it. Citation showing it's accurate would change nothing.

There is no such thing as the "sensitivity due to CO2 alone" you can't decouple a feedback loop that way and still have a system that makes physical sense. CO2 is still directly responsible for that warming from feedback as that warming would not occur without the change in CO2 so regardless of feedback all the change is caused by CO2 and all the 2-4.5 deg sensitivity is attributable to CO2.

Essentially what he's attempting to argue is that if we lived on a different plant that had none of these feedback effects climate sensitive would be lower, but who cares?

I think this is accurate.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's the authors words, not mine. You obviously haven't even read the paper we are talking about.

Even if it were the authors' words, it would still leave the question : can there be statistical significance given to two data-points? It's a question that sprang to my mind the moment I read it. The same no doubt occurred to you.

What's your answer? Can there be statistical significance given two data-points?

This is just another example of the alarmist thinking in this forum. You don't have any clue what the paper is about, or the science involved, you just object to my bringing it up. The same way the alarmists objected to project Astrometria because Haig brought it up.

I don't object to you giving me material for amusement, nor Haig's Project Astrometria and his cult-worship of Piers Corbyn. I revel in it.

As a heads up, just to prove how intellectually dishonest people are around here I'm going to start bringing up and citing papers that clearly support current AGW theory and see who catches on and who doesn't.

Or maybe I already have

Reality Check has been eviscerating you on exactly that issue and you haven't even noticed. I applaud his efforts.

I also applaud your puerile insults, which are doing you no end of good in the public eye. Hardly anybody here still believes you live in your Mom's basement.

 

[Furcifer]

Even if it were the authors' words, it would still leave the question : can there be statistical significance given to two data-points? It's a question that sprang to my mind the moment I read it. The same no doubt occurred to you.

RC brought up this nonsense about significant or statistically significant and the abuse of usage.

For the most part I agree, it is thrown about a little too much, but at 400% there's little doubt that's off enough to be considered "statistically significant" . It's a pointless derail anyways...

What's your answer? Can there be statistical significance given two data-points?

I don't know really. I'm inclined to say it is, because this is a value used in a perturbation. As a result there are actually many values affected by the value. Because the author says it is, and he knows more than I do, I say yes it's significant.

Reality Check has been eviscerating you on exactly that issue and you haven't even noticed. I applaud his efforts.

I know you're bias and don't have the skills to evaluate any of this on your own so your opinion means little. I'm not here to change believers, I'm here to discuss science with skeptics.

I also applaud your puerile insults, which are doing you no end of good in the public eye. Hardly anybody here still believes you live in your Mom's basement.

The public at large isn't falling for this AGW nonsense and objective sites like Watts Up With That are doing twice the internet traffic of propaganda sites like RealCrapClimateScience.com The US had pulled funding from the pseduscience laden IPCC and the ring leaders are still facing investigation for misleading the public and destroying information.
The JREF is on lockdown when it comes to discussing Climate Change because members can be prevented from making puerile statements about other members mother's basements. Why? Because they lack the faculties to discuss the science in a "friendly and lively manner".

 

[Trakar]

...I don't know really. I'm inclined to say it is, because this is a value used in a perturbation. As a result there are actually many values affected by the value. Because the author says it is, and he knows more than I do, I say yes it's significant...

...To the authors, I am sorry to be so full of criticisms. Please
don’t be too discouraged, but there is a kernel of material that can stand
on its own here, which is the detailed entropy flux/intensity (please decide
which it is) as a function of frequency. I don’t believe that has been done
before if I understand correctly. It is interesting to see the shape of the
black body functions and how the spectral lines alter it. It is not necessary
to make claims of new thermodynamics, or climate “impacts”. The role
of thermodynamics in a dynamical system like the Earth’s atmosphere and
ocean remains an open topic. We are not ready for such claims.
I wish the authors the best of luck with their revisions and look forward
to seeing what they can do to make this a much better paper...

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/C21/2011/esdd-2-C21-2011-supplement.pdf

 

[Furcifer]

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/C21/2011/esdd-2-C21-2011-supplement.pdf

I say prepare for impact.

There's nothing wrong with the wording and whether or not the topic remains open (the correct term would be "neglected") we are ready to discuss how this affects the climate and GCM's.

I believe the person making the criticism is perhaps a little ashamed of exposing to the public climate science in it's current state hasn't figured out a way to calculate the energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere.

Instead we're relying on proxies like counting tree rings and measuring sediment layers from hundreds or thousands, even millions of years ago.

That makes perfect sense, looking at the sun and monitoring it's size and activity apparently doesn't. So much for thermodynamics being a open topic. The topic may be open, but it's pretty clear some people's minds are closed.