Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

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

You are lying.
You were the one that first brought up the integration and differentiation issue.
I agreed with you but then pointed out that was only true for indefintite integration. Defintite integration gives a number, differentialting a number gives zero, not the original function.

Do you really not understand how the math is reversible, and that you can calculate TSI from entropy flux using this paper?

And there you go again with another delusion about the paper:
The math is reversibale foir indefinite integration..
The paper calculates a number for entropy flux using definite integration.
The number cannot be turned back into an TSI.

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.

I agree.
Thus you are making it obvious that you have never taken first year physics or mathematics. Otherwise you would know the difference between indefinite and definite integration.

 

[Reality Check]

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...

It is not a pointless derail.
The difference between significant and statistically significant is .... significant ))! Statistically significant means that there are statistics to support that fact that the result is significant.
Without that word, all we have is the author's expert opinion.

It is a simple fact that anyone reading the Wu et al paper can see that

• They use the word signioficant quite a bit!
• They call the difference between their result and the usual result significant.
• They never calculate statistics on the difference.

I don't know really. I'm inclined to say it is, because this is a value used in a perturbation.

The problem is that you cannot read a paper and see that it has no statistics on the difference between the author's value and the usual value. This basic flaw puts doubts on whether anything you say is correct. Thus my question:
3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter

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.

Yes, the authors state that their result is significant.

I'm not here to change believers, I'm here to discuss science with skeptics.

Ditto.

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.

And then you go off into displaying the insanity of a true-believer:

• Science is not deternined by web site popularity.
• As for trusting Watts Up with That as a reliable source of science - you are definitely not a skeptic.
• More idiocy with "RealCrapClimateScience"

Watts Up With That is run by a weatherman whose claim that weather stations were showing warmer temperatures because of the urban heat effect has been throughly debunked, e.g. by the fact that his own list of most reliable stations give the same trends as as all of the stations.
Any article by him is dubious. The occassional guest posts though are of better quality.

Real Climate is a commentary site run by real climate scientists.

Can you see the difference between actual working climate scientists who are up to data and have an in-depth knowledge of the subject and a weatherman self-educated in climate science?
Which do you think is more reliable (no CT rant please!)?

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.
[/.quote]
Wow - dumb conspiracy theorist language rather than science!

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".

That is right: deniers and warmer are especially prone to making puerile statements. That means that they lack the faculties to discuss the science in a "friendly and lively manner".

Now in this thread - who was the first person to make puerile assumptions about the level of education of posters ?

 

[Trakar]

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.

I'm becoming more and more attuned to the sentiments behind the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

There are no problems with the calculation of the energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere mentioned in the Wu et al paper or this review of the paper.
The problem is with the calculation of the entropy flux.

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

So you want to put modern day instruments into the past using time machines ?

The reason we rely on proxies like tree rings, ice cores and sedment layers is that is all that we have!


Why you mention this is unknown. The whole point about the TSI is that in the last few decades it has been supplanted by CO2 as the primary driver of climate. The physics is simple

• Instrumental readings over the last 32 years show that TSI has been constant (or even decreasing a bit).
• Proxy reading from last century suggest that the TSI has been constant over the last 60 years.
• The global temperatures have increased over the last 32 (and 60) years.
• Thus the Sun is not a primary driver of climate change.
• Other research shows that CO2 is the best candidate of the remaining climate drivers for the primary driiver.

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.

It does make perfect sense.
Monitoring the sun's size and activity also makes perfect sense. This shows that the Sun is not currently a primary driver of climate change.
Thernodynamics is a open topic.
There is no evidence of anyone's minds being "closed" to papers on thermodynamics of the atmosphere or their possible significant impact on climate science.

 

[Haig]

The NOAA report for February is up: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

so it's time to see how well Corbyn's predictions for February ...

2. Extreme cold in the USA in February

4. Extreme cold in Britain and Europe in February

... compared to reality.

[qimg]http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm222/Pixel42/201102.gif[/qimg]

A mixed picture for both Europe and the USA, with about half of each being warmer than the baseline whilst the other half was colder. Both regions had a few areas with temperatures more than 3C colder than usual, so I'm going to be generous and award Corbyn half a hit for each of these two predictions.

Corbyn's results so far:

Predictions: 6

Hits: 2

Success rate: 33%

The four remaining Corbyn predictions on my original list are that UK/Europe and the USA will experience spring and summer weather which are "not the sort of Spring and Summer the warmists want". People who don't understand AGW often assume it predicts that every season in every region will be warmer than average, so I've interpreted this as a prediction that the next two seasons will be colder than average in the regions named. In order to test this I will continue to post the monthly temperature anomaly charts, and will award Corbyn a hit if at least two of the three months of March/April/May or June/July/August have average temperatures in either region at least 1 degree C cooler than the baseline.

So He's 33% better than the MET according to you? The MET can't get ANY of their long range predictions right

The important bit is this link between extreme events on the Sun and it's effects on Earth, like this:
EXTREME WEATHER AND EARTHQUAKE DANGER IMMINENT around 23rd-27th March warns Piers Corbyn

The very active solar region which emerged from the SE limb of the sun on the morning of 21st March is crackling with dangerous activity including extreme UV radiation and up to 50Mev proton bursts and its appearance along with other active regions on the sun fits our WeatherAction.com long-range WARNING for significant weather extremes and earthquakes in the period around 23rd-27th March, issued during February.

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=328&c=5

 

[Pixel42]

So He's 33% better than the MET according to you? The MET can't get ANY of their long range predictions right

Utter rubbish. The Met Office stopped publishing their long range forecasts because, no matter how clearly they spelled out the uncertainties involved, everybody (especially the media) persisted in castegating them if they weren't 100% correct.

Though they're apparently rethinking that policy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/04/met-office-delayed-big-freeze-forecast?INTCMP=SRCH

Met Office knew pre-Christmas freeze was coming but held off telling public

The Met Office warned the government that the pre-Christmas weather would be "exceptionally cold" but did not immediately tell the public, it has been revealed.

It advised Cabinet Office planners in early October that Britain was likely to be in for freezing conditions. Public information came only when the 30-day forecast, the current maximum, kicked in.

The Met Office may now revise its long-term forecast system. Last year's decision to drop seasonal forecasts from the national weather service's website and regular bulletins led to the delay in the public getting the information, although the warning was available through the Cabinet Office for emergency planners, transport networks and other authorities.

A Met Office spokeswoman said: "We did research at the start of last year and the public said a monthly forecast was far more useful than seasonal forecasts."

The change followed embarrassment over predictions of a "barbecue summer" in 2009 which fell very wide of the mark. The Met Office was already unhappy about issuing data which, given current forecasting technology, could seldom be as accurate as the public liked to think. "We withdrew from making public our seasonal forecasts for the season because the public said they didn't want them," said the spokeswoman.

""We've always said they can be useful for other people – and obviously that includes the Cabinet Office and contingency planners. We advised them earlier in October that the start of winter would be exceptionally cold."

Basically they're buggered whatever they do.

The important bit is this link between extreme events on the Sun and it's effects on Earth, like this:
EXTREME WEATHER AND EARTHQUAKE DANGER IMMINENT around 23rd-27th March warns Piers Corbyn
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=328&c=5

Has he said anything more specific? This is almost useless as a prediction. There are earthquakes and unusual weather somewhere in the world virtually every day.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm becoming more and more attuned to the sentiments behind the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink.

"You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can't make him think".

I forget where that comes from .

 

[Furcifer]

You are lying.
You were the one that first brought up the integration and differentiation issue.

Again incorrect, you lamented about how to differentiate a number. That's just sad.

And there you go again with another delusion about the paper:
The math is reversibale foir indefinite integration..
The paper calculates a number for entropy flux using definite integration.
The number cannot be turned back into an TSI.

Incorrect, ALL of the math is there for anyone (with the right education) to work backwards from to get TSI.

This thread should be able to generate lift with all the handwaving

 

[Furcifer]

It is not a pointless derail.
The difference between significant and statistically significant is .... significant ))! Statistically significant means that there are statistics to support that fact that the result is significant.
Without that word, all we have is the author's expert opinion.

Nonsense, this is just more handwaving to detract from the real issue, the value is off an extraordinary, sooper dooper, colossal amount.

The problem is that you cannot read a paper and see that it has no statistics on the difference between the author's value and the usual value.

lol, now you've corrected yourself. Before you had said there were no stats at all, now it's about this one value. Of course had you made that distinction earlier I would have agreed. Disingenuous of you to say the least.

[*]As for trusting Watts Up with That as a reliable source of science - you are definitely not a skeptic.

lol, again, who said "trust"? What a funny word to use in the discussion of science.

[*]More idiocy with "RealCrapClimateScience"

Tell me about it.

[/LIST]Watts Up With That is run by a weatherman whose claim that weather stations were showing warmer temperatures because of the urban heat effect has been throughly debunked, e.g. by the fact that his own list of most reliable stations give the same trends as as all of the stations.
Any article by him is dubious. The occassional guest posts though are of better quality.

I don't know, I just read journals. Op-ed's are for those who can't understand the science themselves.

Wow - dumb conspiracy theorist language rather than science!

What does science have to do with funding? Try and make sense please.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm becoming more and more attuned to the sentiments behind the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink.

Indeed I said that about 8 pages ago when people couldn't understand something as simple as how changes in flux would affect sensitivity.

 

[Furcifer]

There are no problems with the calculation of the energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere mentioned in the Wu et al paper or this review of the paper.
The problem is with the calculation of the entropy flux.

Anyone with an understanding of thermodynamics will immediately see the problem with the above statement.

The reason we rely on proxies like tree rings, ice cores and sedment layers is that is all that we have!

No they aren't. Way to miss the point entirely.

The whole point about the TSI is that in the last few decades it has been supplanted by CO2 as the primary driver of climate. The physics is simple

lol, "the physics is simple". That's so untrue.

[*]Instrumental readings over the last 32 years show that TSI has been constant (or even decreasing a bit).
[*]Proxy reading from last century suggest that the TSI has been constant over the last 60 years.
[*]The global temperatures have increased over the last 32 (and 60) years.
[*]Thus the Sun is not a primary driver of climate change.
[*]Other research shows that CO2 is the best candidate of the remaining climate drivers for the primary driiver.

More indications of alarmist thinking.

"It's so simple, it's so obvious" blah blah blah.

If it's so simple why has it only been within the last 10 years that the scientific community has come to a consensus on the observed warming in the last 150 years?

The actual science doesn't have as much resolve as you do, and that should make you stop and think.

There is no evidence of anyone's minds being "closed" to papers on thermodynamics of the atmosphere or their possible significant impact on climate science.

Certainly not in the papers, I'm talking about members of this forum specifically.

 

[Trakar]

"You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can't make him think".

I forget where that comes from .

LOL, I've heard similar said about horticulture!

 

[Trakar]

...Has he said anything more specific? This is almost useless as a prediction. There are earthquakes and unusual weather somewhere in the world virtually every day.

No "virtual" about it!


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0197837.html

 

[Reality Check]

Again incorrect, you lamented about how to differentiate a number. That's just sad.

Again deluded, I tald you that you were about to differentiate a number in an attempt to get a function. That's just pathetic.

Incorrect, ALL of the math is there for anyone (with the right education) to work backwards from to get TSI.

That is dumb, 3bodyproblem. The paper's math ends with a number. There is no way to get back from the number to the TSI.
You could reverse the math at a point before the calculation of the entropy flux but that is not what you have been asserting.

One more time: You cannot differentiate (the inverse of integration) the energy flux to get back to the original equations (which are not the TSI).

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense, this is just more handwaving to detract from the real issue, the value is off an extraordinary, sooper dooper, colossal amount.

Nonsense, that is just you hand waving to conceal your delusions about the Wu et al paper - no statistics means that the difference between their value and the usual value is not statistically significant.

It is significant! The authors say so!

lol, now you've corrected yourself. Before you had said there were no stats at all, now it's about this one value.

lol, there are "statistics" (e.g. average values mentions) in the paper.
There are no statisics about the

lol, again, who said "trust"? What a funny word to use in the discussion of science.

lol - I said trust because I am not a climate scientist and so I want a reliable source of citations and interpretations of the citations. That is not a blog run by a weatherman..

Tell me about it.

The idiocy was in you not being able to spell Real Climate correctly (or to be more exact deliberately misspelling it, maybe to show your contempt for actual climate scientists running a commetary web site).

What does science have to do with funding? Try and make sense please.

Try and not make yourself seem like a deluded conspiracy theorist by using their language:

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.

(lCT language highlighted)

And being mistaken yet again:

• The US has not pulled funding from the IPCC yet. AFAIK the bill has not got to the Senate yet.
• You have given no evidence that the IPPC is "pseudoscience laden".
• There are no "ring leaders" in the IPCC but ...
• that looks like a grammar mistake since you are probably talking about
  • Climategate where the investigations have finished, e.g.
    

    The investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice and Jones was cleared of any scientific misconduct.

    Information was never destroyed. Copies of information was destroyed. It is agreed that destruction was bad practice.
  • The few mistakes that the IPCC made in AR4 that have been pointed out, e.g. the pprojected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

 

[Reality Check]

Anyone with an understanding of thermodynamics will immediately see the problem with the above statement.

Anyone with an understanding of English will immediately see the problem with the above statement. My point was that the Wu et al paper calculates the entropy flux not the energy in or out of the atmnosphere. It is this paper that is being commented on.

No they aren't. Way to miss the point entirely.

Yes they are. Way to display ignorance for the world to see.
There were no instruments "hundreds or thousands, even millions of years ago" to measure the "energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere".

Thus we have to rely on proxies like tree rings, ice cores and sedment layers (and etc.)

lol, "the physics is simple". That's so untrue.

The physics is simple that the TSI no longer is a primary driver of climate change

• Instrumental readings over the last 32 years show that TSI has been constant (or even decreasing a bit).
• Proxy reading from last century suggest that the TSI has been constant over the last 60 years.
• The global temperatures have increased over the last 32 (and 60) years.
• Thus the Sun is not a primary driver of climate change.

There is more complexity in the collection of the evidence that:

• CO2 is the best candidate of the remaining climate drivers for the primary driiver.

More indications of alarmist thinking.
...snipped blah blah blah

No - more indications of being able to read and understand scientifric papers.

Certainly not in the papers, I'm talking about members of this forum specifically.

Then you are wrong there too.
There is no evidence (except maybe in your head) that members of this forum think that thermodynamics is a closed topic.
Poster in this thread are open to discuss thermodynamics.
The exception seems to be you. You seem to go off onto a "its physics" rant when details are asked for.

 

[Trakar]

Indeed I said that about 8 pages ago when people couldn't understand something as simple as how changes in flux would affect sensitivity.

The general course of action followed by most rational folks when this occurs is to explain your understandings to them as simply as possible and cite mainstream science references to support your explanation and to offer sources of more in-depth individual research.

Can you link to the posts where you followed this course of action?

 

[Furcifer]

The general course of action followed by most rational folks when this occurs is to explain your understandings to them as simply as possible and cite mainstream science references to support your explanation and to offer sources of more in-depth individual research.

Can you link to the posts where you followed this course of action?

These are basic principles of atmospheric physics, that should be apparent to anyone discussing the science or attempting to understand it.

If I say the force on the object increased and the mass stayed the same, do I really need to cite mainstream scientific references to support my explanation that the acceleration must have increased? Do I really?

It's just as obvious that if the flux increased the sensitivity must drop. The only clarification that should be made is perhaps to the units. That was done numerous times so there really is no excuse for people's continued ignorance on a subject that isn't that difficult to understand.

I find it highly amusing to essentially have said "2+2=4" to only have people beg "What's your mainstream science explaining this so called equation? What's a 2? Is it statistically significant, did you do a chi-square test?"

 

[Furcifer]

Again deluded, I tald you that you were about to differentiate a number in an attempt to get a function. That's just pathetic.

Of course you did no such thing, you pondered the answer to the derivative of a number. Any first year student can tell you that, and yet here you are wondering aloud about it.

That is dumb, 3bodyproblem. The paper's math ends with a number. There is no way to get back from the number to the TSI.

You should learn how to integrate defintie integrals and get over this problem. This is physics, we start with numbers and quite often we end with numbers. Crazy but true!

One more time: You cannot differentiate (the inverse of integration) the energy flux to get back to the original equations (which are not the TSI).

I'm glad I was able to finally get you to understand this. Well done!

 

[Furcifer]

Nonsense, that is just you hand waving to conceal your delusions about the Wu et al paper - no statistics means that the difference between their value and the usual value is not statistically significant.

Nonsense. If you had the skills you could try and prove this claim but you don't so I'll save you the trouble and tell you it is statistically significant. 400% is very significant.

lol, there are "statistics" (e.g. average values mentions) in the paper.
There are no statisics about the
lol - I said trust because I am not a climate scientist and so I want a reliable source of citations and interpretations of the citations. That is not a blog run by a weatherman..

More parroting, and we all know what that means

Try and not make yourself seem like a deluded conspiracy theorist by using their language:

I'm afraid you are mistaken, it isn't a conspiracy, the US government is no longer funding the pseudoscience at the IPCC.

And being mistaken yet again:

• The US has not pulled funding from the IPCC yet. AFAIK the bill has not got to the Senate yet.
• You have given no evidence that the IPPC is "pseudoscience laden".
• There are no "ring leaders" in the IPCC but ...
• that looks like a grammar mistake since you are probably talking about
  • Climategate where the investigations have finished, e.g.
    
    Information was never destroyed. Copies of information was destroyed. It is agreed that destruction was bad practice.
  • The few mistakes that the IPCC made in AR4 that have been pointed out, e.g. the pprojected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Topics for another thread. Suffice to say you are wrong and you've obviously drank the koolaid