Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

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.

Since I've lead you but you haven't taken a drink I'll let you know your mistake is thinking entropy and energy aren't directly related.

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".

Again incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Nobody has ever stated there were instruments measuring energy millions of years ago. What an absurd strawman you've created in this.

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

"No longer"? Really? So when did it change? Please be specific, thanks!

There is no evidence (except maybe in your head) that members of this forum think that thermodynamics is a closed topic.

You yourself have made some outrageous statements about the climate sensitivity. Others seems baffled by the use of flux and entropy. The topic might not be closed but certainly many minds are to anything that casts doubts on their beliefs about climate science.

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.

It's taken me 8 maybe 10 pages just to get people to understand how entropy and flux are important parts of sensitivity estimates in GCM's. Perhaps I rant about the lack of education on this forum when it comes to climate science and atmospheric physics, but it really is shocking how many people are utterly clueless. As has been mentioned I can only bring these horses to water, I can't make them drink, and most already have that glass of koolaid in their hands anyways!

 

[Trakar]

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?"

Try, first, re-reading my post, you still seem to be missing the most important point I made:

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?

I see nowhere in this thread that you have attempted to simply and directly explain any of your scientific understandings or other beliefs, nor when challenged or questioned, have I ever seen you offer additional, simple, explanations clarifying your position, and/or a mainstream science reference that clearly and directly supports any assertion you have made. I hope my perceptions are mistaken.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You continue lying, 3bodyproblem.
I know that the derivative of a number is zero. I never "pondered" it beause I read the paper and saw that they get a number.

You were the first person to suggest that the paper's entropy flux could be differentiated to get the TSI. That is something a first year student would know better than suggest.
I pointed out that that was impossible because the entropy flux was a number and you cannot get a function by differentiating it.

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!

You should learn some basic mathematics and get over your ignorance. Differentiating a number gives zero. Zero is not a function. The solar irradiance flux is a function not zero. Integrating the SSI gives the TSI. Integrating zero gives zero. The TSI is not zero.

I know how do do defintite integration (and indefintite integration). You obviously do not.

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

How idiotic, 3bodyproblem: I have always known that you cannot differentiate (the inverse of integration) the energy flux to get back to the original equations (which are not the TSI).

You are the person who first suggested that it is possible to claculate back from the entropy to get the TSI:

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

and later explicitly mentioned differentiation:

This math stuff can be tricky, but unlike entropy this process is reversible. It's called integration and differentiation.

The ignorance is obvious: The paper uses a definite integration to get a number. That number cannot be differentiated to get a function (the solar irradiance flux) from which to calculate the TSI.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al paper has statistics on their results

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.

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 not statistically significant despite your delusions that there are stistics about the value in the Wu et al paper

400% is very significant. 400% is not statistcally significant if there are no statistics about the difference.

More parroting, and we all know what that means

Yes - that you are repeating your delusions and pointing out to the world that you are so ignorant that you cannot even quote the statistics that the authors of the Wu et al paper work out for their result and the conventional result.
Wait I know why - therre are none !

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

Ditto - the koolaid has obviously killed your brain cells, 3bodyproblem .

 

[Reality Check]

Cite the US bill that removed the funding from the IPCC, 3bodyproblem

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

I'm afraid you are unable to read: I never said there was a conspiracy to remove the funds.
I said that you were being dumb in using the language of insane conspiracy theorists.
Try and not make yourself seem like a deluded conspiracy theorist by using their language - whoops too late there you go again with pseudoscience !

And yet another unsupported assertion:
Cite the US bill that removed the funding from the IPCC, 3bodyproblem.

I have evidence that you are lying:
The House of Represemntaives passed the bill on Februray 19, 2011. It is not law until is is passed by the Senate. There is no announcement that I can find that that has happened.
Given the number of denier web sites out there (look at theresponse to the House vote), it is unlikely that the bill has passed the Senate.

 

[Reality Check]

Since I've lead you but you haven't taken a drink I'll let you know your mistake is thinking entropy and energy aren't directly related.

Since I've lead you but you haven't taken a drink I'll let you know your mistake is thinking that the Wu et al paper calculated energy into or out of the atmosphere.

Again incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Nobody has ever stated there were instruments measuring energy millions of years ago.

Again intellectually dishonest:
It would take a humorless idiot to think that I stated that except in the joke "So you want to put modern day instruments into the past using time machines ?"

Try to understand this, 3bodyproblem: Instruments have not been in existence for your "hundreds or thousands, even millions of years ago".
Thus the only way to get measurements of climate is to use proxies such as proxies like tree rings, ice cores, sediment layers, etc.
The reason we rely on proxies for those periods is that is all we have !

"No longer"? Really? So when did it change? Please be specific, thanks!

You really are showing that you are determined to remain ignorant.
I will post the article listing the papers one more time before conculding that you are totally unable to understand the climate science.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

But you want me to be "specific" - I hope you are not deluded enough to expect 12:34 am on 24 March 1976 .

...The topic might not be closed ..

Out of that rant I see that you think that the topic of thermodynamics might not be closed.
The evidence is that the topic of thermodynamics is open to the posters on this thread and forum.

It's taken me 8 maybe 10 pages just to get people to understand how entropy and flux are important parts of sensitivity estimates in GCM's.

Wrong. You have not presented any explanations and so there is nothing for people to understand except hot air from you.

You have continually asserted that entropy flux is an important part of sensitivity estimates in GCM's.
You have not given any explanation.
You have not given any citations.
You have not given any example of a GSM that has entropy flux as a parameter.
All we have is your vague memory that "only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter".

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011
Just one will do !

 

[Trakar]

...The House of Represemntaives passed the bill on Februray 19, 2011. It is not law until is is passed by the Senate. There is no announcement that I can find that that has happened.
Given the number of denier web sites out there (look at theresponse to the House vote), it is unlikely that the bill has passed the Senate.

Actually, it'd also have to be signed by the president, and frankly, while I wouldn't put such idiocy past Barry, I think he still has re-election ambitions and so probably wouldn't do such unless it were a lame-duck "present" to his former supporters.

 

[Furcifer]

You continue lying, 3bodyproblem.
I know that the derivative of a number is zero. I never "pondered" it beause I read the paper and saw that they get a number.

Here it is in black and white for all to read:

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.

If you're still interested, the answer would be 0.

You were the first person to suggest that the paper's entropy flux could be differentiated to get the TSI.

Lies. I never said such a thing. You've confused yourself with your constant parroting. Or perhaps you really don't understand at all.

You've invented a new fallacy, the "straw parrot". Well done.

 

[Furcifer]

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 not statistically significant despite your delusions that there are stistics about the value in the Wu et al paper

Parroting again, it clearly shows you don't understand. It follows closely with your copy pasta approach, when confronted with a simple relation like that of flux and sensitivity you haven't been able to draw the necessary lines. I'm sure Astometria is well beyond your understanding because RealCrapClimate.com doesn't have a pseudowiki answer you can copy paste here.

400% is very significant. 400% is not statistcally significant if there are no statistics about the difference.

Incorrect. 400% is "statistically significant" any way you slice it. I'm not sure why you continue to try and handwave this away. Perhaps it's all you have as an argument?

Yes - that you are repeating your delusions and pointing out to the world that you are so ignorant that you cannot even quote the statistics that the authors of the Wu et al paper work out for their result and the conventional result.
Wait I know why - therre are none !

The fact that the value is compared to the calculated one and the latent heat entropy flux and then related as "4 times the value" is "statistical". There are other "stats" in the paper but because you don't see a "Statistical Analysis" title you probably can't determine what is or isn't statistical. Perhaps you could get RealCrapClimate.com to assist you?

 

[Furcifer]

Since I've lead you but you haven't taken a drink I'll let you know your mistake is thinking that the Wu et al paper calculated energy into or out of the atmosphere.

More lies, I never said they did. It's not that difficult however to convert the entropy flux into energy flux because of the relationship between the two. There's a very obvious reason for using entropy flux instead of energy flux. I'm curious if you have any idea why this is?

Try to understand this, 3bodyproblem: Instruments have not been in existence for your "hundreds or thousands, even millions of years ago".
Thus the only way to get measurements of climate is to use proxies such as proxies like tree rings, ice cores, sediment layers, etc.
The reason we rely on proxies for those periods is that is all we have !

Ahh, now I see what you mean. Yes, that's all we have for sensitivity measures in ancient times.

To bad we are talking about the current one

Out of that rant I see that you think that the topic of thermodynamics might not be closed.
The evidence is that the topic of thermodynamics is open to the posters on this thread and forum.

And their minds are closed.

Wrong. You have not presented any explanations and so there is nothing for people to understand except hot air from you.

Do I have to explain everything? I suppose it's my mistake for assuming there were people that could understand for themselves.

You have continually asserted that entropy flux is an important part of sensitivity estimates in GCM's.
You have not given any explanation.

I shouldn't have to, not to people with University educations at least.

You have not given any citations.

I don't cite Netwon every time I discuss terminal velocity. Why do I need to cite something when the topic is as simple as flux and senstivity?

You have not given any example of a GSM that has entropy flux as a parameter.

There's no need to. There's at least 7 GCM's that use this as a parameter. What else do you need to know?

This is another red herring of your own making.

All we have is your vague memory that "only 7 of the 23 GCM's can actually input the solar flux as a parameter".

That's correct.

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011
Just one will do !

Red Herring.

(I'm pretty sure Tshaitanaku actually linked the paper in question. I'm not surprised you didn't read it, it's quite heavy and laden with thermodynamics and such)

 

[Trakar]

...
Incorrect. 400% is "statistically significant" any way you slice it...

I am completely uninterested in any parsings of statistics, rather let's just stick with basic, simple and practical significance. Where you seem to be leaping beyond anything indicated in the paper or any of the interaction between authors and reviewer discussion indicates, is in demonstrating and compellingly supporting a practical significance to this finding with regards to AGW, climate sensitivity assessments, or any other climate issue. (I'll leave the determining of whether or not this work is valid in process and finding to the professionals who devote their lives to the study and understandings of such issues on an intimate level)

The issue of practical significance is something you have asserted with regards to climate sensitivity, please explain your understanding of this relationship and the significance of the difference between previous general estimates and this revised estimate. I'd be happy for a simplified explanation in your own terms. A few supporting references that follow and support your narrative would also be appreciated, but not necessary as I can always request specific reference for any elements or information that is missing from, or contradicted by my own limited understandings.

for example, 0.004e.u. is 400% greater than 0.001e.u., but the actual difference between the two in terms of relevence to considerations of impact is ~0.01 W/mol. Whether or not this difference is significant to larger assessments based upon this difference depends upon the sensitivity of the system under investigation to such a difference. If I'm looking at a system that is in delicate balance, this may be enough to tip that system into disequilibrium, but if we are looking at a system where these values both fall well within the normal equilibrium balance range, then the variance may be of precision interest, but largely inconsequential in terms of its ultimate impact upon the overall system,...or understandings based upon that system.

 

[Furcifer]

I am completely uninterested in any parsings of statistics, rather let's just stick with basic, simple and practical significance.

I did. Reality Check brought up this red herring. If you had been reading the thread you would know this.

I'm finding this whole derail amusing. I may have off hand said this was "statistically significant". Now there is a 5 page derail about how it's "significant" but not "statistically significant". blah blah blah. As if there is some magical meaning behind the word "statistical".

This is a general discussion, not a thesis paper. It doesn't matter, so I don't see the point of continuing to discuss this.

Well I do, it's a distraction. Hence the "red herring". Anything to avoid talking about the implications of the value that is off "significantly". Statistically or otherwise.

 

[Reality Check]

If you're still interested, the answer would be 0.

Thanks for admitting that it is impossible to get the TSI from the entrupy flux calculated in the paper bacuse ithe result is a number .

Lies. I never said such a thing.

Try readig what you wrote:

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
Calculating backwards from the wrong value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI.

and you later explicitly mentioned differentiation:

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
This math stuff can be tricky, but unlike entropy this process is reversible. It's called integration and differentiation.

The fact is that calculating backwards from the any value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI (i.e. zero) because the first step would be to differentiate a number.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem, quote the statistics

...patheic incults snipped...
Incorrect. 400% is "statistically significant" any way you slice it. I'm not sure why you continue to try and handwave this away. Perhaps it's all you have as an argument?

Still wrong, 3bodyproblem.

• 400 % is a significant difference.
• 400% is a statistically significant difference only if there are statistics to support it. There are none so you are wrong to say that the 400% difference is statistically significant

The fact that the value is compared to the calculated one and the latent heat entropy flux and then related as "4 times the value" is "statistical".
...more inane rant snipped...

That is really ignorant, 3bodyproblem
In order for something to be statistically different from another thing you need statistics about the difference.
The fact that one value is 4 times bigger than another is a statistic (singular). It is not statistics (plural).

 

[Reality Check]

More lies, I never said they did.

You did (indirectly!).
You quoted a review of the Wu et al paper by Christopher Essex and then stated:

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.

That review does not mention any calculations of the the energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere.
The Wu et al paper does not do that calculation.

There's a very obvious reason for using entropy flux instead of energy flux. I'm curious if you have any idea why this is?

Yes I do.

Ahh, now I see what you mean. Yes, that's all we have for sensitivity measures in ancient times.

To bad we are talking about the current one

Too bad you could not understand the simple point that we need proxy measurements when instruments did not exist .
P.S. a nit pick - ancient suggests Romans, Greek or Egyptian eras. The instrumental temperature record for example starts in the mid-17th century.

Do I have to explain everything? I suppose it's my mistake for assuming there were people that could understand for themselves.
...other dum quesations...

You have to explain your unsupported assertions in order to support them. You should be able to at least cite your source.
Without then we have to assume that you are ignorant of the subject.

There's no need to. There's at least 7 GCM's that use this as a parameter. What else do you need to know?

Some evidence that you are not mistaken or lying:

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011
Just one will do !
​

(I'm pretty sure Tshaitanaku actually linked the paper in question. I'm not surprised you didn't read it, it's quite heavy and laden with thermodynamics and such)

Here we go with your memory again instead of actual citations.

It seems that you have the fantasy that Tshaitanaku linkes to a GCM with entropy flux as a paperameter. Tshaitanaku has posted 25 times in this thread. He has the following links:

1. http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss....supplement.pdf
2. The observed global warming record: What does it tell us? - http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8314.full
3. Climates of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries Simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full...T%3E2.0.CO%3B2
4. Estimation of global temperature trends: what’s important and what isn’t - http://www.springerlink.com/content/74731m62483l72m7/
5. http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers.../dp/1405196165
6. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page5.php

Which one is it or is your memory not to be trusted?

Did you read it?

I suspect that it is the 3rd link. I would not be not surprised if you didn't read it, even its abstract is quite heavy and laden with thermodynamics and such. Someone who does not even know what statistics are would lost.

 

[Furcifer]

The fact is that calculating backwards from the any value of entropy flux would result in the incorrect value of TSI (i.e. zero) because the first step would be to differentiate a number.

No it wouldn't. You obviously don't have any clue what the first step would be if you think it's differentiation.

 

[Furcifer]

In order for something to be statistically different from another thing you need statistics about the difference.
The fact that one value is 4 times bigger than another is a statistic (singular). It is not statistics (plural).

Nonsense, you're just making stuff up. I don't know why, do you? I'm trying to see the relevance but I'm pretty certain this is another pointless derail.

 

[Reality Check]

No it wouldn't. You obviously don't have any clue what the first step would be if you think it's differentiation.

They integrate to get the result. The inverse operation is differentiation.

But if I am wrong then you will be able to state what that first operation will be.
Surprise me 3bodyproblem and give an actual answer !

P.S. Just how do you propose to undo the approximations that Wu et al make in their calculatons?

 

[Furcifer]

You did (indirectly!).
You quoted a review of the Wu et al paper by Christopher Essex and then stated:

That review does not mention any calculations of the the energy in and the energy out of the earth's climate and atmosphere.
The Wu et al paper does not do that calculation.

I don't see how my musing about why the commenter may have left that particular commenter has anything to do with calculating TSI from entropy flux using the cited paper. You imagination is running wild.

It seems that you have the fantasy that Tshaitanaku linkes to a GCM with entropy flux as a paperameter. Tshaitanaku has posted 25 times in this thread. He has the following links:

Again incorrect. I said I believe he may have cited the paper that mentions the number of GCM's using entropy flux.

I suspect that it is the 3rd link. I would not be not surprised if you didn't read it, even its abstract is quite heavy and laden with thermodynamics and such. Someone who does not even know what statistics are would lost.

More parroting.

Could you please tell us what this red herring is about? Why do you think you need a citation to the number of GCM's using entropy flux as a parameter? Or do you just think because you can't figure out how to google it yourself it just doesn't exist?

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense, you're just making stuff up. I don't know why, do you? I'm trying to see the relevance but I'm pretty certain this is another pointless derail.

The point is simple: No statistics = not statistically significant.
So it is exteremely ignirant for someone to say that the 400% different is statistically significant.
The authors have the opinion that the 400% difference is significant. They know that they have no statisics and so are not dumb enough to call the difference statistically significant.