Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

I have to say I am very bored with the discussion between RC and 3bp. 3bp is never going to admit he was wrong about this, RC. I've stopped bothering to read his posts, and I suggest you do the same.

Wrong about what? The number of climate models that use entropy flux as a parameter? I'm not wrong, if I was I'm sure all these educated people would have done so by now. Right? (I may have taken it slightly out of context, I believe the 7 of 23 figure comes from AR4, certainly there are more than 23 climate models in the world today)

So far I haven't seen anyone even mention the type of climate model that uses entropy as a parameter. In fact they've begun to speculate, incorrectly mind you, that none of them would use entropy as a parameter. Fat chance of that, I believe the first model to use entropy was in 1969, although admittedly I could be mistaken on that.

 

[Reality Check]

So far I haven't seen anyone even mention the type of climate model that uses entropy as a parameter.

You are right: a guy called 3bodyproblem asserted that 7 out of 23 GSM's have entropy flux as a parameter. And that guy has not even mentioned the type of climate model that uses entropy as a parameter.

In fact they've begun to speculate, incorrectly mind you, that none of them would use entropy as a parameter. Fat chance of that, I believe the first model to use entropy was in 1969, although admittedly I could be mistaken on that.

I was the one that speculated that because you are incapable of citing even one that has entropy flux as a parameter. See

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

And because the references that I have found mention entropy production from the climate models not entropy flux as a parameter.

And now we have another vague memory from you: Any idea what that 1969 model was called, 3bodyproblem?

 

[Reality Check]

Another 3bodyproblem mistake (and mine)

This reminds me - 3bodyproblem stated this on 19th February 2011

The Earth isn't a black body, it's a grey body. The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.

At the time I thought that this was a reasonable assertion. I was wrong.
It is the entropy of the climate that determines the climate sensitivity. The larger the climate entropy, the smaller the sensitivity.

The entropy of the climate is the accumulation of the net entropy flux over billions of years. So the entropy flux over a couple of centuries will change the climate entropy by parts per 100's of millions.

 

[Furcifer]

This reminds me - 3bodyproblem stated this on 19th February 2011
At the time I thought that this was a reasonable assertion. I was wrong.
It is the entropy of the climate that determines the climate sensitivity. The larger the climate entropy, the smaller the sensitivity.

And I'll remind you again- "units". It depends on how you express sensitivity.

The entropy of the climate is the accumulation of the net entropy flux over billions of years. So the entropy flux over a couple of centuries will change the climate entropy by parts per 100's of millions.

Or seconds, minutes, hours, days, months..etc. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here?

 

[Furcifer]

You are right: a guy called 3bodyproblem asserted that 7 out of 23 GSM's have entropy flux as a parameter. And that guy has not even mentioned the type of climate model that uses entropy as a parameter.

Hehe, still don't get it do you? I don't see how anyone who claims to have taken university level physics can't figure this out. It should be blatantly obvious.

I was the one that speculated that because you are incapable of citing even one that has entropy flux as a parameter.

Not really, I'm just refusing to jump through your hoops to catch this red herring. I have yet to see the ends to all of this and I'm relishing in the fact you don't have any clue and can't google it or find it on RealCrap Climate.com.

And because the references that I have found mention entropy production from the climate models not entropy flux as a parameter.

You still don't know what flux is then obviously.

And now we have another vague memory from you: Any idea what that 1969 model was called, 3bodyproblem?

Not off hand no. I'm terrible at reading stuff and not jumping to the end to read all of the references. Perhaps it was in the Stephens and O'brien paper cited in the Wu et al. paper? Maybe I read it in Modelling the impact of solar variability on climate, I'm not really sure.

I'm here to discuss science and encourage people to read, not spoon feed them. If you're interested you should look it up.

 

[Reality Check]

And I'll remind you again- "units". It depends on how you express sensitivity.

You obviously could not understand what I posted so here is the basic version:

• There is this thing called entropy.
• It is a measure of how much the parameters of a system can change before the system enters a state that is distinguishable from the original state.
• The larger the entropy the more the parameters can change.
• This corresponds to the system having a low sensitivity to the changes in the parameters. That is you have to change the parameters a lot (large driving forces) to get a measurable change in the system.

Now make the system the Earth's climate.

• Increasing the entropy of the climate means that the the sensitivity of the climate gets lower.

What causes the entropy of the climate?

• The entropy of the climate is the accumulation of the net entropy flux over billions of years. So the entropy flux over a couple of centuries will change the climate entropy by parts per 100's of millions.

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
The Earth isn't a black body, it's a grey body. The increase in flux lowers sensitivity.

is not right: An increase in entropy lowers sensitivity.
The theoretical increase in entropy flux

1. Makes the theoretical entropy of the climate much bigger over the billions of years of accumulation.
2. On the time scales of the current global warming (centuries) has tiny effect on the climate entropy (parts per 100's of millions).
   That means a tiny effect on climate sensitivity.

P.S. This means that the answer to

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

is even more probably that you were mistaken in your assertion.

 

[Reality Check]

Hehe, still don't get it do you? ...

Still getting that you are displaying your incompetence to do the basic research to back up your assertion, 3bodyproblem.

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011 (15 days and counting)
​

Either do your research or admit that you have no idea wheether you are correct.
It being in your head or maybe the AR4 or a belief that the first model to use entropy was in 1969 is not a citation. That is at best a vague memory and at worst a delusion.

FYI: I have done some research and so far you are wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

You obviously could not understand what I posted so here is the basic version:

• There is this thing called entropy.

• 
  
  Yes there is.
  

  [*]It is a measure of how much the parameters of a system can change before the system enters a state that is distinguishable from the original state.

  
  This is incorrect. Your wording suggests there is a limit. There is no equilibrium in the Earth climate system and it really isn't a closed system.
  
  

  [*]Increasing the entropy of the climate means that the the sensitivity of the climate gets lower.

  
  You seem unable to comprehend the concepts of "units" and how important they are to the discussion. Luckily you seem to be consistent which is also very important.
  
  

  What causes the entropy of the climate?

  Many things although water vapour plays the biggest role.
  
  

  The entropy of the climate is the accumulation of the net entropy flux over billions of years. So the entropy flux over a couple of centuries will change the climate entropy by parts per 100's of millions.

  
  No, not in terms of how it is defined in the climate models. You seem to be having trouble with open and closed systems.
  
  

  P.S. This means that the answer to
  

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

  is even more probably that you were mistaken in your assertion.

  
  PS- you've been assigned a reading list that answers all of these questions and more.

 

[Furcifer]

Still getting that you are displaying your incompetence to do the basic research to back up your assertion, 3bodyproblem.

3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011 (15 days and counting)
​

Either do your research or admit that you have no idea wheether you are correct.
It being in your head or maybe the AR4 or a belief that the first model to use entropy was in 1969 is not a citation. That is at best a vague memory and at worst a delusion.

FYI: I have done some research and so far you are wrong.

No, I'm going to keep giving you more rope.

I don't want you pulling another "Oh, that model, yah I knew that model had entropy flux as a parameter" or "Oh that paper, yah I read that paper, I just didn't see it".

So far you haven't really understood much of what you've read, I don't see how you expect me to explain it all to you anyways. You seem to have a blockage when it comes to physics and thermodynamics. That and using google

 

[Reality Check]

This is incorrect. Your wording suggests there is a limit. There is no equilibrium in the Earth climate system and it really isn't a closed system.

• There is this thing called entropy.
• It is a measure of how much the parameters of a system can change before the system enters a state that is distinguishable from the original state.
  This is not a limit. The system is free to go to anothyer state.
• The larger the entropy the more the parameters can change.
• This corresponds to the system having a low sensitivity to the changes in the parameters. That is you have to change the parameters a lot (large driving forces) to get a measurable change in the system.

You seem unable to comprehend the concepts of "units" and how important they are to the discussion.
[/qaquoite]
What is this idiocy of units about?
I do hope that you are not dumb enough to think that entropy flux and climate sensitivity have to have the same units .

Many things although water vapour plays the biggest role.

Many things contribute the production of entroy from radiation in teh atmosphere.

No, not in terms of how it is defined in the climate models. You seem to be having trouble with open and closed systems.

You are totally having trouble:
Earth is the open system. Sun + Earth can be considered as a closed system for most purposes.

And of course you have shown a deep ignoirance of climate models:
3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011 (15 days and counting)

 

[Reality Check]

Quote where Wu et al explicitly refer to the use of entropy flux in models

No, I'm going to keep giving you more rope.

No more rope is needed. Your incompetence is well established and you are definitely swinging from the yardarm of the Wu et all paper !

• 3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant! no statistics = not statistically significant!
• 3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper

and

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
The simple fact that the authors of Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth's climate refer to the models and the use of entropy flux is good enough for me.

Quote where Wu et al explicitly refer to the use of entropy flux in models.

 

[Pixel42]

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.

Still one month of spring to go but we can already give a verdict on Corbyn's spring predictions:

In the UK last month was in fact the warmest April since records (including the 353-year CET record) began.

So that's 2 more failed predictions. That brings the results so far to:

Predictions: 8

Hits: 2

Success rate: 25%

I'll post one more time in either August or September to assess the last two predictions of a colder than average summer in the USA and Europe.

I came across this quote from Corbyn recently:

"I can tell you it's not going to be a global warmer's barbecue summer. People who say that are talking their usual nonsense." What will June and July be like? "It's fortunate that Wimbledon now has a roof over centre court."

Forecasting rain during Wimbledon fortnight, now there's a brave prediction.

 

[Pixel42]

I'll post one more time in either August or September to assess the last two predictions of a colder than average summer in the USA and Europe.

I hate leaving something unfinished, so as promised here's how Corbyn's final two predictions played out.

[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/06/may-weather]First one final comment on Corbyn's prediction for the UK spring, which could hardly have been more wrong[/URL]

spring as a whole – March, April and May – was the warmest in a record that dates back to 1659, with a CET of 10.4C. That is 0.2 degrees above the previous record, set in 1893.

Now let's see how his predictions for the summer fared. Here are the charts for June, July and August from the usual link:

That makes Corbyn's final score:

Predictions: 10

Hits: 2

Success rate: 20%

I guess we can let this thread die now. Haig seems to have abandoned it, and I doubt anyone else has any remaining interest in either Corbyn's predictions or Project Astrometria. I know I don't.

 

[CapelDodger]

That makes Corbyn's final score:

Predictions: 10

Hits: 2

Success rate: 20%

I guess we can let this thread die now. Haig seems to have abandoned it, and I doubt anyone else has any remaining interest in either Corbyn's predictions or Project Astrometria. I know I don't.

I'd completely forgotten about it; thanks for the update .

Indeed, that does about say it all for poor Piers.