Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Haig]

WeatherAction Latest News and Events
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact2&fsize=0


20th February 2011 WeatherAction News No 4
Celestial fireworks challenge Warmist Meteorology worldwide
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No4.pdf

The dramatic Auroras in polar regions North & South – and visible at lower latitudes – on Feb 18/19th were driven by tremendous solar explosions starting with the magnificent X2-flare (largest for 4 yrs) of 15 Feb.

At the same solar drivers gave WeatherAction’s long range predicted extreme weather events in Australia, USA and UK and confirmation of WeatherAction’s Top Red Warning that standard meteorology models would underestimate events in various ways Feb18-19th

 

[Pixel42]

At the same solar drivers gave WeatherAction’s long range predicted extreme weather events in Australia, USA and UK and confirmation of WeatherAction’s Top Red Warning that standard meteorology models would underestimate events in various ways Feb18-19th

Evidence?

In the UK the weather was exactly as predicted by the Met Office forecast I quoted above i.e. snow showers on the northern hills but nothing significant.

So Corbyn's score is now:

Predictions: 4
Predictions correct: 1
Success rate: 25%

 

[CapelDodger]

...WeatherAction’s Top Red Warning that standard meteorology models would underestimate events in various ways Feb18-19th

"Underestimate events in various ways".

Look at that again.

Underestimate events in various ways ...

Deserves a warning of some sort, possibly involving a head-vice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Evidence?

No need where there's belief.

So Corbyn's score is now:

Predictions: 4
Predictions correct: 1
Success rate: 25%

I prefer numbers to belief.

(I'm still trying to assimilate "events ... underestimated in various ways". Thanks for the numbers, it's at times like this I need some firm ground to centre on .)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

In the end, this thread is just another installment of the well known series of

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28149d1e907d3f18.jpg[/qimg]

I really love that last graph.

I like your avatar also.

 

[Megalodon]

I really love that last graph.

I like your avatar also.

Thanks and thanks Can only claim authorship of the graph, though...

 

[Reality Check]

Correct.

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

Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.
​

The body in question is the Sun (the clue is the word solar ).

However "increase in flux lowers sensitivity" needs clarification: What is your source for that assertion?

What significance does this have for the estimates of climate sensitivity?
For example: 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007).

We know that the TSI is no longer a primary driver of climate because TSI has been roughly constant but global temperatures have risen over the last 30 years (Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)). Changing the value of the climate sensitivity does not change this.

 

[Furcifer]

The body in question is the Sun (the clue is the word solar ).

I've been saving this one..

You don't know what the flux is going on do you? We're talking about the flux, so the Earth's sensitivity is rather important.

However "increase in flux lowers sensitivity" needs clarification: What is your source for that assertion?

Physics

What significance does this have for the estimates of climate sensitivity?
For example: 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007).

It takes less energy to warm the earth by 1 degree.

We know that the TSI is no longer a primary driver of climate because TSI has been roughly constant but global temperatures have risen over the last 30 years (Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)). Changing the value of the climate sensitivity does not change this.

Are you paying attention at all? We're talking about the spectral variability in TSI. The change to sensitivity seriously alters the effect of CO2. More and more evidence suggests the low end estimate of 1.4 degrees is much more realistic. The change in albedo due to deforestation is a wild card. As are clouds.

Global cooling is still very much on the table. You're going to be huddling around cooking marshmallows in Summer telling your grand kids about the Global Warming scare in '10. It's just a good thing they're bringing back the Woolly Mammoth!

 

[Reality Check]

I've been saving this one..

You don't know what the flux is going on do you? We're talking about the flux, so the Earth's sensitivity is rather important.
[/qiote]
You don't know what the flux is going on do you? We're talking about the solar entropy flux and the Earth's sensitivity is rather important.

The 4 times difference in solar entropy flux is found in:
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al.

Of course the Earth also has an entropy flux. I do not know whether calculations of it use a blackbody or grey body model.

Physics

Is that code for "you do not know" ?

It takes less energy to warm the earth by 1 degree.

Rather obvious, basic and nothing to do with my questions:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
However "increase in flux lowers sensitivity" needs clarification: What is your source for that assertion?

What significance does this have for the estimates of climate sensitivity?
For example: 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007).

Estimates for climate sensitivity exist. As far as I know they include your effect on climate sensitivity by solar entropy flux. If I am wrong then I am sure that you can point out where the authors of the papers exclude solar entropy flux.

Are you paying attention at all? We're talking about the spectral variability in TSI.

Are you paying attention at all? We are talking about solar entropy flux. This is calculated from the solar radiation flux. The spectral variability of the solar radiation flux is important in calculating the solar entropy flux.

I noted that the reason that the TSI is no longer a primary driver (not a factor affecting climate sensitivity like you say solar entropy flux is) is that

1. We have measured that the global temperatures have increased. This includes the last 30 years.
2. We have measured that over the last 30 years the TSI has been roughly constant.
3. Thus the TSI is no longer a primary driver of the climate.
4. Thus something else is the primary driver of the climate. There is strong evidence that this is CO2. There is good evidence that the increase in CO2 is man-made.

I cited Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version in case anyone is interested in reading up about the science behind why TSI is no longer the primary driver.

That is quite simple and I think that you would agree with it.

Global cooling is still very much on the table. You're going to be huddling around cooking marshmallows in Summer telling your grand kids about the Global Warming scare in '10. It's just a good thing they're bringing back the Woolly Mammoth!

Only in science fiction.

There is no "Global Warming scare".

There is the observation that the global temperatures of the Earth have been increasing. There is the strong evidence that the primary driver behind this is CO2. There is the climate science that predicts that the warming will not stop.

 

[Furcifer]

Talk about "denial"...

Is that code for "you do not know" ?

lol, the physics equation is the in the paper you cited. It's remarkable how little you understand of what you read.

I've tried to explain this to you numerous times and you still don't get it. I don't believe you're at the necessary level of technical knowledge to fully grasp this particular subject. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

 

[Reality Check]

talk about unsupported assertions...

lol, the physics equation is the in the paper you cited. It's remarkable how little you understand of what you read.

lol: There is no equation in
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al. for climate sensitivity.
They do talk about the sensitivity of the solar entropy flux to variability in TOA SSI in section 5.

It's remarkable how little you understand of what you read.

I've tried to explain this to you numerous times and you still don't get it. I don't believe you're at the necessary level of technical knowledge to fully grasp this particular subject. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

You are lying.
You have not explained to me once how the solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity.

You show no evidence that you're at the necessary level of technical knowledge to basically explain this particular subject. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

 

[CapelDodger]

You show no evidence that you're at the necessary level of technical knowledge to basically explain this particular subject. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

I'm pretty fuzzy on how energy flux relates to entropy flux. I also can't see why entropy flux is brought up at all, unless it's to open up a rich new seam of obfuscation (which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest). The energy budget determines how (if at all) the climate changes.

As you repeatedly point out, the input side of the energy budget hasn't changed appreciably in the last 50 years and the climate has warmed. Ergo, the outgoings side of the budget has fallen. CO₂ enhancement was predicted to cause this, and voila! Why are we still talking about this ?

The entropy budget comes out just the same. In a stable climate, entropy in equals entropy out. In a warming climate, entropy in is greater than entropy out (we can use heat as a proxy for entropy). Entropy in hasn't changed, ergo entropy out must have. CO₂ is an entropy-trapping gas. An open-and-shut case again.

 

[Zeph]

Yes it's IS funny looking back.

They keep moving the goalposts and the name of their movement.

Global Warming ..... became ....Climate Change .... became ..... Climate Disruption.....

What next?

The warmist conspiracy is so strong, that almost everybody has forgotten that back in 1988 the International Panel on Global Warming (IPGW) was formed and continued to operate under that name for 22 years until approximately last year, when the warmist conspiracy decided to rename the issue to "climate change". They went through all the printed and electronic copies around the world and revised "IPGW" to now say "IPCC" for "Climate Change", along with doing brain wipes of most of the population. Amazingly most people are deluded into thinking that "Climate Change" has been a leading description for decades! In fact, only a small band of heroic skeptics avoided the brain wipe, and are proud to let the rest of us know that "Climate Change" is a new label applied only recently for political reasons.

 

[Reality Check]

The warmist conspiracy is so strong, that almost everybody has forgotten that back in 1988 the International Panel on Global Warming (IPGW) was formed and continued to operate under that name for 22 years until approximately last year, when the warmist conspiracy decided to rename the issue to "climate change". They went through all the printed and electronic copies around the world and revised "IPGW" to now say "IPCC" for "Climate Change", along with doing brain wipes of most of the population. Amazingly most people are deluded into thinking that "Climate Change" has been a leading description for decades! In fact, only a small band of heroic skeptics avoided the brain wipe, and are proud to let the rest of us know that "Climate Change" is a new label applied only recently for political reasons.

What a lot of conspiracy theory woo based on semantics !

The post really belongs in the CT section of the forum but...
As far as I know you are wrong. The IPCC has always been the IPCC as mentioned in the UN resolution that established it:
A/RES/43/53

5. Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally
co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential
environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic
response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated by the Panel;

A bit of Googling shows no mention of the UN and a "IPGW". The "with doing brain wipes of most of the population" suggests this fantasy is farily delusional.

Let us hope that Zeph just forgot a few in the post.

 

[Dancing David]

RC, Zeph is spoofing Haig.

 

[Reality Check]

RC, Zeph is spoofing Haig.

I suspected that.

 

[Furcifer]

lol: There is no equation in
It's remarkable how little you understand of what you read.

You can't keep track of your copypasta, NMFF.

You are lying.
You have not explained to me once how the solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity.

Read the links you keep spamming.

Alarmists don't know anything about climate sensitivity and flux either. They think they know about CO2, but they don't. They ignore solar forcing and albedo, and instead focus on CO2. If only the climate were as simple as alarmists.

It's as simple as this, climate scientists can't predict the climate any better than meteorologists can the weather.

And I quote:

Consequently we should conclude that climatic change cannot be predicted.
It is correct that the varied and complex processes in the atmosphere cannot be predicted beyond the theoretical limit of a month via step by step calculations in circulation models, neither today, nor in the future. -Schönwiese, C. D

 

[Furcifer]

I'm pretty fuzzy on how energy flux relates to entropy flux. I also can't see why entropy flux is brought up at all, unless it's to open up a rich new seam of obfuscation

Translation- "I don't know what's going on"

. Entropy in hasn't changed, ergo entropy out must have. CO₂ is an entropy-trapping gas. An open-and-shut case again.

Translation- "But I'm smarter than every one, this stuff is sooo easy. I shoulda been a climate scientist full time, instead of in my spare time on the internet"

While TSI remains fairly steady it varies considerably throughout the spectrum it emits. Difference parts of the spectrum affect the Earth and hence the climate in different ways. That means the black body monochromatic approach to TSI doesn't come close to properly estimating the entropy flux at TOA. Recent studies suggest plasma stream just below the surface of the sun have considerable affect on the entropy flux and hence the climate.

Or you can believe "It's an open and shut case". Scientists don't.

 

[Reality Check]

You can't keep track of your copypasta, NMFF.

You cannot keep track of the one paper that we are talking about w.r.t. solar entropy flux:
Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth’s climate (PDF) published in 2011 by Wu et. al. has no equations for solar entropy flux & climate sensitivity.
They do talk about the sensitivity of the solar entropy flux to variability in TOA SSI in section 5.

Even Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version) has no equations for solar entropy flux & climate sensitivity.

Read the links you keep spamming.

Which of the links that I have posted explains how the solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity?

Or better yet point out the post where you explain it:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You are lying.
You have not explained to me once how the solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity.

...snipped "alarmist" rant...
It's as simple as this, climate scientists can't predict the climate any better than meteorologists can the weather.

It is as simple as this: climate scientists can predict the climate about as good as meteorologists can the weather or even better.

And I cite: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - the actual climate science from actual climate scientists.

Your error in quoting Schönwiese, C. D is obvious. The quote is from 1994. The climate models of 1994 made predictions. Those predictions have been verified by 17 years of observations.

 

[Furcifer]

More alarmist lies...

You cannot keep track of the one paper that we are talking about w.r.t. solar entropy flux:

Yes, that's the paper I posted, not the garbage you posted. I said what you posted, not what I posted. You don't remember who posted what do you?

Which of the links that I have posted explains how the solar entropy flux influences climate sensitivity?

Like I said, if you can't figure out the easy stuff there's little hope of discussing the actual science. Which you haven't even attempted.

It's well beyond your scope I understand.

Your error in quoting Schönwiese, C. D is obvious. The quote is from 1994. The climate models of 1994 made predictions. Those predictions have been verified by 17 years of observations.

You're lying now. Nothing has been verified by observation.

You haven't even read the Schönwiese paper, how do you know there's an error? Now your qualified to peer review papers and a climate scientist familiar with model predictions over the last 17 years? Someone needs a reality check alright.