Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[CapelDodger]

Check the date on the article.

That news is so last year this time.

The next couple of years will be very interesting in terms of Piers Corbyn's "Global Warming is Global Cooling" theory. The Croation professor has four years to fade back into obscurity (except in his specific field), but Corbyn won't. It's not in his nature.

Many flags were nailed to the mast of "we're in a cooling-phase" at the end of the last decade, the Golden Decade of Denialism. It's up to us to keep them flapping in the wind.

We don't hear much about how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was going to prevent last year's El Nino these days. We do have Corbyn's post-normal astrology to gnaw on for a while yet, though. At least until Rupert Murdoch is dead, at which point all bets are off .

 

[CapelDodger]

This thread is a reasonable example of social entropy.

glenn

Take it to Religion and Philosophy, bud.

What we science dudes want to know is "what's the latest from Project Astrometria?" Is it all still up in the air?

Haig, I'm depending on you to keep me informed on its progress. I have a busy enough schedule keeping track of what's going on down here on the surface, and my Russian is primitive at best.

 

[Trakar]

still "debating" in circles with the folks that are to dumb to understand AGW.

what a waste of time. they are like twoofers.

nah, more like twooflessers. At least the twoofers admit they believe in a conspiracy theory.

 

[Furcifer]

So you don't know what you think, I am shocked.

Simply shocked you can't explain why you think it matters.

I had suspected you were engaging in handwaving and using words you did not really understand, but saying why you feeli it matters, that would have dispelled those suspicions.

So why are entropy and the second law germane, exactly, to this discussion?

How do they influence the factors that appear likely as candidates for global warming? How does this say that solar radiance is more likely than not?

Seriously, you can't say why or what you think?

Really can you stop spinning long enough to show more than empty rhetoric?

ETA: you do know there are four fundamental forces and many others. It is not like a religion where you call it the Force, are you a Jedi or something.?

That is like me asking what role the force of gravity plays in an electrolysis reaction and you saying "Well electrolysis involves Force."

More inane questions that clearly demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. The topic is irradiance and warming, anyone with high school level physics knows why entropy is important to this discussion.

As I mentioned before, if you don't understand the second law, which you clearly don't, post the equation and I'll walk you through it. There's nothing to be ashamed of, sometimes variables are confusing to people not familiar with math.

Entropy is very important to any discussion of heat transfer from a body such as the Sun to a body such as the Earth. This is the very basics of thermodynamics and the very basics of Global Warming. Or as the case may be, Global Cooling.

 

[Furcifer]

still "debating" in circles with the folks that are to dumb to understand AGW.

what a waste of time. they are like twoofers.

I don't mind debating with them. They've just come to rely on sites like Real Climate to process the information for them. Just because they believe in AGW doesn't mean they are too dumb to understand it. With some assistance I think they are capable of understanding things like Total Solar Irradiance and entropy or energy flux. It's not a waste of time because in the end they are learning and not just believing in something. That's an important part of skepticism.

 

[Dancing David]

More inane questions that clearly demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. The topic is irradiance and warming, anyone with high school level physics knows why entropy is important to this discussion.

As I mentioned before, if you don't understand the second law, which you clearly don't, post the equation and I'll walk you through it. There's nothing to be ashamed of, sometimes variables are confusing to people not familiar with math.

Entropy is very important to any discussion of heat transfer from a body such as the Sun to a body such as the Earth. This is the very basics of thermodynamics and the very basics of Global Warming. Or as the case may be, Global Cooling.

Yup, you can't explain what you think, but your rate of spin is rather astounding. Your ability to do more than rhetoic is rather low.

I asked you why you feel it is relevant, so?

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem - any response to this?

But this still leaves the flaws in your assertion:

1. You have given no evidence for your assertion.
2. Climate sensitivity has been estimated. Those estimates include any influence the Sun has on climate sensitivity. The estimates of climate sensitivity have to include any hypothetical effect of incident solar radiation flux. That includes the entropy flux.

Your assertion in point 1 was:

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

Relevant papers to the science behind the second point are cited in How sensitive is our climate?
The logic is really simple here - estimate the climate senstivity, e.g. as a response to changes in CO2 in the past. That climate sensitivity estimate includes the solar irradiance (you should know why 3bodyproblem). Thus it includes the entropy also.

 

[Furcifer]

But this still leaves the flaws in your assertion:

1. You have given no evidence for your assertion.
2. Climate sensitivity has been estimated. Those estimates include any influence the Sun has on climate sensitivity. The estimates of climate sensitivity have to include any hypothetical effect of incident solar radiation flux. That includes the entropy flux.

1) I've evidenced every one of my assertions.
2) Using a blackbody which has been shown to underestimate flux by 400%.

The logic is really simple here - estimate the climate senstivity, e.g. as a response to changes in CO2 in the past. That climate sensitivity estimate includes the solar irradiance (you should know why 3bodyproblem). Thus it includes the entropy also.

See 2) above.

 

[Furcifer]

Yup, you can't explain what you think, but your rate of spin is rather astounding. Your ability to do more than rhetoic is rather low.

I asked you why you feel it is relevant, so?

Nonsense. I've clearly explained not only what I think, but the fundamental principle of science that makes it relevant to the discussion.

It's pretty obvious you lied when you claimed to know what the 2nd law of TD is. I've told you several times to post it in equation form so I can help you understand what the variables mean. Entropy is a key state variable in that equation. Any discussion of heat transfer is incomplete without accounting for entropy. As I said it is beyond "relevant", it's fundamental in the same way gravity is to Force.

 

[Mikemcc]

3bodyproblem - any response to this?



Your assertion in point 1 was:


Relevant papers to the science behind the second point are cited in How sensitive is our climate?
The logic is really simple here - estimate the climate senstivity, e.g. as a response to changes in CO2 in the past. That climate sensitivity estimate includes the solar irradiance (you should know why 3bodyproblem). Thus it includes the entropy also.

But 3bodyproblem doesn't like SkS, he considers it 'pseudoscience', he prefers real science sites like WUWT...

I'm betting the journal he prefers for his science papers is E&E!

 

[Reality Check]

1) I've evidenced every one of my assertions.
2) Using a blackbody which has been shown to underestimate flux by 400%.

1) No you have not: What is your evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?
2) Nothing to do with fact that the estimates of climate sensitivity include the values of flux that actually exist.
Relevant papers to the science behind the second point are cited in How sensitive is our climate?
And in case you do not understand it yet: Most of the estimates are actual measurements of climate sensitivity.

See 2) above.

See 2) above.

 

[Reality Check]

As I said it is beyond "relevant", it's fundamental in the same way gravity is to Force.

Your comparison is wrong. Gravity is a force. Force is force. Neither is a state variable of the system like entropy.
A better comparison would be "in the same way as center of mass is to gravity".

 

[Dancing David]

Nonsense. I've clearly explained not only what I think, but the fundamental principle of science that makes it relevant to the discussion.

It's pretty obvious you lied when you claimed to know what the 2nd law of TD is. I've told you several times to post it in equation form so I can help you understand what the variables mean. Entropy is a key state variable in that equation. Any discussion of heat transfer is incomplete without accounting for entropy. As I said it is beyond "relevant", it's fundamental in the same way gravity is to Force.

Please point me to the sentences in the post that explain its relevance. As in why it matters to this discussion.

Energy comes in energy goes out, why is this partcicular point relevant? So there is a point of equilibria at which energy tansfer does not occur, yes?

And how does this make whatever point it is that you want to make?

How does it change the most likely candidate for global warming as the retention of heat by green house gasses?

I asked that before too, your vague point really adds nothing, it says that solar radiance is importantbut you haven't shown any data as to why it is more important that the GHGs.

The temperature of the earth appears to be rising, your point explains it how?

 

[Furcifer]

But 3bodyproblem doesn't like SkS, he considers it 'pseudoscience', he prefers real science sites like WUWT...

I'm betting the journal he prefers for his science papers is E&E!

Incorrect, again.

Sks and RC and WUWT are news sites. I know the way some people link to them you might get confused, but they don't publish scientific papers. If you see something on those sites find the source and read it. You'll be better off for doing so.

 

[Furcifer]

1) No you have not: What is your evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?

You don't seem to be able to grasp the very basics. I told you more than once the "evidence" is physics.

Let's dumb it down a bit. Let's say you have a bucket. And let's say it's full of hot water you're trying to get even warmer. That bucket loses heat to it's surroundings, that's physics. Now if the heat you put into the bucket is leaking out even faster than you thought, it's going to take even more energy than you thought to raise the temperature of the water in the bucket by 1 degree. That's physics, and that's the evidence.

Is this sinking in? I really can't make it any easier.

 

[Pixel42]

Sks and RC and WUWT are news sites. I know the way some people link to them you might get confused, but they don't publish scientific papers. If you see something on those sites find the source and read it. You'll be better off for doing so.

Anyone who has access to, and is capable of understanding, the papers themselves should obviously do so. The rest of us need help understanding the meaning and relative importance of the various papers, and the overall picture they give us of our changing climate and the causes of those changes. Sites which provide summaries of the individual papers and of that overall picture can therefore be very helpful, but you need to be careful to avoid the ones most likely to cherry pick and apply spin or bias. Sites which are run by, or at least heavily contributed to by, the actual scientists who wrote the papers are obviously more reliable sources of summaries of their work than sites which are run by non-scientists and/or have an obvious political agenda.

 

[Reality Check]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the very basics. I told you more than once the "evidence" is physics..

That is not evidence. That is you asserting something without evidence.
The evidence is the scientific literature, e.g. papers or textbooks.
So to make it easier for you (yet again): What scientific literature gives the evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?

P.S. I am prepared to accept that your assertion is right because of my own knowledge of physics suggests this.
But it is you who is making the assertion. It is up to you to provide the evidence.

Once you have provided the evidence than the next step is to show that the measurements of climate sensitivity are wrong. These estimates of climate sensitivity include the values of entropy flux that actually exist because they use the actual values of changes in radiative forcing and temperature to calculate climate sensitivity.
Relevant papers to the science behind the second point are cited in How sensitive is our climate?

Also see the latest post on the Skeptical Science blog: Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame which starts with the radiative forcing

As we showed in the Advanced 'CO2 effect is weak' rebuttal, a surface temperature change is calculated by multiplying the radiative forcing by the climate sensitivity parameter. And the radiative forcing from CO2, which is determined from empirical spectroscopic measurements of downward longwave radiation and line-by-line radiative transfer models, is a well-measured quantity known to a high degree of accuracy (Figure 1).

and goes onto the various techniques used to measure climate sensitivity.

ETA
The conclusion is relevant to your implication that climate sensitivity has not been measured correctly.

To sum up, the "skeptics" need climate sensitivity to be less than 1.2°C for a doubling of CO2 to make a decent case that CO2 isn't driving global warming and/or that we can safely continue with business-as-usual. However, almost every climate sensitivity study using either observational data or climate models puts the probability that climate sensitivity is below 1.2°C at 5% or less.
The bottom line is that the 1.77 W/m2 CO2 forcing has to go somewhere. The energy can't just disappear, so the only realistic way it could have a small effect on the global temperature is if climate sensitivity to that forcing is low.

 

[Furcifer]

That is not evidence. That is you asserting something without evidence.
The evidence is the scientific literature, e.g. papers or textbooks.
So to make it easier for you (yet again): What scientific literature gives the evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?

What evidence do you have that Force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration?

Once you have provided the evidence than the next step is to show that the measurements of climate sensitivity are wrong.

Nonsense, I've provided evidence that the flux has been underestimated. It follows from the physics that sensitivity is off because of this. It has to be.

These estimates of climate sensitivity include the values of entropy flux that actually exist because they use the actual values of changes in radiative forcing and temperature to calculate climate sensitivity.

For the last time, YES THEY DO AND THEY ARE INCORRECTLY BASED ON A BLACKBODY ASSUMPTION, THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT.

The conclusion is relevant to your implication that climate sensitivity has not been measured correctly.

It can't be measured, so if someone claims it has you know they are lying.

 

[Reality Check]

What evidence do you have that Force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration?

What scientific literature gives the evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?

Nonsense, I've provided evidence that the flux has been underestimated. It follows from the physics that sensitivity is off because of this. It has to be.

Nnonsense. You have not shown that it follws from the phjysics that the sensitivity is off because of the results from that 1 paper.

For the last time, YES THEY DO AND THEY ARE INCORRECTLY BASED ON A BLACKBODY ASSUMPTION, THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT.

For the last time, NO THEY DO NOT AND THE ESTIMATES OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY ARE NOT BASED ON A BLACKBODY ASSUMPTION.
It is possible that the estimates from the climate models use the entropy flux but that is for you to show.

Read what I wrote

Originally Posted by Reality Check
These estimates of climate sensitivity include the values of entropy flux that actually exist because they use the actual values of changes in radiative forcing and temperature to calculate climate sensitivity.

(emphasis added)
Or read the scientific papers linked to in

• How sensitive is our climate? or
• Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame

It can't be measured, so if someone claims it has you know they are lying.

They can be estimated, 3bodyproblem.
So if someone claims that climate sensitivity has been estimated then you know that they are telling the truth. .

If someone claims that estimating the climate sensitivity from measurements of the changes in radiative forcing and temperature does not include the effect of entropy then you know that they are lying or ignorant of the science. The entropy flux did not magically vanish during the measurements so the measurements must include its effects.

 

[Furcifer]

What scientific literature gives the evidence that "The increase in flux lowers sensitivity."?

The literature on physics.

Nnonsense. You have not shown that it follws from the phjysics that the sensitivity is off because of the results from that 1 paper.

It does if you understand physics.

For the last time, NO THEY DO NOT AND THE ESTIMATES OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY ARE NOT BASED ON A BLACKBODY ASSUMPTION.

Yes they are. I'm afraid you don't understand at all.

It is possible that the estimates from the climate models use the entropy flux but that is for you to show.

I cited the source, I suggest you take it up with them.

They can be estimated, 3bodyproblem.

This is just sad.

You don't know what the difference between a measurement and an estimate is do you?

So if someone claims that climate sensitivity has been estimated then you know that they are telling the truth. .

You said it was measured. Liar.

If someone claims that estimating the climate sensitivity from measurements of the changes in radiative forcing and temperature does not include the effect of entropy then you know that they are lying or ignorant of the science. The entropy flux did not magically vanish during the measurements so the measurements must include its effects.

Feel free to try and prove me wrong. You don't know anything about the science and you can't tell the difference between an estimate and a measurement. It's obvious if you can't find a link on your propaganda site you don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.

This is what alarmists do because they don't understand anything about the climate. They lie, make stuff up and believe websites that cater to their own ignorance. While Astrometria may not be entirely correct or valid, AGW nuts dismiss it without even understanding it first.