Do GCM’s Model a Flat Earth?

Posted on 2014/05/08 by Joseph E Postma

That GCM models use a spherical rotating Earth is a red-herring – that’s not the point. Such models do not, and can not, contain a radiative greenhouse effect as promulgated, in any case.

The point is that the origin of the meme of the radiative greenhouse effect is found with these 1-D models such as the K-T diagram, and these “models” have nothing to do with reality because they contradict basic physical reality. And hence this radiative greenhouse effect meme is not based in reality, i.e. it is wrong.

There is no other origin of the meme of the radiative greenhouse effect than these reality-violating 1-D models, and the defence of these 1-D models by people who are unable to admit what is wrong with them, precisely because they do not comprehend how they violate physical reality, indicates that we’re dealing with a very obvious form of pseudoscience, or just very, very bad science.

https://climateofsophistry.com/…/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/

9 Responses to Do GCM’s Model a Flat Earth?

dev says:

2014/05/08 at 11:09 AM

Excellent stuff.
Absolutely right – they cannot feed false data into a spherical model and hope to get away with it.
I do believe they should be drug tested these warmists! lol
Thomas Homer says:

2014/05/08 at 11:59 AM

I find two distinctive properties for theories we use to explain what we perceive in the physical world (you may have better terminology):
1 – how it works
2 – how it behaves

For the theory of gravity, we (humans) still aren’t certain how it works, but we described how it behaves with such precision that we knew the mass and location of the planet Uranus before it was ever seen.

For the theory of Greenhouse Gases, they (alarmists) are intent on describing how it works, but have no way to measure or define how it behaves.
Thomas Homer says:

2014/05/08 at 2:46 PM

I just (re)read your article that you referenced above where you discuss “simulacrum”. And that coincides nicely with a crude analogy I’ve been contemplating. If heat flow (from warm to less warm) were thought of as water flowing downhill, then consider there’s a 6 inch drainpipe with water flowing into a stream. If we stuff a brick into the drainpipe there are obvious changes to the system, we’ve changed the flow rate and this can indeed impact the characteristics of the source (real greenhouse). If we take the same brick and instead toss it into the stream, the overall flow rate remains unchanged, and there is no alteration to the source. We could measure the amount of water “reflecting” off the brick, and the turbulence and eddies around the brick itself and postulate that the brick is “trapping” water just like in the pipe, but there is no change to the source or the flow rate, so the systems are not comparable.

For a more concrete experiment, I was just shining a flashlight at the sun. In about 16 minutes I’ll go outside and observe the change in the sun’s brightness.
Will Janoschka says:

2014/05/11 at 12:27 AM

“For a more concrete experiment, I was just shining a flashlight at the sun. In about 16 minutes I’ll go outside and observe the change in the sun’s brightness.”
Thomas Homer says: 2014/05/08 at 2:46 PM
So Thomas Homer.
Please show how your 3 volt 0.5 ampere pr2 tiny filiment (1.5 attempted watts) of no known surface area attempting to radiate from an aperature of 6 cm^2 (flashlight) into approx .2 steradians. toward any part of the suns 80 micro steradian subtense from the earth will affect anything that you, or any sensitive instrument may detect!
Will Janoschka says:

2014/05/11 at 2:05 AM

Joseph,
For your sanity and mine please consider what the “Hitran” atmospheric gas database, now conserved By Harvard University as an anciant relic of what was.
Please consider that this whole database of atmospheric components was designed to determine what we can see, (spatial,distintive,differences,or patterns/spatial), though any length of this crap in any way, up, down, left, right, over! This database considered any electromagnetic
energy deverged or reflected by the atmosphere by more than one milliradian as absorbtion. For the purpose of seeing this is correct. I must defend that!
For Climate anywhere on this planet, that Hitran database is the worst thing you can use, unless you think climate is what you can see through.
Will Janoschka says:

2014/05/12 at 12:18 AM

Joseph,
This has been observed/measured of the highest preditior on Planet Earth!
Sin (low) Virtue (high)
Lust (excessive sexual appetites) Chastity (purity)
Gluttony (over-indulgence) Temperance (self-restraint)
Greed (avarice) Charity (giving)
Sloth (laziness/idleness) Diligence (zeal/integrity/Labor)
Wrath (anger) Forgiveness (composure)
Envy (jealousy) Kindness (admiration)
Pride (vanity) Humility (humbleness)

Please post your best distribution curve of all earthlings. Please mark the location of you. And your velocity and direction of drift?
Please note: nowhere is there the esteemed sin or virtue of “knowledge of the physical”.
Are we all just jerking off in the cloakroom?
Thomas Homer says:

2014/05/12 at 12:01 PM

Will Janoschka says: 2014/05/11 at 12:27 AM

“For a more concrete experiment, I was just shining a flashlight at the sun. In about 16 minutes I’ll go outside and observe the change in the sun’s brightness.”
Thomas Homer says: 2014/05/08 at 2:46 PM
So Thomas Homer.
Please show how your 3 volt 0.5 ampere pr2 tiny filiment (1.5 attempted watts) of no known surface area attempting to radiate from an aperature of 6 cm^2 (flashlight) into approx .2 steradians. toward any part of the suns 80 micro steradian subtense from the earth will affect anything that you, or any sensitive instrument may detect!
….
Will Janoschka, fair enough, I admit that my comment was sophomoric and made no meaningful addition to this forum. I offer my apologies and I will strive to do better. Also, thank you for including some measure of measurement in your response. I was attempting to show how improbable the claim that the small proportion of IR radiation waves emitted from Earth that get reflected around the atmosphere at the speed of light makes the Earth warmer, just as a miniscule amount of light energy aimed at the sun would make the sun brighter.
Will Janoschka says:

2014/05/12 at 9:08 PM

Thomas Homer says: 2014/05/12 at 12:01 PM
“Will Janoschka, fair enough,”
Thomas, I was not attempting to demean, I am frustrated by the Climate Scientist refusal to even try to understand Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic radiation, or the Kirchhoff’s Laws of electromagnetic radiation, “Including, but not limited to, any form of Thermal electromagnetic radiation.
,km, This Sun, with excess nuclear fusion, limits its own temperature, by discarding excess nuclear energy, in every way it can, Coronal mass ejections, Charged and neutral partical emission (mass exitance), and thermal electromagnetic radiation, from less than one Hertz to Gamma rays. For the electromagnetic exitance (bye-bye), what is needed is lotsa energy and a GOOOOOD antenna. This Sun has gobs of both. That process with this Earth in the middle, has been studied, since 1900 with much head scraching! Only your Nouveau Climate Scientists,
claim knowledge, and claim it is similar to “Run Spot run”. The other 97% with personal integrity
still admit “beats the shit out of me”. Who to trust???
Dolf van Wijk says:

2014/10/09 at 12:48 PM

Humanities 2014, 3, 442–516; doi:10.3390/h3040442
The Progress of Science—Past, Present and Future
http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/4/442/pdf
The evidence is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared (IR) radiation and is expected to transfer heat to the molecules in the atmosphere. In addition, the fact that its concentration increased in the atmosphere during the last century coincided with a small global average temperature rise over the same period. This association has been further sustained by sophisticated global circulation models (GCMs) of mass and heat flows through the atmosphere and the oceans. Although these models are very sophisticated, they still do not include a number of presumptions that are expected to be of major importance in predicting a particular global climate. For more than a decade the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has however continued to increase but no further rise in global average temperature has been observed, contrary to the prediction of the climate models. Consequently, the models are due for revision.
The processes related to water vapor in the troposphere would better be described as a “water house”, rather than as a “greenhouse”; in the latter an elevated temperature is maintained by the suppression of circulation. Accordingly, the effect of CO2 absorption and emission of heat in their respective influences on that water house need further examination. In the light of current observations the theory that CO2 must have a significant effect on the global temperature seems to be short of sufficient insight how a variety of forces are able to stabilize a complex system.