No night and day in the models

Is that sane or rational?
_______________

No night and day in the models

By tomOmason

The basic premise of the IPCC is that CO2 warming heats all this world’s atmosphere catastrophically.

Just stand back and look at it objectively (and without bias).

The atmosphere with minimal CO2 of the late 1850 (end of the Little Ice Age) was one temperature, the temperature of the 2000 is warmer, by about 1°C, as the sun’s activity ramped up since 1850. The warming of the oceans, lakes, seas and the defrosting tundra all release a little CO2 over this time quite naturally, and so the atmospheric level rises by a very small amount (~0.016%).


As for CO2 ‘catastrophically warming the atmosphere’ — the atmosphere is a gaseous fluid body of many chemical constituents, but it is mostly (about 70%) nitrogen and oxygen (20%) — that’s 90% of the atmosphere. The greatest Infra red active (misnamed ‘greenhouse gas’) is water vapor which in many parts of the world are many percent of the atmosphere.

Now the IPCC says CO2 will dangerously overheat the world, with talk of CO2 levels at 0.03% as OK, but 0.04% and above spelling doom. The IPCC computer models show this to be true! But the computer model works with a simulated earth that is flat and is constantly in sunshine, and it maintains the CO2 activated 24/7 (there is no night and day in the models).

But is that sane or rational argument given all we know about this planet’s history?

Science and archeology have investigated much about the climate of the past. These studies show that CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time (rising 300-500 years after the planet starts to warm and as an effect of that warming, and then falling again well after the globe starts to cool) but at NO TIME can CO2 be shown to cause catastrophic warming. It has never, ever, happened, and it is not going to happen now.


18 thoughts on “No night and day in the models”

  1. A flat Earth where Apollo does not drive his sun chariot across the sky??? Even ancient greeks and romans would think that was crazy. Can these imbeciles not afford a big enough computer to do a proper simulation??? Or are they just lying through their teeth. Hmmmm ….. obviously the latter.

  2. So it’s true… the climate change kooks are flat-earthers. LOL

    You can’t make this stuff up, folks! Priceless.

  3. The models are programmed to produce the desired amount of heating, plain and simple. In other words the game is rigged.

  4. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame and a banking Financial modeller in a previous life) take on catastrophic climate change based on models.
    “Climate Models: As soon as you hear that someone has a complicated prediction model, that’s a red flag. If you hear that the model involves human assumptions and “tweaking,” that’s a double red flag. If you hear there are dozens of different models, that’s a triple red flag. If you hear that the models that don’t conform to the pack are discarded, and you don’t know why, that is a quadruple red flag. And if you see people conflating climate projections with economic models to put some credibility on the latter, you have a quintuple red flag situation.”
    As for his career as a financial modeller, he says:
    “My projections required human judgment on lots of variables, so the output was little more than guessing and massaging the numbers to meet my boss’s expectations.”
    These quotes can be found at this link:
    http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/09/11/when-to-trust-the-experts-climate-and-otherwise/

    • As in all things written, there are always germs of truth and unfortunately, errors in statements. The article may contain “unscientific statements,” but it is hardly garbage, and only to the “self believing sophisticates” would it make no sense, which, incidentally, your comment fits that statement quite nicely.

  5. It’s completely logical, because the only thing that has any effect on the perfect world is people who are wrecking it, there also is no night and day because that is to reminiscent of Intelligent Design. This is also why there is no inclusion of solar cycles or variations in the sun in the models, because there is no variation except for human induced.

    • You would seem be pushing the idea that a man created Idol/Fetish/God created everything therefore should we pander to those fetishes then everything will be Okey-dokey.

      The real World does not, never did and never will behave as you wish for the reasons you state. The amount of variation seen is not caused by ‘straying’ from some arbitrary abstract but by the sheer weight, size and movement of the Universe and the fluxes brought about by such.

      There are many, many variations brought about by such forces so many in fact that even your Carbon Credit™ Priests have to admit to the “forces of nature” on the odd occasion science brushes against them on the way past as it attempts to move forward.

      The article mentions a flat Earth and surely you must have been a past President of their erstwhile society. The syncretism between your religion and the warmists is what has carried it so far I felt compelled to answer something I would have normally ignored.

  6. Robert here is an interesting video from The Next Grand Minimum people, an interview with Professor Valentina Zharkova — a discussion on her research, on solar measurements, the coming solar minimum, predictions of solar cycle 25 and 26, and food sortages…
    https://youtu.be/_wB46mgJrzI

  7. no night time huh?
    well that utterly negates any model immdiately as being a proper simulation
    never mind they also dont factor clouds either.
    roflmao

  8. Conclusion : CO2 alarmists are flat earthers . 3D modeling is beyond their capacities , only pictures of Playboy models are doing the trick here . No wonder some of these guys like Al Gore are getting overheated .

  9. A few slight problems with this.

    Nitrogen (N2) is ~780,840 ppmv or ~78.084%
    Oxygen(O2) is ~209,460 ppmv or ~20.94%
    Argon (Ar) is ~9340 ppmv or ~0.934%

    Water vapour varies from 0.1% to 5% and is on average 0.25% of the mass of the atmosphere.

    The Earth IS undoubtedly constantly irradiated by the Sun !

    The problem climate “science” has is they seem to believe that imagining the whole of the Earth irradiated by sunshine at 1/4 power gives the same result as half of the Earth irradiated by the full power of sunshine attenuated only by the cosine of the angle of incidence.

    And of course this is not true – ever.

    What climate “scientists” actually calculate is the radiation they assume – using another faulty hypothesis radiative equilibrium -Earth must emit over a sphere to balance the Solar radiation absorbed over a disk with a surface area calculated by using Earth’s radius.

    This makes the absurd assumption that the laws of cavity radiation are wrong, that temperature DOES NOT determine the radiation emitted, that the Earth’s surfaces all heat at the same rate and there is no such thing as different specific heats.

    Any child knows this is absolutely wrong when they go to the beach where the sand can be so hot the only way to cross it is to run whilst the water, irradiated by the same sunshine, is always below body temperature.

    Climate “scientists” have been taught to be stupid and less knowledgeable than school children playing at the beach.

    • Thanks for the corrections Rosco. I was not expecting Robert to put it up as a post or I would have been more careful.

      The only point I would add is that yes one side of the globe is constantly in the sun but equally so is that one side of the globe is constantly NOT in the sun.
      Why do these climate scientists not look and see what is going on with temperature and atmospheric circulation on that side? As far as I can see they just have this assumption that their 1/4 sun + flat earth approximates to the Earth’s conditions without actually validating it.
      During these dark hour often the beach sand is a lot cooler than the sea at the shore.

    • And as for your comment, the article implies that they are taking the entire Earth surface into consideration, true, however, although the Earth IS irradiated continuously, only slightly over 50% would be so at any given time – assuming atmospheric bending of the lower frequencies. Their equations may take that into consideration as you say, but your statement is hardly any better than the one in the article as far as being accurate is concerned.

      Simulations, such as those used by the IPCC, are not “models” since “models” require the complete knowledge of what is being modeled, and that is certainly not the case with these “climate” take offs of Sim City.

      • I’m not supporting climate “scientist’s” absurd model of the “back radiative greenhouse effect” in any way But there is absolutely nothing wrong with my statements.

        I think it is nonsensical junk science based on something that doesn’t even exist – the hypotheses of radiative equilibrium, and the sun shining at 1/4 power everywhere like they say at https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

        Everyone who understands even basic physics understands that you can “throw” huge amounts of energy at objects without them radiating the same output.

        Examples include melting of solids, evaporation or boiling of liquids, changes in viscosity etc etc. Despite absorbing huge quantities of energy there is no change in temperature and hence radiation from the objects until the process is finalised and the object starts to heat up again.

        A kettle boiling does not increase in temperature while there is water left to boil and this is why their junk science predictions of greenhouse warming are wrong – water cools the Earth’s surfaces by far more than any putative “backradiation” could ever increase the temperature even if such nonsense were even possible.

        BUT what these incompetents miss is that when objects melt of boil a significant part of the input energy is transformed into work via convection currents etc.

        This energy is NEVER transformed back into radiation at the same rate as the input due to temperature increase – the only source of radiation output from the object. The process they describe as the back radiative greenhouse effect favours simplistic in = out pseudo radiation calculations ignoring real parameters such as melting, boiling, specific heat etc etc, and ignores real energy losses such as friction, for example, and is in reality a perpetual motion machine.

        I never claimed their calculation approach anything like accuracy.

        My assertion that the Earth is irradiated by the sun with the normal power attenuated by the cosine of the latitude where it strikes the Earth’s surface (subject to cloud cover etc) is accurate.

        They claim whether or not a planet rotates or not is irrelevant and the rate of rotation is irrelevant !

        I state that is absurd gobbledygook.

        If the Moon rotated with a 24 Earth hour period its average temperature would likely exceed 100°C.

        This is because the sun’s radiation is far more powerful than the radiation from an object at a temperature where the nominal power calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation has a similar power value.

        The SB equation gives only a partial answer and is completely the wrong equation to use for climate “science”.

        If one had enough “perfect” mirrors one could concentrate the sun’s radiation on a point where it could approach the surface temperature of the sun BUT no matter how many mirrors one had the radiation from an object at 100°C would never exceed that.

        Thus the Sun could easily heat the lunar surfaces to very high temperatures during a 12 Earth hour day BUT the surfaces would not cool by the same amount. There is data to support this assertion – the Moon only cools to the levels it does because there is such a long period of “afternoon and night” – more than 2 and a half Earth weeks.

        The take home points are that at any point on Earth at any time it is either day or night.

        The sun does not shine 24 hours a day as climate “scientists” use in their models – this is confusing the Earth’s output radiation with the input solar radiation and is a stupid error deliberately done.

        The rate of cooling for ambient temperature objects is far lower than the incident heating power of the Sun.

        Earth has such a low cooling rate overnight due to, as Professor Wood said more than a century ago, the low radiating power of gases – which do not obey the radiation laws described by Planck or the SB law because they do not emit continuous spectra.

        • Thank-you both Tom O and Rosco, you have done something that I wished to happen — you’ve clearly voiced why these climate model approximations are so very wrong. Thank-you and all others.
          Only with a sphere (and not a flat circle) can the climate events happening on one side of a sphere directly, or indirectly, affect the other side of the sphere. So called atmospheric teleconnections or those vast oceans current can’t be properly modeled on a circle but they are features of the way the solar energy gets redistributed around the (nearly) spherical planet to affect our climate. The slow change in the tilt of the Earth, and the angle of the Moon wrt the Earth (over the long term) also affect our climate which (of course) also is not properly modeled.
          The idea that these models are built on a foundation of robust physics is the lie of the century. The most significant climate parameters are at best easily tweaked guesstimates. They give the fatuous idea that CO2 causes any measurable or significant warming of the atmosphere a microscopically thin veil of illusory respectability.
          These models offer continued stasis of academic night, only more verified observations offer some daylight to understanding the myriad processes that make up climate.

  10. To my opinion there are two other words for CO2, MONEY and FEAR. People who are constantly bombarded with fear will in the end believe that all is true the IPCC/politicians claim. And people who fear will easily pay there higher energytaxes. In the sixties the club of ROME were also constantly giving a negative view about the future. they were so wrong. The main cause in the shifting climate is due to the weakening of the Earth E.M.F. They, the IPCC and the rest of the corrupt scientists, do know this but that doesn’t generate money/power. We are living in a sick world.

  11. Further if you just look at what cAGW advocates say about Ocean Heat Content rise it’s all about assumptions based on the output of the models —
    Many skeptics say models of hypothesized forcing are enough for to claim CO2 change equate to 100% OHC (Ocean Heat Content) change. For them real-world measurements are not required.
    Further these cAGW advocates say that anyone skeptical enough to insists on having them is just engaging in game-play by questioning “the laws of physics”. However the true skeptic would counter with: The laws of physics are NOT in question but their correct application, the quality of the judgement made of them. Real scientists would wish to see real-world observation of cause-effect tally with the modeled assumptions. Currently cAGW advocates do not have that, so surely if this question is left unanswered how can it ever be known that the physics is misapplied or not?
    The question is —
    How much (quantified) change in water temperature is caused (by any method) by an fractional increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration by 0.00006? Is it 0.00000001K? 0.000002K? 0.0003K? What is the value? Currently it is not known? And THAT IS a problem. Because in science it is not correct to say everything is taken care of even if there are no measurements, because through models we know (or more likely variably estimate it) anyway. And that’s exactly what cAGW advocates are doingwith the models!

    Yes heat imbalance can be observed, but only with vast uncertainty values that overwhelm in more than an order of magnitude greater than the assumed imbalanced value itself!

    During 2000-2010, the radiative imbalance was apparently “observed” to be +0.6 W m-2, and the uncertainty for this value? +/-17 W m-2! So the radiative imbalance ranged anywhere from -16.4 W m-2 to +16.4 W m-2. I wonder what it really is?

    http://planck.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf

    This small imbalance [0.6 W m-2] is over two orders of magnitude [100 times] smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. … The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    And the cAGW advocates would like to claim that this (effectively unknown imbalance), which could be as low as -16.4 W m-2, is understood (and for the given the uncertainty) has been observed, thus, for the cAGW advocate it is therefore known that CO2 caused it! That is a nonsense of course.

    And so the cAGW adherants are very anti-skeptical. For even with those error bars and that level of uncertainty, how could it be anything but an assumption to judge what the radiative imbalance is, and to assign it to the CO2 concentration change as the cause?

    The reasoning appears to be —
    1) there is a radiative imbalance from the increase of the CO2 concentration.
    2) this causes the heat content to increase.

    This truly is not reasoning!
    These are merely assumptions based on results from unreal-world computer modeling. The uncertainty of radiative imbalance range up or down by up to 34 W m-2. The radiative forcing attributed to the CO2 level change (From the above paper it’s around 0.2 W m-2 from the +22 ppm CO2 during 2000-2010) is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty range. So how can anyone claim that these models are a calculations from basic physics, claim that it is CO2 forcing when the alleged CO2 forcing is no more than chaotic noise in the climate system?

    Real-world evidence is needed. Observations, not modeled assumptions, are needed. Why can not cAGW advocate be more skeptical about what they believe to be true? Is the religious ferver too great to question, or to reason logically?

Comments are closed.