I don’t know why I was so shocked ---- the basis being baseless means that of course the future steps based upon it are gonna be baseless too haha… perhaps I was shocked at the obviousness of it …
I couldn’t (nor wanted to, I admit 
) to keep up with so many posts that I was seeing accumulate in a very short time in this topic… 
But having read at least Richard’s post and some of the earlier subsequent arguments here, I choose to ask this now:
On what reference/source did Richard and, for example, you, @claudiu, base the idea/assertion that the model (although there is not and has not been a single one) considers the earth as a flat disk?
Because already in the course I took in 2018 it was long ago that computer climate models considered a three dimensional planet.
In the subsequent years in which I followed the reports and papers more closely, the resolution of the 3D grid has been increasing thanks to sensors, satellites, ships, etc., which allow measurements more and more closer and closer in time and geographically. This image is from my 2018 material:
The increase in computing capacity has made it possible to include more and more real time variables in each of those sectors, instead of making generic 3D calculations for the entire planet or large areas/volumes.
And this is an illustrative example of what 3D geography/geometry those computer models are based on, including its different layers, the variables considered in the physical processes for each sector of the world, etc.
NOAA 200th: Top Tens: Breakthroughs: Schematic for Global Atmospheric Model
See here:
I think it would actually
A more extreme example might be if you put the hot plate under blankets in a bed. The rate of loss of heat would be decreased substantially while the energy input is the same, resulting in a hotter hot plate.
In any case we’re talking about the temperature of the atmosphere itself, which is more analagous to the temperature of the insulating layer in this example
I’m aware that I’m trying to imagine what would happen, which is not scientific
And what papers/reports does that source refer to, that supposedly modeled the problem the way the book tries to refute it (flat disks, etc.)? The only reference in that chapter is to moon facts (Moon Fact Sheet).
If there is nothing else, it’s refuting a strawman model…
What happened then is that Richard (and you later) thought that the climatological science model the earth geometrically as that chapter claims, and that the book then constituted its refutation?
Well, here was my response to being presented with the link to these chapters, which I wrote about 2 1/2 days afterwards:
Of course they have made computer models later with a 3D Earth etc., but the equations they use to determine what happens on their 3D-model Earth, are based on the mathematical model of the flat Earth. It’s where the concept of ‘radiative forcing’ of CO2 levels comes from… which anyone can find out for themselves by looking into the matter.
One may wonder why such a difference in reactions to being presented with the link to the chapter… I direct anyone with such a wonder to the Stepping Back (re: global warming) post as a possible explanation.
Cheers,
Claudiu
That is exactly where my mind has been heading, i.e. in the age of 3D models and increasingly powerful computers, “surely they aren’t using a abstraction, when they can model it?”
So far, I have been rather unimpressed with the details on how the computer models are built. Mostly, because the details are really hard to find! I came across the same types of explanations as yourself, (stacked grids etc), however I found more problems than answers.
As I said earlier, this is quite interesting indeed. I had never had any scepticism towards the “greenhouse effect” itself, but had always regarded the carbon politics as a diversion from actually improving the “lived environment” and the importance of healthy ecosystems.
To have read just last night, that they have never been able to model clouds, as of 2021, still struggling with that, that all the satellite data is skewed towards European and American validation stations (where they compare the satellite data, to actual ground based measurements). There are thousands of “validation stations” through Europe and the US, but the entire continent of Africa has 2!!!
The satellite data has been shown to be up to 20 degrees wrong!
Links not provided because I am pursuing what interests me about this topic, as I am sure others are too.
Thanks.
By the way: where do your own quotes come from? I can’t find them anywhere else on the site, (not in this very topic either) and that seems to be the reason why “image.pgn” is not shown in your quote.
Yes, @Andrew; now I understand that Richard and @claudiu would be questioning the very formulas applied to each sector.
Right, which seems exactly what they are indeed doing.
That really does bother me a lot.
What is dawning on me is that unlike my profession, which is actual world tested every day ( the houses actually get built; and whatever abstractions are used, are tested by the process of building the thing), climatology has no such “proving” going on.
Hmm, I am stating that incorrectly;
My abstraction is done in a very demanding environment where it’s output is tested and economically (no just to whether I still have a job) important that it is as exact as possible.
I see no such mechanism in climatology.
To @JonnyPitt s question as to what causes my “bias”;
I am biased to regard those trained and educated, experienced and otherwise employed to do a thing , to be otherwise doing that thing with a level of integrity and skill equivalent to the same that I must use in my profession.
However, I am starting to move away from that bias as I am finding the conditions those who are “trained, educated and experienced” in climatology are not the same as the conditions I am “trained educated and experienced” in.
I don’t have any choice but to perform my profession with as much exactness as is possible in the timeframes I work in.
This forms the “bias” that I project onto those working with climate models. I am biased to assume they work with the same necessary exactness I must. Regardless of any other factors of life, what I do is always proven to be some degree of exact. Or proven to be incorrect. As happened yesterday with a “noise attenuation package” which was mandated because a house was under a airport flight path; my estimate of the cost was significantly wrong! I immediately sent an email to all involved, adjusted all the costing models, and otherwise made it very clear that I had got the cost wrong.
This is my bias which has formed my otherwise not questioning the greenhouse effect.
Perhaps this post is better suited to @claudiu s “stepping back” thread. Or indeed, the original “Bias” thread.
Similar boat. It was never cut and dry for me. I assumed it to be a fair and reasonable theory but was never like oh it’s absolutely right and we’re all gonna die. It was just one extra reason to invest in new tech, preserve eco-systems if they benefit everyone and allow women to make their own choices. In fact, when discussing this with Richard and Vineeto, I now see I was categorizing the conversation as more political/policy than scientific. One can still completely reject the consensus while still being far from a bootlicker or water carrier. I had just never come across one before. Though, that could be due to having blinders on.
Kind of like a rule of thumb, maybe? Or am I just reading that into what you said based of what I just written in the other thread?
No, that would imply I thought about it first.
I mean in the literal sense of the original question of “bias”. Which Rick used the bias of bowling balls to illustrate.
It had not occurred to me just how different the arena of climatology is to my profession.
I was “biased” without any thought about it at all.
Probably should keep this going in the other thread. For neatness.
This one in particular was from an email I wrote – I fixed the image, ty for letting me know it wasn’t working.
I’m pleased to say a ten-second Google search cannot refute the facts that Richard dropped. Over the years I’ve always tried to fact check counter-arguments to global warming (caused by humans), hoping to find something, but they never held any water. This new information however shows that the calculations and models that the whole notion of human-caused global warming is built on are bogus in more ways than one.
If you’ll excuse me I’m off to short some green stocks… 
The irony is that the stocks themselves might be just fine, because the stock market is based on the beliefs of the market rather than facts
1 Like
Yes, I wouldn’t be shorting them just yet, though I was talking to someone today at work who recounted that a certain Australian billionaire was investigating in them precisely because of the hype.
It really does seem that the state of climatology is more than a little in a flux. Pun intended.
Scrolling through 133 pages of available CMIP5 data (before finding CMIP6 was available), trying to find references to the basic assumptions being feed into the GCM climate models was rather tedious.
I can’t find a simple explanation of whether the Stefan-Blotzmann calculation, which is the basis of the -18c starting point, is being used in these models.
My thinking at this point, which is what Richard’s historical research is pointing too, is there seems to be the same “consensus” view going on in climatology as there is in astro-physics regarding the “big bang”; that is the premise is still all around this “doubling of CO2” being a disaster which must be avoided, which the models are indeed being designed to assume.
If it were a house estimate, I would have to assume the Sales Consultant had been in the estimators ear, there was a lot of beer involved, and perhaps more than a few brown paper bags.
I can’t yet get to Richard’s tl:dr “there is no greenhouse effect…or greenhouse gases” but I am seeing a lot of really obvious (and openly discussed) problems with the models.
So as to save myself some money on an IR detector (I really don’t need many excuses to spend money) I thought I would use chatGPT to crunch some ideas for me.
I asked it to calculate the temperature of the earth if it was made of granite, sans atmosphere, water and biomass, explicitly without using the Stefan-Blotzmann equation.
For granite it came to 21 degrees!
For water 5 degrees.
For limestone 57 degrees.
For a surface 70% water, 20% limestone, and 10% granite; the surface of the earth would be 14.7* degrees according to chatGPT.
Of course, I will run it’s numbers through a spreadsheet when I get a moment of inspiration.
So far, and as to whether the Stefan-Blotzmann equation is a reasonable abstraction (Richard’s points 1-6), No, that abstraction is looking rather silly to me.
Edit 14.7 degrees, not 13.7 degrees.