Tag Archives: Computer Models

The Earth is Flat-So are Computer Models

From Climate Realist we get this article titled: The Flat Earth.


All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth’s energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.  (PDF)

The attached (above)  graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities.

It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.

All the quantities on the graph are given as correct to the nearer Watt per square meter, but the figures in the paper are shown to possess very high inaccuracy which can never be measured, but always has to be “qualitatively estimated”.On this occasion it was possible to stretch these inaccuracies to the level needed to provide a “balanced” energy budget. The total energy entering is made equal to the energy leaving. In this way it is now possible to calculate the effect of additional greenhouse gases. If it was not “balanced” and the “balance” varied it would be impossible to calculate.what are the effects of additional greenhouse gases.

There has now been a change of heart, in the following paper

Trenberth, K E, J T Fassulo, and J T Kiehl. 2009 Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull Am. Met. Soc. 90 311-323. (PDF)

This paper does a complete reassessment of the figures in the first paper. Its amended version as a mean between March 2000 and May 2004 is attached. (below)

The earth is now thoroughly flattened, as if it had been run over by a cosmic steamroller. Most of the figures have changed. Those for input and output of radiation are now apparently correct to one place of decimals. The rest of them are in trouble. The paper is full of discussions on how they could increase the “qualitative estimates” of uncertainty that might be attached to them, but this time they have found it impossible to extend their estimating ability sufficiently. So this time it is “unbalanced” to the extent of a warming of 0.9 Watts per square meter a year for the period 2000 to 2004.

Unfortunately there is no doubt that the earth’s temperature cooled over this period. This paper is therefore firm proof that the original concepts behind the models are wrong.

It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output.

There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth’s surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. Only when this is done and repeated over a long period will it be possible to find the influence of increases in greenhouse gases.

The data do not exist for such an exercise and probably never will.

Until then we will have to settle for the methods that have been developed by meteorologists over the past two centuries and hope that these can be extended over time to provide us with a means for assessing the effects of additional greenhouse gases on the climate.

The currently promoted greenhouse theory is dead and its consequences have to be removed at once.


Vincent Gray


“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”

Charles Darwin

All I have to say is “Damn! According those papers it appears that Columbus was wrong! The Earth is flat!

Source:  Climate Realists

Comments Off on The Earth is Flat-So are Computer Models

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity

MET Office Strikes Again!

Remember earlier in the year, the MET Office in the UK was touting the 2009-2010 winter was going to be “the warmest winter in living memory?” Then remember how about a month later they had to admit it was the coldest winter in Britain in the past 30 years? Well, they’re at it again, only this time they grounded practically every airline in Europe due to their “wonderful” computer models again.  More CO2 insanity (volcanoes do emit CO2 yanno).

Per this article from Telegraph.co.uk titled “Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary 6 day closure” we find the following…

The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud that made Europe a no-fly zone and ruined the plans of more than 2.5 million travellers in and out of Britain.

See, we again have “scientific probability” and computer models making incorrect predictions again.

Much of the blame was directed at the Met Office’s Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC). It provided the initial warning, which triggered the European-wide ban via Eurocontrol, the air traffic control centre in Brussels.

Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s director-general of transport, said air traffic authorities should not have relied on a single source of scientific evidence before imposing the widespread ban. He suggested the no-fly zone should have been restricted to a 20 to 30-mile limit around the volcano. “The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said.

Sounds amazingly familiar doesn’t it?  Kind of like telling us we have anthropogenic global warming based on computer models that conveniently alter the data to prove their theory instead of the other way around, which is the way it should be.  (i.e., you get the data, then arrive at a conclusion, you don’t invent a conclusion, then make sure the data proves what you want).

Now they may get sued over all of this.  I wish someone would sue them over AGW, but they’ve been whitewashed into innocence by a group of convenient peers.  Still one can hope.

“This may well open the way for wider litigation against the Met Office and other government agencies who are found to have failed in their duty of care. The damages and legal costs could break the £1?billion mark.”

You want more proof that these computer models “suck” whether they are about climate or volcanic ash you can go to C3 and read this article regarding a NASA scientists comments about their computer models.

Enough with the computer models please.  Can we just get the straight, unaltered data, and see what it points to before we run around screaming the sky is falling?

Source:  Telegraph.co.uk

1 Comment

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Science