Broken theories, encyclicals

I would like to reiterate again that the failure of the models does not prove that the idea of putting more CO2 put in the atmosphere causes warming is wrong. It reduces the theory to a hypothesis, an unproven one. The models created to “prove” the theory are seriously wrong and must be discarded. To prove CO2 put here by humans is a problem, one must have a NEW model and a NEW theory about how CO2 interacts in the atmosphere. Otherwise, it remains an unproven hypothesis. It is not possible at this point to “save” the models. All have failed miserably–all 102 models. There is no coming back from such complete and utter failure.

The planet at this point is not experiencing temperature rises, more extreme weather, or any other predicted values. Sure, a prediction here and there may come true, but to quote the global warming advocates, those successful predictions aren’t “global” (as in science-wide success). To believe that the warming “will come” is simple faith in broken models and very, very unscientific. Redrawing trend lines to ignore the plateauing of the temperatures, or simply using the same trend line one always sees and claiming it shows warming when clearly the data does not, is very, very unscientific.

The leaked encyclical from the Vatican contains virtually all this broken science and presents it as fact. This is somehow presumed to exonerate scientists, though how a faith-based organization’s agreement helps science is vague. Seems this would only help the questioners who already see believing in broken models as faith-based belief, not science. It also seems the believers of warming are not as far from faith-based as they would have us believe.

The media and politics probably have far more to do with the excitement of the upcoming encyclical’s release. Scientists are busy trying to create data to prove the warming didn’t plateau (you gotta love interpolation and extrapolation–you can get any answer you want and since science standards are completely ignored when it comes to climate, you don’t even get fire or flunked for creative data manufacturing) to worry about what the Vatican does or not endorse.

This YouTube video from ABC news in 2008 is quite enlightening:

It’s interesting to note that last time anyone checked, NYC was not underwater…..Talk about failed predictions. The media was never very accurate, but there was no outcry from scientists against any of this. Silence is construed as agreeing with the usage, even if they knew it was a lie. There are scientists who speak out and are vilified, so speaking out was and is an option. Scientists who remained silent are giving tacit agreement to the media message.

Thinkprogress has this headline: “2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step-Jump In Global Temperatures”
Talk about celebrating doom and gloom. It’s like a cancer doctor doing a happy dance because his patient developed new cancer. Glee over impending doom.


9 comments on “Broken theories, encyclicals

  1. I couldn’t just look at the diagrams and skip the equations. I need to understand the math and theory as well as the visuals. That being said, I think I may understand where you are coming from on this.

    The incoming radiation is 1360 watts/m2. The number being used is 340 watts/m2. This is due to taking the surface area of the earth in m2 and reducing it to 1/4 to use as an average. The dark half has zero, the areas as one moves away from the equator have less due to the angle of the sun. So 1/4 is a quick and easy way to get an average. However, there exists no real reason to use this “average” since it includes zero values from the dark side and thus really shows us nothing that exists in reality. The energy is “per meter squared” where the sun is shining. It does not apply elsewhere.

    If we were to measure actual watts/m2 on the planet, we would find a huge number of variables are involved and the numbers vary dramatically. It’s the same problem that exists when you start trying to average temperatures globally when they vary from −150F to +140F. The average has virtually no meaning in reality, only in the models and math. Switching to anomalies is stated to help with this, but as far as I can tell, reducing any group of values with the ranges involved in global climate factors yields a number that seems worthless.

    • C.R.Dickson says:

      Hi, I think you are pretty much on target with what I was trying to convey You did a fabulous job all on your own. I think a temperature difference from a global average is very meaningless. There is a lot more to climate than temperature. I repeat again. Great job! I’m going to go have a Guinness to celebrate.

  2. C.R.Dickson says:

    Hi, You are absolutely correct. I’m saying the same thing. I just tried to explain it a different way. This is where talking and diagrams are usually better than writing. If you shine light on a sphere, only half of it, i.e., 2 pi R2 is illuminated. By using 4pi R2 you are including the dark side (the other 2 pi R2)as well. You can get the same result by ray tracing and considering the rotation of the earth (similarly you can arrive at 4 pi R2 for the surface area of a sphere using calculus.) Geometrical averaging ( or using calculus do the same thing) is arithmetically nice, but not realistic with absorption and scattering of light with the varying light intensity and path length of the sun’s rays due to the rotation and curvature of the earth. The models conveniently average the light intensity first and then afterwards plug in averages of absorption, scattering etc. The proper way is to integrate and simultaneously fold in the absorption, scattering, reflection, etc. as you integrate, not afterwards. An analogy (perhaps a poor one) is that A times B does not necessarily equal AB. Another way of saying it is that the models are arithmetically correct, but they are performing a physically unrealistic calculation and give an inappropriate answer. I think I may be confusing you more than helping. If so, I apologize. However, you should always ask questions and keep asking… that is what science is about. Eventually, you will come to a better understanding. I always say, you can’t learn if you don’t make mistakes. I’ve made more than my share.You are to be commended for making an honest attempt to understand and I wish you well.

    I took a look at the web site. The diagram is somewhat misleading. Light shining on the earth will illuminate only 1/2 of it. Take a look at these diagrams

    To see why a global average isn’t realistic see the monthly averages at different locations:

    Look at the diagrams… don’t worry about the equations.


    • Please don’t apologize. Even confusing me helps in the long run. I will check out your links. The only way I learn is to keep trying to understand and researching.

      It’s very possible we are saying the same thing.

  3. C.R.Dickson says:

    Hi, Concerning item 11… The incident solar radiation before entering the Earth’s atmosphere is about 1360 watts per m2. It is a plane wave that intercepts the Earth’s spherical surface area of 4πR2 as a disk of area πR2. The circular disk shadow of the Earth (if you could project it onto a large piece of paper) is the absence of light that was left on ½ the Earth’s surface. Because the models average just about everything, they include the dark half as well. The ratio of the incoming light area πR2 to the projection onto the entire night and day surface area of the Earth 4πR2 is ¼. If you look at the Trenberth diagram shown at many websites, you will see the incident incoming solar radiation as 340 watts per m2 which is ¼ * 1360. Solar cell people, like myself, don’t average things out and the sun comes up and goes down and the actual energy utilized by the solar cell is properly established. The outgoing radiation in the models (and in reality) goes out perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, but the incoming solar radiation comes in at varying intensity and angles. The models, at least in the papers I’ve seen, don’t include this. By averaging the incoming energy up front means the light always enters from directly above at constant energy everywhere. This is about as far from reality that you can get.
    Incidently, I am a retired physicist and chemist with a PhD from Columbia University. So, I’m giving you pretty solid information mostly from first-hand experience. My research areas are quite diverse but mostly in solar cells, lasers, and molecular spectroscopy. You can go to Google Scholar to see some of my many patents and papers. I hope I’ve helped you a bit.

    • I’m not necessarily doubting you. I am attempting to reconcile what I have learned with what you are saying so I can understand the difference.

      I first started looking at the 1/4 problem and whether or not night was excluded from the calculations when taking an online climate class (from a university). The reflecting disk idea sounded all wrong. The area of a circle is not the same as half a sphere. This did take into account night, so far as I can tell. I searched and finally found the reason the 1/4 value is used is because the energy is integrated over the half a sphere, with more being absorbed at the equator than at the poles. By a happy coincidence, this matches the calculation for the reflecting disk and you don’t need calculus to get the answer. People who understand geometry do question, however.

      “If Earth were a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun… and if it had no atmosphere… every square meter of Earth’s surface would receive 1,368 watts of energy from the Sun. Although Earth does intercept the same total amount of solar EM radiation as would a flat disk of the Earth’s radius (see figure below), that energy is spread out over a larger area. The surface of a sphere has an area four times as great as the area of a disk of the same radius. So the 1,368 W/m2 is reduced to an average of 342 W/m2 over the entire surface of our spherical planet. Another way to think of this reduction is to realize that half of Earth’s surface (the night side) is in the dark and thus receiving no solar energy at a given moment, while areas near the edges of the planet (near the poles and around dusk and dawn) are receiving reduced amounts of energy per unit area.”

      This is why I believed that the calculation of 1/4 is correct. If this is wrong, I want to know so I can correct my belief.

      I will Google your patents and papers. You work in an interesting field.

  4. C.R.Dickson says:

    You seem to have a genuine interest in global warming. I give a talk about it at a local community college every year (for the past 11 years). If you would like the power point presentation, I can send it to you as an attachment, if you like. This is the talk in a nutshell…. The students go into a state of shock.
    1. Water vapor, not CO2, is the predominate global warming gas.
    2. Only about 2 to 4% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made.
    3. Gavin (NASA) Schmidt says the models are programmed to show water vapor is the predominate warming gas. (6 to 26% is CO2). [ref1].
    4. Put this all together and it means human caused carbon dioxide global warming is less than 1%.
    5. The rejoinder that water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing is pure speculation. (And, in my opinion, very wrong because their explanation requires a 1100: 1 surface cooling to heating)
    6. The same speculation is used to explain away the phase analysis of ice core data that shows temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is as close as a natural cause and effect experiment that you can get.
    7. NASA’s GISS cloud people’s website says the models need to be improved by a factor of 100 in order to detect the small CO2 warming.[ref 3].
    8. This was confirmed by Graham Stephans et al in Nature Geoscience [ref 2] where the warming imbalance was demonstrated to be 0.6 watts per m2 with an uncertainty of 17 watts per m2. Finding CO2 warming is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
    9. The 0.6 watts per m2 is the equivalent of an AA battery discharging over a few hours.
    10. Little batteries that turn on televisions do not power hurricanes.
    11. As a post script ( I usually present the models in the middle of the talk), the models start out by averaging the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth (1/4 AM0). That means the sun never sets on climate models. The sun shines 24/7 equally at the poles, the equator, and at night. This is great for solar cells. By buying four times the amount you need, you get full sun powered electricity 24/7. Just click on your NASA powered climate model anytime, anywhere. Bless the money and pass the information.
    [2] Stephans et al Nature GeoScience5,691-696(2012)doi:10.10.1038/ngeo 1580.

    • You can send me the presentation as an email attachment if you want. I like to see how people explain why global warming is not as advertised.

      The one thing I am not sure of is your #11. I am not able to explain at the moment (no time available) but I seem to remember the number is actually correct but poorly explained.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s