| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Whats_Wrong_with_the_AGW_model

Page history last edited by Paul G. Taylor 8 years, 8 months ago

 

 

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

The model calculates the distribution of atmospheric temperatures necessary to achieve a global radiative equilibrium for the Earth system, that is, an exact balance between the incoming solar radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere (FS/4), the outgoing solar radiation flux reflected by the Earth system (FSA/4), and the terrestrial radiation flux emitted by the Earth system (FS(1-A)/4). This equilibrium is necessary for a stable climate; as we will see below, even a small deviation would cause a large temperature perturbation. The model used for the calculation may be as simple as a 1-dimensional (vertical) formulation of radiative equilibrium, or as complicated as a GCM; the choice of model is not too important as long as the calculated temperature profiles are reasonably realistic.

 

This quote indicates that even the GCMs are based on the same assumptions as shown in the two-dimensional models.

 

This admission is the key to unravelling the convoluted rhetoric that undergirds the AGW hypothesis. The assumption that all the energy received by the earth's surface must be removed by way of radiation from the surface, as though the earth's surface and the atmosphere are not a coupled system, and then treating the atmosphere as though it had the properties of still air, lead to the confusion that allows the hypothesis to gain credibility in the minds of most people who lack the scientific ability to critique this ensemble of words, data, graphs and formulae and see where it lacks logic or fails to agree with observations.

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.