No climate models model a rotating spherical Earth - WRONG

[SSDD]

LOL, so you fail and then ask me to help you???? Not very good at this whole rational thought thing are ya?

They don't seem to be able to grasp that trenberth is the basis for climate modelling today flat earth and all. Hansen's model didn't jibe with trenberth

Everything that hansen has ever stated in the field of climate science has been falsified, He is a political hack not worthy of being called a scientist and his model never made it into mainstream science because it didn't jibe with trenberth and it didn't work.

Hansen's model is just one more failure to heap on his long tradition of failure. He is what you get when you mix science and politics and he is a disgrace who has singlehandedly done more to damage the image of science than anyone since mengele.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why are you dodging Oopah's points?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Why are you dodging Oopah's points?

Oops had no points. Hansens model never made it to prime time and no current model represents a 3d spinning earth and all the ramifications that entails.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They don't seem to be able to grasp that trenberth is the basis for climate modelling today flat earth and all.

Did you look at the FORTRAN code I showed you? Hansen et. al. '83 quite clearly doesn't involve a flat earth.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

SSDD -

Why are you dodging Oopah's points?

Oops had no points. Hansens model never made it to prime time and no current model represents a 3d spinning earth and all the ramifications that entails.

What does "prime time" mean in terms of climate modelling? And I'm sorry, did you say that only "prime time" climate models use a flat Earth? Because clearly Hansen's model has a spherical rotating Earth. You don't even need to know FORTRAN to get that from the code.

 

[KissMy]

The earth spins around?

Then why don't we all fly off into space?

We are all held on by little strings. I can feel them.

 

[mamooth]

What's the specific origin of the "no climate model uses a rotating round earth" nutball denialist talking point? That is, which denialist blog made up such a bizarre story?

I'm just trying to find out where that particular big lie originated. I can't find it on WUWT, Climate Audit or any of the usual crank sources.

 

[SSDD]

What's the specific origin of the "no climate model uses a rotating round earth" nutball denialist talking point? That is, which denialist blog made up such a bizarre story?

I'm just trying to find out where that particular big lie originated. I can't find it on WUWT, Climate Audit or any of the usual crank sources.

If you were familiar with the energy budget upon which all current climate models are based, you wouldn't need to ask the question.

 

[gslack]

Poopie is too funny when gets nailed. He clings to some obscure point or claim and asks "did you see this?"

LOL

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What's the specific origin of the "no climate model uses a rotating round earth" nutball denialist talking point? That is, which denialist blog made up such a bizarre story?

I'm just trying to find out where that particular big lie originated. I can't find it on WUWT, Climate Audit or any of the usual crank sources.

There's a paper by Trenberth,? in which they use an analytical approximation of a thin atmosphere. The actual numerical models run on computers use a spherical Earth. At least since 1983.

 

[gslack]

What's the specific origin of the "no climate model uses a rotating round earth" nutball denialist talking point? That is, which denialist blog made up such a bizarre story?

I'm just trying to find out where that particular big lie originated. I can't find it on WUWT, Climate Audit or any of the usual crank sources.

There's a paper by Trenberth,? in which they use an analytical approximation of a thin atmosphere. The actual numerical models run on computers use a spherical Earth. At least since 1983.

NONSENSE!

Any astrophysics student would know the significance of Trenberth's energy budget in modeling the earths atmosphere. With no proper energy budget, any models of earths atmosphere are speculation. Currently models use Trenberth's budget to ensure their models are within parameters regarding energy in vs energy out, how much is used in the process and so on.

Poopie you sir are a liar..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Any astrophysics student would know the significance of Trenberth's energy budget in modeling the earths atmosphere.

Why?

With no proper energy budget, any models of earths atmosphere are speculation. Currently models use Trenberth's budget to ensure their models are within parameters regarding energy in vs energy out, how much is used in the process and so on.

Poopie you sir are a liar..

So you're saying that the fully 3d models are supposed to recreate the results of an analytic model with a flat earth? Why?

 

[gslack]

Any astrophysics student would know the significance of Trenberth's energy budget in modeling the earths atmosphere.

Why?

With no proper energy budget, any models of earths atmosphere are speculation. Currently models use Trenberth's budget to ensure their models are within parameters regarding energy in vs energy out, how much is used in the process and so on.

Poopie you sir are a liar..

So you're saying that the fully 3d models are supposed to recreate the results of an analytic model with a flat earth? Why?

Good question why not ask them instead of calling us all liars?

There is a great deal of technical reasons. The first being the difficulty of it all. Think about it, a simple model one can look at to get a guideline of just how much energy enters, exists and does work in the entire atmosphere. How much is left behind? How much exits? How much gets spent in the various processes? How much is lost from reflection, refraction? How much is used to warm the surface vs how much to warm the atmosphere? Now add in factors like wind and air flow, ocean currents, sea breezes. Then there is the various different gasses that effect that energy flow, which vary by density and content with temperature as well as other things like volcanoes. Then figure out how much heat is escaping from our molten core. Then make it vary for day, night, sunrise, sunset, storms, clouds, etc and so on.

Now take all of that into account and give an average energy usage against energy input. And make sure to take into account the variable distance from the sun and the orbital rotation as well as natural wobble of our planets spin, and don't forget seasonal changes.

Take all of that and represent your findings accurately using a simple number...

See the problem yet? Trenberth had no choice but to average the thing as best he could. So he went with a flat disk and near twilight conditions to give the simple model and numbers needed for the base.

We don't have the computer power to model an accurate energy budget based on all the data. Dude we are still working on mapping the human genome, how can we model all of that accurately yet? We can't plain and simple.

We are getting closer now. The latest from NASA for example, states that previous estimates of energy leaving earth were far too low. Turns out there is a lot more leaving now than previously thought. They found this out because the technology has improved.

You aren't understanding that there has to be an energy budget to make any accurate climate models. Without a budget to go by, there is no way to ascertain if the model is accurate on its energy usage according to observed data as well as that from the sun our source of energy. Extra energy coming in changes the climate, just as less energy in would.

Now you want to maintain you're a atmospherical modeler, be my guest, but I don't think I would need to explain this to one...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Without a budget to go by, there is no way to ascertain if the model is accurate on its energy usage according to observed data as well as that from the sun our source of energy. Extra energy coming in changes the climate, just as less energy in would.

What does it mean to "go by" an energy budget?

Now you want to maintain you're a atmospherical modeler, be my guest, but I don't think I would need to explain this to one...

I never claimed to be an atmospheric modeller. I'm an astrophysical modeller. The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

 

[gslack]

Without a budget to go by, there is no way to ascertain if the model is accurate on its energy usage according to observed data as well as that from the sun our source of energy. Extra energy coming in changes the climate, just as less energy in would.

What does it mean to "go by" an energy budget?

Now you want to maintain you're a atmospherical modeler, be my guest, but I don't think I would need to explain this to one...

I never claimed to be an atmospheric modeller. I'm an astrophysical modeller. The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

Are you being obtuse?

I explained why in that paragraph poopie, the entire post explained, and you're an idiot if you can't see that..

An astrophysical modeler, first off there is no such distinction. You're either an astrophysics student or an astrophysicist. And judging by your BS to date that's a lie..

The energy output of a star is an entity in itself. It doesn't have the complexities of an atmosphere on a planet receiving energy from a star. The energy output of stars an entirely different animal. And you do not "model" them, you build Styrofoam models..

I'm done playing with you poopie. Either you get it or you don't. if you were what you claim I wouldn't have had to explain it to you. You're another in a long line of internet BS artists all claiming to be this or that to try and gain something.. Well good luck with your story, but I'm not buying.

 

[Saigon]

The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

I suspect this requires an understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which SSDD has had to re-write in order for his theories to make sense.

 

[gslack]

The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

I suspect this requires an understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which SSDD has had to re-write in order for his theories to make sense.

Nonsense that was your attempt..

Explain how atmospheric GH gases can warm the warmer surface again? Please I love to see you BS internet scientists fumble about with that little issue.. And please get Ian to post more Spencer garbage to explain it...

ROFL, your pet theory defies the second law and you accuse others of rewriting it???

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Without a budget to go by, there is no way to ascertain if the model is accurate on its energy usage according to observed data as well as that from the sun our source of energy. Extra energy coming in changes the climate, just as less energy in would.

What does it mean to "go by" an energy budget?

Now you want to maintain you're a atmospherical modeler, be my guest, but I don't think I would need to explain this to one...

I never claimed to be an atmospheric modeller. I'm an astrophysical modeller. The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

Are you being obtuse?

I explained why in that paragraph poopie, the entire post explained, and you're an idiot if you can't see that..

An astrophysical modeler, first off there is no such distinction. You're either an astrophysics student or an astrophysicist. And judging by your BS to date that's a lie..

All astrophysicists are students for life.

The energy output of a star is an entity in itself. It doesn't have the complexities of an atmosphere on a planet receiving energy from a star.

Stars are pretty complex, I dunno if you've ever studied them.

The energy output of stars an entirely different animal. And you do not "model" them, you build Styrofoam models..

I'm done playing with you poopie. Either you get it or you don't. if you were what you claim I wouldn't have had to explain it to you. You're another in a long line of internet BS artists all claiming to be this or that to try and gain something.. Well good luck with your story, but I'm not buying.

So will you explain what it means to 'go by' an energy budget?

 

[gslack]

What does it mean to "go by" an energy budget?



I never claimed to be an atmospheric modeller. I'm an astrophysical modeller. The "energy budgets" of stars are actually determined by the laws of physics and come out of the models themselves.

Are you being obtuse?

I explained why in that paragraph poopie, the entire post explained, and you're an idiot if you can't see that..

An astrophysical modeler, first off there is no such distinction. You're either an astrophysics student or an astrophysicist. And judging by your BS to date that's a lie..

All astrophysicists are students for life.

The energy output of a star is an entity in itself. It doesn't have the complexities of an atmosphere on a planet receiving energy from a star.

Stars are pretty complex, I dunno if you've ever studied them.

The energy output of stars an entirely different animal. And you do not "model" them, you build Styrofoam models..

I'm done playing with you poopie. Either you get it or you don't. if you were what you claim I wouldn't have had to explain it to you. You're another in a long line of internet BS artists all claiming to be this or that to try and gain something.. Well good luck with your story, but I'm not buying.

So will you explain what it means to 'go by' an energy budget?

Already did several times now poopie, you obviously don't understand it or don't want to. Read my posts or just pull comments out of Ians butt, I don't care your choice.

I'm not here to convince a sock of my being right, I know a dishonest fake like yourself is incapable of it. Its a silly Ian game you're playing here. he does this same thing when he gets busted too. Plays dumb and asks an already covered question over and again hoping to win by the other person getting tired and dropping it...LOL, good luck socko,I'm sure it will fool people...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you being obtuse?

I explained why in that paragraph poopie, the entire post explained, and you're an idiot if you can't see that..

An astrophysical modeler, first off there is no such distinction. You're either an astrophysics student or an astrophysicist. And judging by your BS to date that's a lie..

All astrophysicists are students for life.


Stars are pretty complex, I dunno if you've ever studied them.

The energy output of stars an entirely different animal. And you do not "model" them, you build Styrofoam models..

I'm done playing with you poopie. Either you get it or you don't. if you were what you claim I wouldn't have had to explain it to you. You're another in a long line of internet BS artists all claiming to be this or that to try and gain something.. Well good luck with your story, but I'm not buying.

So will you explain what it means to 'go by' an energy budget?

Already did several times now poopie, you obviously don't understand it or don't want to.

I don't think you understand my question. I already know that you have said that climate models have to conform to some energy budget. I just wanna know how. How is it written into the code?