temperature graph   global Warming      
 Fudge Factor Replaces Science 
 
 Saturation Precludes 
 
     
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

Alphabetical Page List

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor

Saturation

Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

Temperature Measurements

Recent History

Stefan-Boltzmann

Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Changing Weather

Oceans not Rising

Heating 2,500°C

Natural Log Curve

Published not as Science

Fake Ice Core Data

Ice Melt Fraud

Future Ice Age

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

Back Radiation is Absurd

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

Climategate

Second Climategate

Contrivance

The Disputed Area

Zone of Emission Fraud

Errors in Claims

IPCC Propaganda

The 30% Fraud

The 41% Fraud

The Water Vapor Fraud

Humidity Fraud

River, not Window

Hockey Stick Graph

CO2 Charlatanism

A Fake Mechanism

220x10-12 °C

Global Dynamic

Long Wave Infrared Radiation

What about Argo

Forcing Error

The Concept of Distance

Harry_Read_Me Files

Meaning of Hacked Files

Precipitation

A Look at Modeling 

Conduction Heat


                

A look at Modeling

Modeling is not science. It does not acquire evidence. It uses assumptions to make predictions.

 

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, declared:

“climate models are useless. My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

 

If modeling is used in a valid manner, it is technology (the application of science to a result), not science (the acquisition of knowledge). Yet modeling is used as the primary source of science, as knowledge and evidence, by global warming agitators. As a result, manipulation and synthesis replace objectively derived knowledge.

A highly authoritative critic of the "consensus" view of global warming, Roy W. Spencer, wrote a summary with criticisms. His criticisms are only partially correct, as he assumes a small amount of global warming does occur.

The modeling starts with the claim that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were doubled, there would be a little more than 0.6°C of surface warming (stated here). I show with simple estimates that it would be 0.026°C. So the discrepancy is a factor of 23. Modelers use "energy budgets" which sometimes show as much radiation leaving the earth as striking the earth, which is absurd.

But I say this only to clarify the next point. As Spencer then points out, CO2 is assumed to make only a small increase in global temperature, but "positive feedback" supposedly multiplies the temperature by a factor of 3-10. Positive feedback means that some other factor amplifies the temperature increase. The claimed cause of this is that increased heat causes more water to evaporate, while water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. Modelers claim that positive feedback through water vapor increases the humanly caused effect from 0.6°C to 3-6°C, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled.

If there really were such feedback, it would cause thermal runaway. The temperature increase due to feedback would create a second cycle of feedback, and it would be greater than the first; and then it would trigger a third cycle greater than the second; and this would continue infinitely. You can't stop the feedback after the first cycle. If there were some force stopping it after the first cycle, then that force would be stopping the first cycle also. If you said moisture runs out after the first cycle, there is nothing magical about the first cycle that limits the moisture to it. Evaporation isn't some flash-in-the-pan which only responds to a 0.6°C temperature increase caused by humans.

Another error in the concept of feedback is that it is only applied to human input. Nature creates far more variation than 0.6°C because of random, seasonal and yearly variation.

Of course, modelers are averaging the human influence across a wide domain of several years. But nature produces long term variations also. Why are some years are said to be the hottest ever? Why not every year? Because nature varies a lot.

Another problem with modeling based on feedback is that neither water vapor, carbon dioxide nor any other so-called greenhouse gas can cause global warming, because so little is required to absorb the infrared radiation available that it does whatever it is going to do at a very small concentration and a very short distance. More only shortens the distance; it does not increase the heat. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about 10 meters. Doubling it would shorten the distance to 5 meters. Water vapor would absorb all radiation available to it in less than a meter. Shortening the distance some more would be of no relevance.

Supposedly, humans already caused a 30% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (based on discredited ice core measurements), and the result is a 0.6°C temperature increase. Why wasn't it multiplied by a factor or 5-10 due to positive feedback through water vapor? The modelers didn't seem to apply their theory of feedback to it.

I'm told that the reason why thermal runaway doesn't occur is because the initial increase in temperature causes an increase in radiation escaping into space. In other words, negative feedback stops the process after the first cycle.

All of this logic is extremely incredible. There is no real difference between the first cycle, second cycle or any other cycle. If a 0.6°C temperature increase is multiplied when humans are the cause, then it is multiplied when nature is the cause. There is nothing to distinguish between the first one degree increase caused by humans and the next five degrees, or the first 33°C which nature supposedly heats the atmosphere. To say that a 0.6°C increase by humans does something different (triggers a 3-6°C increase through feedback) which no other temperature increase does is to say nature creates a fixed system which is thrown into aberration by the most minute effects caused by humans. There is no such fixed system.

Before leaving this subject, it is worthwhile to notice that the official analysis is based on the assumption that increased water vapor is associated with global warming. So where do the droughts come from? Supposedly, trees are being killed in western U.S. by increased drought due to "climate change."

Summary by Roy W. Spencer
Modeling Useless for Predicting — Pielke
Illusions of Climate Science — William Kininmonth
Other Modeling Methods Show Cool-Down — Bob Carter
8 Modeling Mistakes — Jeffrey Glassman
Climate Modelling Nonsense — John Reid, a modeler: "Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact."


 

           
 
gbwm