Thursday, 12 March 2015

Why climate models fail by definition (guest post)

Guest post by meteorologist Theodore White

Any climate model that accepts 'man-made global warming' is violating the laws of thermodynamics and physics. Period.

Not a single climate model predicted the 2009-2010 El Nino or the 2010-2011 La Nina that followed.

I did.

My point is this,

There are scientific papers published that finds that these ‘climate models’ violate the 'basic physics' - especially of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow.

Now, this is one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer regarding the Earth's atmosphere.

I will quote one paper which states that,

"Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws.

The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy."

That means that entropy always increases and energy always dissipates according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for sub-grid fluxes, we find that some of them try to use the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not.

Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.

A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production.

The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data.

Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a negative bias.

"Both test cases indicate that negative thermal dissipation can occur for the conventional heat flux.

Obviously, the additional energy made available by this negative dissipation to the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable (for the wrong physical reasons) at least for the boundary layer experiment."

That means this -

That the computer climate models falsely claim that entropy can decrease.

The models are claiming - incredibly - that heat can 'negatively dissipate,' or rather, concentrate itself, and that additional energy is made available by this so-called "negative dissipation."

That is literally impossible.

So, the climate models used by careerists and 'man-made global warming' alarmists are in stark violation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics which, I continue to say, have not ceased to exist because some people claim that pink-elephants-can-fly.

Every single climate model that has failed avoids those physical laws that govern the Earth's climate.

Those running those climate models haven't a clue as to how the Earth's climate functions, and proof of that comes from the fact that none of them can forecast the seasonal weather or medium and long-range climate conditions.

Here are the facts that they are in denial of when it comes to the lie of 'man-made global warming,' and that is:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04% which = 0.0004 of the atmosphere.

Man-made CO2 is 3% of that which equals = 0.0004×0.03 = 0.000012.

And burning fossil fuels is about 50% of that.


The amount of man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels is about 0.000006 of the atmosphere.

Now, if anyone says - with a straight face - that that miniscule amount of CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming they they do not have all 52 cards in their decks.

The Earth is not isolated. It is not an isolated body. The Earth's highly variable climate cannot be replicated in a laboratory, nor can the Earth's climate be isolated from the Sun, Moon and planets, of which are a part of the solar system that the Earth is a member.

The climate models do NOT - repeat - do not recognize that all climate and weather conditions begin in space. That is where the Earth lives and that is where the causes are.

The failure of climate models is from that basic and serious error.

Your comments, along with those of others, that do not recognize that fact means that 'effects' are treated as 'causes,' which is a major reason why the climate models used cannot even predict an ENSO, much less seasonal weather conditions, or long-range climate.

No comments:

Post a Comment