• Home
  • Current News
  • Breaking: 1920s Brit ‘fatally infected’ All Government Climate Models

Breaking: 1920s Brit ‘fatally infected’ All Government Climate Models

Written by John O'Sullivan

Sensational new study shows western government climate models rely on a fatally flawed 1920’s algorithm.  Scientists say this could be the breakthrough that explains why modern computers are so awful at predicting climate change: simulations “violate several known Laws of Thermodynamics.”

British climate researcher, Derek Alker presents an extraordinary new paper ‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?’ exposing previously undetected errors that government climate researchers have unknowingly fed into multi-million dollar climate computers since the 1940’s. [1] lfr

Alker explains:

“This paper examines what was originally calculated as the greenhouse effect theory by Lewis Fry Richardson, the brilliant English mathematician, physicist and meteorologist.

In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations. His ingenious method is still used today in climate models. But unbeknown to Richardson he had inadvertently relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”

Unfortunately for Richardson, Dines wrongly factored in that earth’s climate is driven by terrestrial (ground) radiation as the only energy source, not the sun. Derek Alker specifically draws attention to the key fact that:

“One of the main points the paper makes is that in the Dines model each layer of the atmosphere is THE energy source, NOT the sun, which is omitted in his table, nor the earth, as the excel model proves.”

Richardson had taken the Dines numbers on face value and did not detect the error when combining the Dines numbers with his own. Alker continues: “The archives show Richardson never double-checked the Dines work (see below) and the records do not show that any one else has ever exposed it.”

The outcome, says Alker, is that not only has the original Richardson & Charney computer model been corrupted –  but all other computer climate models since. All government researchers use these core numbers and believe them to be valid even though what they seek to represent can be shown today as physically impossible.

dines

Alker adds:

“My paper specifically describes how the theory Dines calculated in his paper violates several of the known Laws of Thermodynamics, and therefore does not describe reality.

The greenhouse effect theory we know of today is based on what Richardson had formulated from the Dines paper using unphysical numbers created by Dines. But Dines himself later suggested his numbers were probably unreliable.”

Unfortunately, Dines died in the mid 1920’s and did not inform Richardson of the error. Thereupon, in the late 1940’s, Richardson began working with another world figure in climate science – Jule Charney  as the duo constructed the first world’s first computer climate model. It was then the dodgy Dines numbers infected the works.

Alker, who studied the archives scrupulously for his research reports that there is no published evidence that Richardson understood Dines’s calculation method. And we think he and Charney put the Dines numbers into the world’s first computer model verbatim.

In essence, the ‘theory’ of greenhouse gas warming from the Dines numbers can be shown to start with a misapplication of Planck’s Law, which generates grossly exaggerated ‘up’ and nonexistent ‘down’ radiative emissions figures. Then, layer by layer, part of the downward radiation is added to the layer below, which is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thereby, like a domino effect, this bogus calculation method becomes GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out”) to all computers that run the program. Alker adds:

“What the climate simulations are doing is creating energy layer by layer in the atmosphere that shouldn’t be there (it has no other source than of itself). It is then destroyed layer by layer (it is absorbed and then discarded – in effect destroyed). This is all presented in such a way to give the appearance that energy is being conserved, when it is not being conserved,”

****

[1] Alker D.,‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?’ (October 30, 2016), principia-scientific.org;  http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/GHE-UNIPCC.pdf (accessed online: November 02, 2016)

Read the full paper at principia-scientific.org

 

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    Sorry for the cluster of comments. Problems with my WP account kept them in limbo.

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    My objection to the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation GHE theory loop is a little more basic stemming from my BSME and experience. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 is the basis for my following comments.
    The upwelling is 396 W/m^2 based on inserting 16 C or 289 K in the ideal form of S-B equation. (or 15 C & 288K = 390 W/m^2) This is incorrect. The ideal form of S-B cannot be applied in this manner because surface conditions aren’t ideal.
    396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than the 341 that entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.
    But 102 is reflected by the albedo leaving 240 entering the atmosphere, 156 less than the calculated upwelling.
    But 78 is absorbed the atmosphere leaving 161 making it to the surface, 235 less than the calculated upwelling calculation.
    Applying ideal S-B to the surface conditions is akin to a mistakenly double entered bookkeeping error.
    161 W/m^2 make it to the surface, 0.9 absorbed by earth. Leaving the surface are 17 + 80 + 63 = 160. All the power flux figures are accounted for. Anyway, subtract 63 from 396 = 333 W/m^2 which now flows in a continuous perpetual loop w/o work violating thermo. Also the 333 have no origin violating conservation of energy.
    396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.
    So 333 W/m^2, 97% of what entered ToA, net upwelling are absorbed/trapped/whatever by 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s some pretty serious power flux/heat duty for those 0.04% GHG molecules. They ought to be hotter than a two dollar pistol.
    Except they aren’t hot, the troposphere is cold. Put tropospheric temperatures in ideal S-B and the result is 150 to 250 W/m^2 emitted by those 0.04% GHGs. But that’s if they emit 100% back to the surface which they don’t. The cold GHGs emit in all directions. Let’s say statistically 1/3rd back to surface. That’s 50 to 80 W/m^2. Besides, energy cannot flow from cold to hot without the addition of work.
    And since the troposphere isn’t ideal, emissivity must be applied. Nasif Nahle’s paper says 0.1. Now the emitted amount is 5 to 8 W/m^2. That’ a long way from the requisite 333 W/m^2 downwelling needed to complete this perpetual motion power flux loop.
    And after all of that it doesn’t even matter. If this GHG loop were simply removed from the graphic it makes no difference to the radiative balance at ToA. Where on this graphic is the GHG loop’s influence on the ToA shown?
    This graphic displays the results from reanalysis (i.e. waterboard the data to the desired result) of 8 power flux balances. 7 of the 8, 87.5% show cooling not warming. Trenberth says they must have it wrong because there is nothing wrong with his theory.
    Just thermo fundamentals and common sense, no differential equations required.

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    ACS’ climate change tool box seems to have a couple of sections similar to Dines’ graphic and Willis E’s steel/glass domes/colanders seem based on similar concepts as well.

    My objection to the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation GHE theory loop is a little more basic stemming from my BSME and experience. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 is the basis for my following comments.

    The upwelling is 396 W/m^2 based on inserting 16 C or 289 K in the ideal form of S-B equation. (or 15 C & 288K = 390 W/m^2) This is incorrect. The ideal form of S-B cannot be applied in this manner because surface conditions aren’t ideal.

    396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than the 341 that entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.

    But 102 is reflected by the albedo leaving 240 entering the atmosphere, 156 less than the calculated upwelling.

    But 78 is absorbed the atmosphere leaving 161 making it to the surface, 235 less than the calculated upwelling calculation.

    Applying ideal S-B to the surface conditions is akin to a mistakenly double entered bookkeeping error.

    161 W/m^2 make it to the surface, 0.9 absorbed by earth. Leaving the surface are 17 + 80 + 63 = 160. All the power flux figures are accounted for. Anyway, subtract 63 from 396 = 333 W/m^2 which now flows in a continuous perpetual loop w/o work violating thermo. Also the 333 have no origin violating conservation of energy.

    396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.

    So 333 W/m^2, 97% of what entered ToA, net upwelling are absorbed/trapped/whatever by 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s some pretty serious power flux/heat duty for those 0.04% GHG molecules. They ought to be hotter than a two dollar pistol.

    Except they aren’t hot, the troposphere is cold. Put tropospheric temperatures in ideal S-B and the result is 150 to 250 W/m^2 emitted by those 0.04% GHGs. But that’s if they emit 100% back to the surface which they don’t. The cold GHGs emit in all directions. Let’s say statistically 1/3rd back to surface. That’s 50 to 80 W/m^2. Besides, energy cannot flow from cold to hot without the addition of work.

    And since the troposphere isn’t ideal, emissivity must be applied. Nasif Nahle’s paper says 0.1. Now the emitted amount is 5 to 8 W/m^2. That’ a long way from the requisite 333 W/m^2 downwelling needed to complete this perpetual motion power flux loop.

    And after all of that it doesn’t even matter. If this GHG loop were simply removed from the graphic it makes no difference to the radiative balance at ToA. Where on this graphic is the GHG loop’s influence on the ToA shown?
    This graphic displays the results from reanalysis (i.e. waterboard the data to the desired result) of 8 power flux balances. 7 of the 8, 87.5% show cooling not warming. Trenberth says they must have it wrong because there is nothing wrong with his theory.

    Just thermo fundamentals and common sense, no differential equations required.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    This paper does not cover the weak input of 240W/m2 which is due to poor thinking about reality. The theory assumes 24/7 sunlight, ie. no day/night cycles, but reality has 12 hours of input only. This goves the correct input foe average temps. so negating the GHE.

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      John, one of the main points the paper makes is that in the Dines model each layer of the atmosphere is THE energy source, NOT the sun, which is omitted in his table, nor the earth, as the excel model proves.

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        That is an important point, thanks Derek. Have added your comment to the article in bold above. Many thanks!

        • Avatar

          Derek Alker

          |

          Thank you John. It is a very important part of the whole table and “theory” as Dines presented / explained it. What he presented was NOT a single heat flow as it was purported to be. The “flow” stops and starts again in each atmospheric layer. Total bunkum, when one realised what is actually presented as being calculated. The energy absorbed per layer does not determine the temperature of the atmospheric layer.

      • Avatar

        John Marshall

        |

        If you are going to criticise a theory you must cover all the errors not just those violations of the laws of thermodynamics. The GHE theory is total rubbish.

        • Avatar

          nickreality65

          |

          My objection to the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation GHE theory loop is a little more basic stemming from my BSME and experience. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 is the basis for my following comments.

          The upwelling is 396 W/m^2 based on inserting 16 C or 289 K in the ideal form of S-B equation. (or 15 C & 288K = 390 W/m^2) This is incorrect. The ideal form of S-B cannot be applied in this manner because surface conditions aren’t ideal.

          396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than the 341 that entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.

          But 102 is reflected by the albedo leaving 240 entering the atmosphere, 156 less than the calculated upwelling.

          But 78 is absorbed the atmosphere leaving 161 making it to the surface, 235 less than the calculated upwelling calculation.

          Applying ideal S-B to the surface conditions is akin to a mistakenly double entered bookkeeping error.

          161 W/m^2 make it to the surface, 0.9 absorbed by earth. Leaving the surface are 17 + 80 + 63 = 160. All the power flux figures are accounted for. Anyway, subtract 63 from 396 = 333 W/m^2 which now flows in a continuous perpetual loop w/o work violating thermo. Also the 333 have no origin violating conservation of energy.

          396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than entered ToA. 55 W/m^2 created out of a calculation and violating conservation of energy should have been the first clue that something was wrong.

          So 333 W/m^2, 97% of what entered ToA, net upwelling are absorbed/trapped/whatever by 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s some pretty serious power flux/heat duty for those 0.04% GHG molecules. They ought to be hotter than a two dollar pistol.

          Except they aren’t hot, the troposphere is cold. Put tropospheric temperatures in ideal S-B and the result is 150 to 250 W/m^2 emitted by those 0.04% GHGs. But that’s if they emit 100% back to the surface which they don’t. The cold GHGs emit in all directions. Let’s say statistically 1/3rd back to surface. That’s 50 to 80 W/m^2. Besides, energy cannot flow from cold to hot without the addition of work.

          And since the troposphere isn’t ideal, emissivity must be applied. Nasif Nahle’s paper says 0.1. Now the emitted amount is 5 to 8 W/m^2. That’ a long way from the requisite 333 W/m^2 downwelling needed to complete this perpetual motion power flux loop.

          And after all of that it doesn’t even matter. If this GHG loop were simply removed from the graphic it makes no difference to the radiative balance at ToA. Where on this graphic is the GHG loop’s influence on the ToA shown?
          This graphic displays the results from reanalysis (i.e. waterboard the data to the desired result) of 8 power flux balances. 7 of the 8, 87.5% show cooling not warming. Trenberth says they must have it wrong because there is nothing wrong with his theory.

          Just thermo fundamentals and common sense, no differential equations required.

  • Avatar

    Ronald Chappell

    |

    We’ve all known for years that the back radiation heating concept was bogus physics. If the ‘science’ community who have been riding this dead horse is wise, they will take this opportunity to blame the Lewis Fry Richardson paper for their error and quietly sleaze out of the entire mess.

    • Avatar

      John Marshall

      |

      That would be a result Ronald, but can you see it happening?

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Haven’t yet read Derek’s paper but one thing struck me immediateli I saw the Dines’ model and that is apparently Trenberth et al use the same model ???

    From the latest Trenberth et al model using Dines’ notations :-

    A = 341
    B = 161
    C = 78
    D = 102 = 79 + 23 – reflected by atmosphere + surface
    E = 333 – M ?
    F = 199
    G = 396
    H = 356
    K = 40
    L = 97
    M = ?

    From Dines

    Ground is heated by B + E + M = 300 + 340 + 60 = 700

    Ground radiates – L + G = 700

    Air heated by = C + H + L = 620

    Air radiates – E + F = 620

    From Trenberth

    Ground is heated by 161 + 333 = 494

    Ground radiates – 396 +80 +17 = 493

    Air heated by = 78 + 97 + 356 = 531

    Air radiates – 199 + 333 = 532

    Are we really in Kindergarten ?

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      Hello Rosco. Dines LFR used different units (amount) hence I did not make number comparisons. But, the proportions are very similar, allowing for the fact Dines stated his table DID NOT include sunshine. Yet, he used 705 in the table for surface emission… My previous What is man made global warming PowerPoint presentation describes how the models, the GEBs, the energy flow, and the heat versions are ALL the same “theory”.

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        Hi Derek

        I was simply highlighting how everything in both models added up to a perfect balance.

        Obviously this is stupidity in the extreme when modeling a chaotic system where we don’t even know all the variables. As dumb as believing it is viable to calculate and report temperatures to 1/100th of a degree precision whilst the errors are +/- 1/10 th of a degree.

Comments are closed