astromet, I'm interested in your opinion as if the Gerlich paper is valid, it is important that its conclusions are as clear as possible.
What value do you think was added to the paper by deriving effective temperatures from first principles by integrating over spherical coordinates. I would have assumed that in a scientific paper the straightforwardness of the calculation would have negated the need to illustrate all the steps of the derivation. Also, wouldn't the point have been made simpler by avoiding derivation of incident radiation at top of atmosphere using solar temperature and Stephan-Boltzmann's equation, particularly when the solar temperature is in effect derived from observed incident radiation.
What do you think? As you are familiar with the paper you will know I am referring to equations 73-83.
Of course the Gerlich Paper is "valid." This is one of the things which is another problem in climate science practiced as ideology:
And that is this - no matter how many times the facts of Physics are shown, the "warmist crowd" within climate and science, and outside of it, comes along and poo poos it all - through ignorance/opinion - as if somehow
that makes the laws of Physics simply disappear in a puff of smoke, never to be seen or heard from again?
I answer your question as Gerlich did:
"It cannot be overemphasized that even if the equations are simplified considerably, one cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals.
This situation will not change in the next 1,000 years regardless of progress made in computer hardware. Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum.
As the extremely simplified one-fluid equations are unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the averaged equations describing the turbulence would be yet more unsolvable, if “unsolvable" had a comparative.
Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature.
But even this is not true: In computer simulations, heat conduction and friction are completely neglected, since they are mathematically described by second order partial derivatives that cannot be
represented on grids with wide meshes."Very clear.And, we are reminded...
"There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity. And for climatologists to believe they've solved them with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have to be corrected afterward by mystical methods — flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, excluding incidental global cooling data by hand — merely perpetuates the greenhouse-inspired climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless statistical applications.
In short, generating statements on CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming from computer simulations lies outside of any science."
I've been taking crap from people on this for years, and proving to them that I can forecast the climate astronomically, because I follow the laws of physics - the condition of the space around the Earth, its orbital variations, the activity and condition of the Sun, the transits of the Moon and the modulating transits of the planets.
The vulgar, that is the ignorant, who come along with their "opinions" and make a mockery of Astrometeorology are not only blind - but stupid as well to believe, or to call it a "pseudo-science."
For it is certainly not - it is Science, and follows the laws of physics, both astrophysical and geophysical which rule our planet.
And this is another point which I have been talking about for years on climate and weather boards, including here on Solar Cycle #24, and that is the problem of these climate scientists and their computer models.
The use of which has wholly infected Meteorology as well, and is one very good reason why they
cannot forecast accurately short-range, very little in the medium-range, and NOT AT ALL in the long-range.
All the snap-shots of computer models ad nausea, and the forecast guessing on weather and the climate. The certainty with which the great majority speak, and pontificate, as if they are qualified to call themselves forecasters.
The field is crowded with them, the static noise so great, that when any astronomic forecaster comes along and beats them hands down forecasting, many whine, cry, ban, shout and scream - but few actually take the time to
learn how they can do the same.
They are too busy with their "products," and their "computer models" but they are not forecasting.
They are not outside viewing, observing, and measuring the actual physical world of climate and weather.
Nor do they watch and monitor conditions in outer space. That is where the Earth lives, and
that is where all of our climate and weather is caused and forced.
Eminent physicist Freeman J. Dyson says:“The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own
models.”
What we have here, that is this lie of AGW with its double-counting of radiant energy, we are reminded again of the truth of physics which prove beyond all doubt, opinion, grandstanding, and lies that:
“The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality.
The CO2-greenhouse effect, however, is a manufactured mirage.
Horrific visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and spreading deserts in North America and Europe are fictitious consequences of a fictitious physical mechanism which
cannot be seen even in computer climate models.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to Physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis.
It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
It is therefore illegitimate to use this fictitious phenomenon to extrapolate predictions as consulting solutions for economics and intergovernmental policy.”
Anyone who desires to learn to forecast the climate and weather, especially long-range, and by astronomic means must follow the solar and planetary laws that rule our system.
The principle is this:
Astrophysical = causes
Geophysical = effectsThis the first rule - "As above, so below."
In doing this, one will discover that it is the cold of space, with its magnetic and kinetic climate variations, powered by the cosmic rays and activity of our Sun; the modulating effects of the Moon and planets in our system, of which the Earth is a member.
These are the causes of our all climate changes and resultant weather on our planet.
For the conventional believer, these
are the causes, and the "missing" forces which are not accounted for by those who try to forecast - but cannot.
These are astrophysical forces and they are real.
They can be seen, measured, and known in advance where these bodies will be at any time in the future, thanks to the astrologer Johannes Kepler - the founder of the laws of planetary motion.
The laws of physics cannot - I repeat -
cannot be altered by humanity at all.
And - humanity is
not the cause of climate change. We cannot change the climate, we cannot change the weather.
All we can do is to forecast in advance using the laws of physics and then prepare for any and all climate changes that are caused and forced astronomically. That is within our power.
Otherwise, remember: "As above, so below..."
