Well done exposure of the weak underbelly of the IPCC GCMs.

Regarding: “The model presented by Hammer accepts most of the Keihl/Trenberth absurdities, so is likely to be equally unsuccessful.”

It is my understanding that Hammer “accepts” the K/T absurdities because he is commenting on problems with the use of the IPCC’s GCM based on the K/T model. In the sense that one approaches the issue from the position, “Assuming the K/T model appropriate for the IPCC’s GCM, here are some issues that have not been properly considered.” (that is not a direct quote of anyone, merely my understanding of an avenue that led Hammer to perform his analysis as he has)

I do not mean to speak for Hammer, I’m just responding based on my understanding of why he approached the topic as he has.

Of course, most reasonable people recognize that IPCC’s work is rife with convenient assumptions.

I believe Hammer is trying to make those assumptions somewhat less convenient.

Your observations do the same, though by a different approach.

Regards

Every one of these assumptions is ridiculous.

The earth is not flat, it is almost spherical and it rotates on its axis and around the sun.

The sun only shines in the daytime, and is variable then, not only with time of day, latitude and nature of the part receiving it, but also depending on the presence of clouds and aerosols.

The temperature of the earth is highly variable in time and place. Details of these quantities are almost unknown and no relaible “average” can presently be obtained. To calculate “radiation” from temperature you have to use a non-linear equation (Stefan/Boltzmann) which would have to integrate individual observations. It could not be calculated from any “average”

No part of the earth is ever in equilibrium and under no circumstances does any part absorb the same energy that it emits. Generally, energy is absorbed in the daytime and emitted at night and there is no reason why the two should be equal. Indeed there is ample evidence from climatology and geology for temperature fluctuations, some of which are cyclic, of any length. Some of these are connected with changes in the earth’s or sun’s orbit, some with ocean oscillations, some with volc anoes.

Such an absurd model as Keihl/Trenberth is unlikely to be successful.. Such an oversimplified model has no use in practical weather forecasting. Also it has never successfully forecast any future weather event.

Attempts to simulate past climate data have also been unsuccessful, even when they have involved major “adjustment” of the many uncertain parameters and “parametirizations” of the models.

The model presented by Hammer accepts most of the Keihl/Trenberth absurdities, so is likely to be equally unsuccessful.

Human emissions of greenhouse gases must undoubtedly have some effect on the climate,. but such an effect has yet to b e identified, so it is unlikely to be of much consequence

Good grief, they can be called ‘greenhouse’ gases in the sense that the cause the climate to get warmer. It’s just a name, and an old one at that. Electons really should be called positive charge, not negative, since they are the thing that actually consists of the current, and they flow from negative to postive using the existing convention. It doesn’t really matter, everything still works, it’s just an historical anomoly.

Convection and conduction just move energy around within the earth’s atmosphere, they don’t figure so significantly in the dispersal of radiation to space.

“But no-one ever said that GHGs literally work by blocking convection.”

Then you can not call them “greenhouse” gases.The atmopshere is not one either.Since convection and conduction processes are prominent.

Greenhouses warm up BECAUSE convection is blocked.CO2 does not block convection.Therefore it is not a “greenhouse” gas.

LOL

But no-one ever said that GHGs literally work by blocking convection.

More proof of your total lack of comprehension. They quote it as evidence that there has been awareness that greenhouses do not work by blocking IR but by preventing convection for at least a hundred years. Of course there is nothing remarkable about an experiment that was cutting edge 100 years ago is high school standard stuff today.