Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL "shape issue" pdf.

[Derek]

I have also posted this (or similar) recently in a few places..

I think sceptics are loosing the "shape" argument with modeling BECAUSE they insist on a "flat disc".
Yes, the disc's surface is smooth (because MODTRAN can not handle the physics), and yes the disc is an area equal to the earth's entire surface area, BUT,
the disc is not flat, it is curved.
Later edit - I retract the above statement, as it is now obvious to me that
to date (April 2011) the question of what "shape" is actually modeled still can not be answered.

This way modeling has it's modeled shape at the right distance from the sun, and poles and an equator,
BUT, no seasons, no day, no night. AND a whole load more missing because of what the "physics" of MODTRAN can and can not handle.
Trenberth describes, or rather nearly describes, some of the modeling omissions on the below link,
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010...010a1.html

I have mentioned this curved disc shape a few times in various places recently and to date no one anywhere has responded.
I think it answers all the questions about what is and is not in the models, and explains why the AGW explanations are the way they are.

Illustration/s to be added soon.

AND,
with the emphasis on whether climate models rotate the earth realistically, you may find this movie interesting...
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cl...video.html



oh, and from where they boldly claim,
" The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century. "
http://climateprediction.net/content/modelling-climate
It's like going back to your old primary school many years later....