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

[Derek]

UPDATE - I have received an email from Richard S Courtney, as below.

You ask:
In a message dated 25/03/2011 19:57:47 GMT Standard Time,
Derek@hisemailaddress.com... writes:
This excerpt may help.
" until someone who understands what the models model explains how the models correct for solar radiation received at the earths surface per cell, per time step,
explains to me or us what is modelled then I and all of us are still left guessing at what is actually modelled. "

I have been searching / asking as is my usual manner to no avail,

RSC -
Only the modelers can answer that by releasing their pertinent codes.
If you can get them to do it then many will be grateful.
But, simply, what they say they do is this.

Adopt a forcing at the tropopause provided by the solar flux at each grid point. Then,
determine the solar effect at each grid cell by running the program to iterate until quasi-stability is achieved.

Please note that this procedure must be wrong because if it were right then
each model would provide a correct value for global temperature,
but none of them does (which is why they report anomalies).

I hope this helps.

End of quote.

Boy, does that help, I mean WOW...
1) The models "start" from the top of troposphere and then model DOWN.
The resulting surface temperature is then modelled as radiating UP.
ie, the top of the troposphere is the starting point, NOT the earth's surface.
(Quite handy if you want to add "back radiation" in I suppose...)

2) The "point" system used for power of energy received is "averaged", or rather "averages".
A "nice" way to confuse matters..

If I have understood RSC's comment correctly then it is very enlightening, so,
I have posted it elsewhere to see the response.

Some responses follow, that I will not directly attribute to the person/s, but, the person/s are well known and "respected"..

Firstly a plot given in response.

Update - The source for the given plot has now been given as,
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Physical-Cl...279&sr=8-1
which is copy righted stuff.
Unfortunately I can not see the plot / explanation of it in the free previews of the book either.
Not that that seems to bother Science of Doom, presumably he has the appropriate permission..
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/26/find...k-reviews/
for me however I think it is better for me to delete the image, so I have..


And some comments..
" There is a very full account of what goes into the models in Chapter 8 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007.
Google for IPCC and you can download the Chapter. "

I replied - Really ****, that would appear to be news to many people,
who have obviously already looked there..

In response to RSC's quote of what modellers say they do,
" This is broadly true, but it is very difficult to give a full account in one sentence. "


" In the GCMs the Earth rotates properly and in each grid cell time passes as it really does.
Essentially, the grids are represented by a K/T type arrangement of flux densities that changes with time.
The properties of the grids over the variety of atmospheric and oceanic strata are computed and that part is relatively straightforward.
There are difficulties entering the full physics and there are various parameterizations adopted and
these are one source of disparities between models.

The big problems are associated with how the grids interact with their immediate neighbours,
i.e., the general circulations in the atmosphere and the ocean. "
I have to draw attention to -
" Essentially, the grids are represented by a K/T type arrangement of flux densities that changes with time. "
and,
" The properties of the grids over the variety of atmospheric and oceanic strata are computed and that part is relatively straightforward. "

Which no one will explain, otherwise this discussion would not be ongoing / unanswerable yet....

All in all, the above represents some progress, but not much.
That said, given the explanations so far the models could still be modelling a "shape" that is,
a globe, a double hemisphere, a curved disc, or a flat disc.
The answers to date have not been clear enough to be able to determine which yet, which is "news" (nearer confirmation of what "we" suspected really) in itself.
Furthermore, it means that any ad homs on someone who questions the actual shape of what is modelled are ad homs because,
no one has to date given a clear enough description for us to be able to determine which "shape" is actually modelled.
Plainly K&T type plots do depict a flat disc (374 million miles away from the sun), that much we do know.
Some appear to be dishing out such ad homs to rubbish some people who question what shape is modelled and how,
also it appears that these ad homs are an attempt to undermine the credibility of the CO2 Dragon Slayers book and
authors specifically individually in this case and in the hope it will rub off on the whole.

Simply getting the modellers to release their pertinent codes would put it all to rest.
Elsewhere someone has suggested that,
" Not even in the Climategate mails themselves?
Mind you a 63 MB compressed file takes a while to read everything it contains "