I have written amy times about the fudge factors in the climate models that are being use to justify public policies to reduce green house gases, and the development of expensive job killing alternative energy resources.
Now Astrophysicist Joe Postma, in a paper titled The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (July 22, 2011) shows how climate modellers treated Earth like a star ignoring night and day temperature differences. He exposes the fudged equations, the and faux science that props up the man-made global warming scare industry.
John O'Sullivan writes about the paper in a guest post at the Climate Realists, explaining how Postma exposed the illogically fudged computer models.
In clearly written language, Postma shows how a basic equation of radiative physics, and the modelling techniques used for stellar atmospheres, have been applied incorrectly to our earth, and how in actuality, the bottom of the atmosphere is supposed to be warmer than the radiative average of the entire ensemble.
To compensate for these inherent flaws, rather than correcting them, most climatologists have argued for the existence of a radiation-enhancing “greenhouse effect”, a postulate that Postma demonstrates to be devoid of logic and coherent meaning since it contradicts (and even reverses) the laws of physics.
Skeptics hope that Postma’s alternative thermal model will lead to the birth of a new climatology, one that actually follows the laws of physics and properly physical modeling techniques.
We learned from the Climategate e-mails that the climate models were being fudged and now we have a paper that examines the models in more scientific detail. However, our local scientific stalker will not accept the paper's conclusion because it was not peer reviewed and published in one of her approved journals. A copy of the paper is here for your review and examination. Do your own peer review. Does Postma's logic hold up?