That's alright, jopo. I get a strong sense you yourself are...

  1. 10,503 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 199
    That's alright, jopo. I get a strong sense you yourself are dissolving.
    Your argument has been that the models don't match reality, in that you believe - for reasons that you don't explain - that they don't show sufficient solar strength to create tropospheric weather. And you've argued that's because they are flat earth models.
    I've posted a paper that analyses the impact of that modelling simplification. And I have pointed to the limitations that causes. You know, transparency of the science and all that.
    And it shows that the modelling simplication slightly but consistently increases the solar levels by around 1%. Not decreases, but increases. And that effect is consistent over time so does not affect trends.

    Yet you are bold and caps and red texting that it shows you are right about the models not showing enough sun. As if it is a major problem. It's not. You are backwards on the effect of this and exaggerating grossly.
    The models do a good job representing what is going on and predicting the observed warming. They aren't perfect, and scientists are aware of the effect of modelling simplifications. But as usual you are way over the top and back to front on this.
    Last edited by mjp2: 26/02/20
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.