No, jopo. I and others pointed to your misunderstandings on black body equivalent temperature. We also raised eyebrows about your tenuously related claim that models had insufficient solar energy and that greenhouse gas back radiation greenhouse effects were made up to compensate for that. I specifically pointed to a paper that shows your flat earth argument about the cause of that was totally false.
---
And just to point out that you are now emphasising diurnal and tropical formation of weather patterns. Climate models are designed to model changes in climate over long periods of time for varying greenhouse gas changes. For that they include the relevant physics and have proved accurate. Model simplifications that have been made for computational efficiency don't affect findings significantly. And one example of that is the paper I posted which showed that 2D vs spherical atmospheric models don't significantly affect solar radiation modelling.
If you want to argue weather formation, as you are now, then you are talking about short run global circulation models that can model greater spatial resolution and more detailed spatial initial conditions. But you can only model that detail with shorter model runs. And you need to deal with chaotic variability.
You have confused the relationship between black body equivalent temperature of the earth and the actual surface temperatures that differ (from black body temperatures) primarily due to greenhouse effects and other effects.
And you also appear to be confusing weather and climate. If we want to model changes due to climate change on weather pattern formation, ocean circulation pattern and the like, you need more sophisticated modelling. Scientists have developed that over the last 20 years to a significant degree.
