Climategate 2.0: ‘All models wrong’

You gotta love Phil Jone’s continued candidness.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the University of East Anglia’s Jones comments on the climate models:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

Connoisseurs of Climategate 1.0 will remember that asa result of that scandal, Jones was forced to acknowledge that there’s been no global warming since 1995.

Read Climategate 2.0.

3 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: ‘All models wrong’”

  1. Doug you don’t know what your talking about.

    In light of the new evidence from the 5000 new emails, the subsequent whitewashes conducted to cover-up AGW fraud after the first email release are now legally void.

    The explosive implications of this second release have yet to sink in but make no mistake, AGW fraud is all over bar the shouting.

    The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis has been falsified and shown to be a mythical concept that cannot be observed in nature, existing only in computer models where it is generated by the trick of deliberately under estimating “convective parameterisation”.

    Thus if there is no real “greenhouse effect” then there is no “greenhouse gases”.

    To quote Phil Jones of the CRU from the emails No. 4443 “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds”.

    Note that convection of warm moist air produces “middle and low level clouds”.

    Also note that a greenhouse works by inhibiting convection.

    Therefore to produce a “greenhouse effect” in a climate model, all that is required is to underestimate the parameter of convection.

    Not only will this cause the model to exhibit elevated atmospheric temperatures but it will also reduce “middle and low level clouds”.

    Thus the only place that the “greenhouse effect” actually exists is in the erroneous computer models.

    Yet real world evidence in the form of radiosonde data, collected at thousands of locations around the world every day, provide the empirical evidence that the so called “greenhouse effect” is as elusive as fairies at the bottom of your garden.

    If the “greenhouse effect” were real, the radiosonde data would be the only place where such an effect could be empirically observed, but the fact is, it is nowhere to be seen. Just like the fairies at the bottom of the garden, the “greenhouse effect” is a pure myth.

  2. The models are wrong because GHG molecules can have a cooling effect which probably wipes out the warming effect. This does not imply that it cools – ie that the net effect is necessarily cooling.

    All air molecules acquire thermal energy when they collide with a warmer land or ocean surface. This is in addition to energy that is radiated from the surface. The warm air rises and cool air moves in to get warmed and rise. So the process is a one way pumping of thermal energy into the atmosphere.

    Some people think that the warmed oxygen and nitrogen molecules somehow cool by swapping energy between themselves by diffusion. Indeed they do swap energy, but they don’t destroy it. It is only when they happen to collide with GHG molecules (including 1% to 4% water vapour) that the energy has a chance to be radiated away, just like the additional energy which these molecules also capture from the IR radiation.

    About half the radiated energy goes to space. Hence the GHG molecules also have a cooling effect.

  3. From what I read, in the initial model trials of around three dozen computer models, only one consistently predicted global warming, several consistently predicted global cooling, the rest kept changing their minds back and forth. Useless. But then we all figured out this was a scam years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.