I received info that the triple threat of Lindzen, Christy and Curry are on an American Physical Society (APS) review committee on Climate Science, Climate Models, and the assertions of the IPCC and their allies.
Nice.
Here is great commentary on the development by a meteorologist of great repute, Chuck Wiese.
Here’s the note from Chuck:
If there is any sense of honesty within the APS Executive Board, they will have to admit there is a serious problem with “climate models”. As a meteorologist who has some understanding of model construct, it was an absurd assumption in my mind that it is OK to run such a model and assume you don’t have to get weather evolution correct, but somehow the energy balance will track accurately through time and give an accurate result, especially since none of the limits in any of the equations are truly satisfied from being parameterized.
Then there is the issue of not getting any answers as to why the founding work in atmospheric radiation done by Elsasser, Goody, Emden and a host of others was set aside without refutation while the work of Arrhenius was dredged back to life that is a gross exaggeration as to the true effect of CO2 in the earth atmospheric system, and never questioned when the results of modeling are so drastically different from what this founding work ever suggested it would be.
I learned ( and still firmly believe ) that CO2 is a GHG of only secondary importance in the earths atmosphere. It is really acting similarly as a proxy to what would otherwise be a larger water vapor optical depth without it. In the presence of a hydrological cycle it should not have an effect on the surface temperature. If anything at all, it would slightly enhance the hydrological cycle because of the increased cooling effect it has on the upper troposphere. We were taught that CO2’s effects are short circuited by the hydrological cycle, and water vapors presence in the troposphere is self-limiting by its own physical and radiative properties.
That gets us to the recent works of Ferenc Miskolczi, whose recent paper I believe leads us to the correct way in which CO2 actually behaves in the earths atmosphere. His paper received no attention by these groups as they all claim he is wrong but yet refuse to prove it or meet with him to allow him to challenge their erroneous conclusions.
And finally, I also believe that money ( the BILLIONS wasted on climate models and the fake hype that surrounds the fraudulent claims of their skill and ability ) that continues to flow into academia like a fire hose geyser from our government that wants to regulate and control energy is the real corrupting entity that is mutually beneficial to both groups that will be difficult to break. But the lack of willingness by these groups to even admit their claims are invalidated scientifically already is now making this arrangement a fraudulent one that should have a punishment behind it if it continues.
The outright lying about what is actually happening with the climate and manipulation of climate data by these groups is appalling and criminal. I have never seen such corruption on a grand scale such as this and could have never imagined that academic institutions would even entertain the thought of engaging in it.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist