Flat earth - and Piers too!

We interrupt your schedule of cats and rowing for a brief snark at the denialists: courtesy of mt, who clearly ventures where angels fear to tread, we have Newsletter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray: THE FLAT EARTH... The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth's surface is constant. This is abysmal stupidity and ignorance at its septic best: Gray really does believe that this simplified picture is the basis for the climate models. Good grief. Need I say moe, guv?

Well all right. Gray continues... It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output. There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth's surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. This is a not-too-bad description of how GCMs actually operate.

I'm finding it hard to believe that Gray really is this rubbish. There must be something else that he means. Or is Inferno now posting as Gray?

Update: Special bonus snarking: I should read climaterealists more often: I missed an exciting plug for Piers Corbyn. He predicted the volcano. Or something. To be honest I couldn't be bothered to read it all. But is has a nice pic and one of those hand-drawn weather front maps that went out with the ark.

More like this

While doing some poking around online, I came across a website called Project Rho, which tries to provide some science background for science fiction writers who want some degree of technical accuracy in their imaginative work. Generally it looks like they're on the right track. In their section…
This post comes about as an attempt to write down, slowly and carefully, a simple version of the "idealised GHE model". This apparently simple concept causes lots of confusion, though mostly amongst people who want to believe there are fatal flaws at the heart of climate science. Before I go on:…
Last year Inhofe released a list of 400 scientists who disputed mainstream climate science. But as Joe Romm and Andrew Dessler observed, the list was padded with TV weathermen, economists and so on and contained very few actual climate scientists. Now he's back with more of the same in a new list…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.Objection: We all live on a thin crust that floats on a huge ball of molten iron, and at its core, the Earth's temperature is over 5000oC! It's pretty far…

"I'm finding it hard to believe that Gray really is this rubbish."

Tell me about it!

I saw that at MT as well. I couldn't believe what I was reading. I thought it was just snark or some kind of joke. Unfortunately, it was serious. Denialism at its best.

Wow. I mean, just wow! What's just as amazing is the chorus of posters joining in. Take this:

"Models like these show how weak our knowledge is - the hubris involved is STAGGERING, thinking we can predict the end results of changes in inputs and outputs based on such a primitive understanding of insanely complex and inter-related systems that act and re-act in such a myriad of UNKNOWN ways.."

Oh the irony.

Is Gray really this stupid? Really?

He could be right, of course. After all he's an "Expert Reviewer" of the TAR and AR4.

We expect that kind of stuff here in the colonies (our ancestors being the people that were either kicked out of or ran away form all the decent countries), but I thought the Kiwis were comparatively sane.

[You need to register that new name ASAP -W]

By Boris Eyjafjal… (not verified) on 21 Apr 2010 #permalink

Oh there is a very big denial industry here, particularly comming from the agricultural sector which makes up a massive (~25%?) portion of NZ's GHG emmissions. Federated Farmers (the agricultural lobby group) is particularly vociferous as is the far right (ACT) party currently forming part of the government.

Amusingly, there is currently a web advert right in the middle of Gray's nonsense


This is a not-too-bad description of how GCMs actually operate.

It's really quite amazing, isn't it? I was reading that statement of his going "but ... but .. but ...".

It's sad that someone with his educational background and stature can be so friggingly vocally ignorant about something that can be learned by spending about fifteen minutes in the Google.

I've seen the super-computer at NCAR, and must say I'm quite impressed. I hope the old guys who input the "assumptions" didn't fall for the old flat earth bit.

I think when the superintendent comes around they even bring out the machine that goes "ping"!

By thomas hine (not verified) on 22 Apr 2010 #permalink

Yeah, I was looking at the prescription for what was needed and thought, hey Vinnie, that's what GCMs do, but I figured he wanted 2.5'x 7' boxes.

FWIW Eli knows where there are a couple of original Cray X-MPs sitting around decaying.

Having just read some of the latest stuff Curry has been posting around, I have to wonder how she would expect "a reasoned dialogue" might take place over there - or better yet why a reasoned dialog should take place over there.

Oh, man. The Corbyn stuff reads like a Scientology memo or something. I had read JA's posts on Piers, but I never knew how crazy he was.