Dr. Nicola Scafetta – Climate Computer Modeling Problems & Distortions

by on March 2, 2011      

in Environment, Science & Technology

Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Dr. Nicola Scafetta is an Assistant Adjunct Professor at Duke University, a co-investigator at the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Lab, and the author of many peer-reviewed research papers. He is also the author of several books on climate change and other scientific topics, including Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues, Disrupted Networks: From Physics to Climate Change, and Fractal & Diffusion Entropy Analysis of Time Series: Theory, concepts, applications and computer codes for studying fractal noises and Levy walk signals.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta offers invaluable insight into the way climate change is studied within the framework of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, and explains how the actual data tells us a very different story. He details the ways in which the sun contributes to both warming and cooling climate cycles, and makes it clear that it has always been this way. Furthermore, he explains why computer modeling doesn’t work, and why climate modeling predictions are so far off the mark. This interview will leave you with an understanding of the complexity involved in measuring climate, the problems inherent in computer modeling, and the role of the sun in climate.

Download papers by Dr. Nicola Scafetta

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Steve Jones March 6, 2011 at 10:56 am

You produce a first class show here Kim. Very eclectic and thought provoking.
I’ve especially enjoyed all the programs you’ve made on the Electric Universe, pole shifts and ice ages etc. The more people that get this well reasoned and critically important information out there the better. You are a major player in doing that.

One minor comment though…

Towards the end of Dr Scafetta’s interview he commented that he believed the planets influence the Sun’s activity on a cyclical basis and that he wanted/needed to do more research into that.

I was surprised that you didn’t comment on the fact that that was EXACTLY the basis of Jim Witt’s apparently very successful forecasting system, whom you’d only interviewed a few weeks before (Feb 13th).
These two gentlemen should be talking 😉
Anyhow, keep up the excellent work!

Steve

Reply

2 Nick Schroeder February 3, 2021 at 4:00 pm

The Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory three-legged stool toppled – together with all the pseudo-scientific, confirmation bias, correlation = cause, climate change, Gorebal warming rubbish stacked on top.

Leg 1: By reflecting away 30% +/- of the incoming solar radiation the albedo, which could not/would not exist without the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler not warmer much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield. Remove the atmosphere and the albedo goes with it, i.e. no water vapor or clouds, no snow or ice, no vegetation, no oceans, the earth becomes a barren, airless, celestial rock. And much like the moon, an albedo of 10% with 20% more incoming kJ/h, hot^3 lit side, cold^3 dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly admit this scenario refuting the RGHE claim that the naked earth would become a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

Leg 2: The upwelling “trapped” “absorbed” “delayed” and the downwelling “back” radiated energy of the GHG loop must first be removed from the terrestrial system. Removing this “extra” energy would short-change & disrupt the balance at ToA so it must be balanced by some kind of “extra” upwelling energy. LoT absolutely, positively, emphatically PROHIBITS “trapped” and/or “extra” energy.

Leg 3: The “extra” upwelling LWIR comes from an assumption that the earth’s surface radiates as an ideal black body which, by THEORETICAL definition, with unitary emissivity absorbs ALL and emits ALL. However, because of the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules, radiation becomes accountable only for (ALL – non radiative) which renders “extra” upwelling LWIR impossible. Emissivity is not 1.0 or .95 but (ALL – non-radiative)/ALL. In the case of the ubiquitous K-T power flux balance graphic: theoretical ε=63/396=0.16 or per the actual balance ε=63/160=0.39. There is no “extra” upwelling LWIR, no “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” and “back” radiate and no downwelling LWIR.

The alleged up/down welling measurements are the result of incorrectly applied instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy was stray currents in the apparatus.

As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K

Leg 1 + Leg 2 + Leg 3 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW

Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
Colorado Springs, CO
719 651 7383

Reply

Leave a Comment