"Raymond Arritt" wrote in message
news:AULLe.25762$084.24826@attbi_s22...
Alastair McDonald wrote:
The point that I am making is that the models are wrong, but the
scientists are not willing to face that fact, perhaps because it they do,
they will have egg on their faces in a big way!

To the contrary we're very, very aware that the models are wrong.
That's why we spend so much effort on model development and verification.

The models always will be wrong in a formal sense but they are
continually improving. I don't remember who originally said "All models
are wrong, but some models are useful." It's one of my favorite quotes.

My favourite quote is "All animals are equal, but some animals are more
equal than others" George Orwell "Animal Farm." It is like saying all men
can be President of the USA, so long as you have $100, 000,000, or anyone
can get published in Nature so long as you have FRS after your name. It is
even like saying "all scientists are not willing to face the facts" then
excluding
Raymond Pierrehumbert who wrote: "... something is wrong with the slab
atmosphere model." See
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/geo232/Notes.pdf page 24.

Anyway enough of this hand waving. It is not that the models are inherently
inferior to actuality. They would not be models if they were exactly the
same.
The problem is that even the GCMs use the slab model and Schwarzschild's
equation to calculate the effects of radiation. All is explained in my paper
which I have put up on the web at;
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm with a PDF version at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.pdf

I'll post another message in a new thread where comments will be welcome.

Cheers, Alastair.