UN IPCC Computer Models Shown to Contain Mathematical Errors
Derek Alker’s paper, Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis? presents a fundamental challenge to the scientific basis of the greenhouse effect theory as embedded in UN IPCC computer climate models.
For readers skeptical of mainstream climate science, this paper offers a detailed technical argument that the greenhouse effect “theory” is not a valid physical theory at all, but rather a failed hypothesis built upon mathematical errors, violations of fundamental thermodynamic laws, and the creation and destruction of energy within computer models.
The Historical Argument: Tracing the Origins
Alker begins by asking who is the “father” of greenhouse effect theory. While Balfour Stewart’s 1871 work is often cited, Alker argues that the actual mathematical method used in climate models today can be traced to W.H. Dines’ 1917 and 1920 papers on atmospheric radiation, which were incorporated by Lewis Fry Richardson into his 1922 climate model—the acknowledged forefather of all modern computer climate models.
This historical tracing is significant because Alker contends that the original method has never been changed or replaced, meaning modern climate models are still calculating from the same flawed basis established over a century ago.
The Core Scientific Objections
1. Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The paper‘s central argument is that the radiation calculations in Dines’ 1920 table (and by extension, all modern climate models) repeatedly violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Alker states this law simply as: “cooler (or the same) cannot heat (or add energy to) hotter (or the same).”
In the Dines model, each atmospheric layer absorbs radiation from the cooler layer above it and adds this energy to its own, which Alker argues is “cooler heating hotter”—a physical impossibility. This violation occurs at every layer in the downward radiation calculation, which Alker says invalidates the entire “theory.”
2. Creation and Destruction of Energy
Alker’s analysis of Dines’ 1920 Table 1 reveals what he considers a glaring inconsistency: the system has an input of 705 units at the base but outputs of 353 (to space) plus 586 (back to Earth’s surface), totaling 939. This means 234 units of energy have “appeared from nowhere”—energy is being created by the mathematical method itself.
Furthermore, Alker argues that each layer absorbs energy but then emits only according to its observed temperature, discarding the absorbed energy entirely. This means energy is simultaneously being created (through emissions based on fixed temperatures) and destroyed (through discarded absorption) within the model.
3. Misapplication of Planck’s Law
The paper contends that the nT^4 column in Dines’ table misapplies Planck’s Law of Emission. Planck’s Law assumes a surface is emitting to space, but in the atmosphere, surfaces emit to other surfaces. The correct application would calculate only the net difference between emissions from hotter and cooler surfaces. This would result in “far lower figures for upward radiation per layer and no figures at all for downward radiation”—meaning if Planck’s Law were applied correctly, there would be no greenhouse effect theory at all.
4. The “n” Number Problem
Alker identifies several logical inconsistencies with the use of the “n” number in Dines’ calculations:
-
Each layer is treated as a perfect black body, which is physically unrealistic
-
The term “1-n” is used with two different meanings in the same table (lateral emission vs. transmission)
-
The calculation method gives the appearance of conserving energy while actually creating and destroying it
5. The Surface Temperature/Emission Paradox
In Dines’ 1917 paper, the Earth’s surface at 288K emits 500 units. In the 1920 paper, a cooler surface at 283K emits 705 units—a physical impossibility, since cooler objects must emit less. Alker shows that Dines changed Stefan’s constant between papers without physical justification, effectively fudging the numbers to make the model produce the desired result.
The Model’s Fatal Flaw
Alker’s most damning demonstration comes from his Excel reconstruction of the Dines model. He shows that:
-
The terrestrial input can be set to zero, yet atmospheric back radiation to Earth’s surface remains unchanged
-
Each layer’s emissions are based on fixed “observational values” rather than being calculated from absorbed energy
-
The model cannot actually model energy flow—it simply inserts predetermined values that give the appearance of a physical process
In other words, the model isn’t calculating anything physical; it’s a mathematical construct that produces predetermined results regardless of actual energy inputs.
Why This Matters for Climate Skeptics
For readers skeptical of greenhouse gas theory, Alker’s paper offers several compelling points:
-
A fundamental flaw at the foundation: If the original method is indeed flawed, and if modern models have never corrected this flaw, then all climate projections based on these models are built on sand.
-
The appearance of conservation: The models are constructed to give the appearance of conserving energy while actually violating conservation—a sophisticated deception that has gone unchallenged for decades.
-
The “radiative obsession” critique: Alker argues that considering only radiation ignores the many other processes (water vapor, phase changes, convection) that add and subtract energy from atmospheric layers. The greenhouse effect “theory” is thus a gross oversimplification that invalidates itself.
-
A call to return to physical meteorology: Alker suggests returning to the physical approach of Vilhelm Bjerknes and the Bergen School of Meteorology—approaches that remain the basis of modern meteorology but which have been superseded by computer modeling in climate science.
Conclusion
Alker’s paper presents a technically detailed case that the greenhouse effect theory, as embedded in computer climate models, is not a physical theory at all. It is, in his words, a “failed hypothesis” based on misapplied physics, violations of thermodynamic laws, and mathematical methods that create and destroy energy while giving the appearance of conservation.
For skeptics of mainstream climate science, this paper provides a sophisticated scientific argument that challenges the very foundation of climate modeling. It suggests that the climate debate is not merely about the magnitude of warming or the role of CO2, but about whether the basic theoretical framework of the greenhouse effect is physically valid at all. If Alker is correct, the entire edifice of climate modeling—and the dire projections based upon it—rests on a century-old mathematical error that has never been corrected.
The paper calls for a return to physical, observation-based meteorology and a rejection of computer models that, in Alker’s view, cannot possibly describe physical reality because they violate the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Reference: https://principia-scientific.com/publications/Alker-GHE-UNPCC.pdf