Okay, a video with a bold claim:
The claim is that models of the Earth's atmosphere ALL rely on taking the total sunlight that falls onto the earth over a 24-hour period, and averaging it out over the 24 hours. That is, treating the system as though a constant, steady amount of light is falling onto the whole surface of the earth throughout the 24 hours. When it reality there is a rise and fall of impinging sunlight over the hours of the day. If this is really true, that is, if this approximation is really used (rather than it being say a simplification to make the principles easier for the layman to grasp), then it seems to me to be a fatal blow to all climate change models.
You might think "Averages, schmaverages" but it's an incredibly important approximation.
Why? Well, it's a bit like saying "Here is this recipe for a cake: it says cook in the oven for 2 hours at 300 degrees. But heck, I think I'll cook it for one hour at 200 degrees and another at 400 degrees - same average after all." ** Would the cakes be the same?
It seems scarcely credible that such a howler is really built into all climate change models, but I suppose it's possible that an early worker in the field thought that that approximation would do the the time being, and it never got updated. Perhaps it was created in the 60's, and the appropriate mathematical treatments (finite-element analysis perhaps?) weren't available on computers at the time. Or something.
Anyway... Comments very welcome, please!
** Yes, I know, the example should probably be in degrees Kelvin, but you know what I mean.