Should We Trust our Government’s Computer Climate Models?
image source: psypost.org
This article contains an extensive collection of links on the subject of computer climate models, useful for readers’ future reference.
The first thing to know about general circulation models/ global climate models (GCMs) is that they’re all government products, created by a small closed clique of govt.-funded lifers controlled by the globalists centered in the U.N.
The UN’s politician-run Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) is an octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians, so no wonder they all closely track each other while all being wrong, with all 103 official models being off by over 2 sigma in the warming direction.
No surprise, they all try to reduce the gigantic atmosphere to a grid of elements, often 100,000, and lamely try to use supercomputers to advance the elements in time via patchwork physics.
Some models are based on parameterization not equations because the physical phenomena take place in a smaller volume than the elements, which brings up the question of how they initialize all the elements, namely, by taking a small motley collection of data points and interpolating.
Too bad, they all buy the carbon dioxide (CO2( anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax, with subroutines that automatically throw the models off in the direction of global warming, causing them to overestimate it and diverge from reality.
But that doesn’t bother the IPCC, but rather pleases it so that the climate agitprop octopus can go to work with climate alarmist stories to make the cash registers ring. It’s pure GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.
Oops, there’s one that doesn’t track the others because it discounts the fake warming effect of CO2, and it comes from Moscow.
In short, climate modelers aren’t climate scientists, they’re overpaid gamers.
In 2017 American climatologist Judith A. Curry (photo, right) published the report “Climate Models for the Layman”, concluding that global climate models (GCMs) are “not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems” for the reasons that:
“GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science”;
“There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system”;
“There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural”;
“There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide”;
“The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.”
Of course the IPCC community tries to demonize Curry along with all others who tell truth to power, but that’s their problem, since they’ve been destroying their credibility by their own closed-minded bigoted intolerant tactics.
Judith Curry confuses laypeople about climate models
‘Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s Take On Climate Change
The basic reason that IPCC-backed GCMs are always wrong is their attempt to push the hoax that atmospheric CO2 doesn’t just help the rest of the atmosphere cool the Earth’s surface after the Sun heats it, but somehow sends the heat back down and actually heats it up, in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here’s a quote straight from NASA’s Web site:
“The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average – more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called ‘back radiation’) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the ‘extra’ (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.” – NASA Earth Observator Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget (Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget)
Any so-called climate scientist who doesn’t disavow this moose hockey isn’t fit to shine shoes in a subway, and should give their degrees back and find another more useful career like pipefitting or hairstyling. Yet the fake field of “climate science” is going gangbusters, hitching its wagon to IPCC’s star as it rakes in billions and has its sights set on trillions.
No surprise, since it’s pushing a blatant scientific hoax the IPCC has long had a stranglehold on academia and academic journals, closing off outside input in their cozy kept world of true believers in so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW), whose incomes are under IPCC control.
It’s pure corruption of science for political motives with the goal of foisting world govt., as proved by the way they jump to use the models to predict climate Armageddon way out decades ahead even though they have been patched over and over just to keep up with the past, worse than models of the stock market.
The only way to make progress now would be to throw all the models out and start over with new basic principles, and keep Marxism and its social justice out of it.
Science’s Untold Scandal: Professional Societies’ Sell Out on Climate Change | PSI Intl
The real skinny on today’s climate models is that due to the influence of the IPCC, funding for climate scientists has ballooned into the ballions, er, billions a year.
Since there is no money in real climate research, which takes years sometimes, to get their piece of the pie now every climate scientist finds it easier to model some piece of the climate with a computer program, which doesn’t have to produce any real information but pays well per hour.
On top of that, if they can get more powerful computers authorized to run their models, they can hope for pay increases. And what’s really nice is that no matter how far off the models are, they never lose their jobs and just keep getting treated like sacred cows.
The great failure of the climate models
Can Climate Modelers Be Serious?
IPCC Climate Modeling Opens Door To ‘Fake Conclusions’ | PSI Intl
Computer modelling of future climate | PSI Intl
New Climate Models: Even More Wrong | PSI Intl
Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years
Mistakes made by the Consensus
Updated Analysis Shows Climate Models Continue to Predict Too Much Warming
CMIP5 Model Atmospheric Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations
It’s Time To Move Beyond The Toy Models that Guide Climate Policy
Computer models of global warming proven wrong
The latest generation of climate models is running hotter—here’s why
Paper praising models’ predictions proves they greatly exaggerate
Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)
Putting Climate Change Claims to the Test
GOLDSTEIN: Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change
Global Temperature Increases Are Lower and Slower, Says New Study
After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science! – Fabius Maximus website
Climate Change Prediction Fail?
Climate change odds much worse than thought
Climate Change That Ignores History
German Environmental Cofounder Calls Climate Movement Hysterical, Overhyped
NASA: ‘Not Confident’ We Can Model Clouds | PSI Intl
Let Experience be your Guide to Climate Science
New Satellite Data Confirm Real World Temperature Cooler Than Climate Models
Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why
Spotty coverage: Climate models underestimate cooling effect of daily cloud cycle
Top-Level Climate Modeler Spills the Beans on the ‘Nonsense’ of ‘Global Warming Crisis’
Climate models agree things will get bad. Capturing just how bad is tricky
Climate sensitivity in light of the latest energy imbalance evidence
If Climate Scenarios Are Wrong For 2020, Can They Get 2100 Right?
Stop Using Inadequate Climate Models For Policy Making
Understanding The Great Climate Model Scenario Debate | PSI Intl
An obvious solution to the climate policy crisis
NASA, NOAA’s Latest Climate Scare Based On Intentionally Flawed Data | PSI Intl
CLINTEL Manifesto Blasts Climate Scaremongering
Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball Sets the Record Straight on the Deliberate Deception to Demonize CO2
‘There is no climate emergency,’ hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update (https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/model_obs_comp_nov_2019.pdf)
No surprise, on Dec. 4, 2019 just as the U.N. COP25 climate change conference was underway, some IPCC cage hen scientists incl. Zeke Hausfather of UCB, Henri Francois Drake and Tristan Abbott of MIT, and Gavin A. Schmidt of NASA Goddard Inst. for Space Studies announced their new paper “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections”, claiming that the fox is guarding the hen house, er, the people who spent their careers making up computer climate models (CCMs) on the govt. dime have retrospectively cleared them of all errors. They give themselves away with the soundbyte:
“There are two basic factors that contribute to the accuracy of a model’s projections. The first is physics – how various biophysical systems like the ocean and atmosphere respond to external radiative “forcings” like carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That’s the stuff we expect climate scientists to get right.”
Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s
There Is NO Climate Emergency!
Climatic Effects of Manmade Carbon Dioxide | PSI Intl
Why Do People Want to Refute Climate Change?
Skip Reith’s answer to How can a smart person like Ben Shapiro not believe in climate change?
Read my Quora articles to go deeper into the facts:
TL Winslow’s answer to How much does the Sun contribute to global warming?
TL Winslow’s answer to Do any of you feel climate change isn’t real? Why?
Learn how to prove that the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a fake physics scientific hoax with ulterior political motives by reading my free online essay:
TLW’s Two Cents Worth on Climate Change
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Anonymous-Academic
| #
The models are all wrong because they add radiation from the atmosphere to solar radiation and then use the sum in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine surface temperatures. Professor Claes Johnson proved that cannot be done years ago. There is no published experiment anywhere that supports such a contention. It would violate the laws of physics and no physics text says it can be done.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I would venture all climate models are wildly inaccurate, with the exception of the Russian INM ones, which mirror the observed temperatures, therefore they are accurate. When we cannot forecast the weather even a few days in advance, trusting climate models that predict 50 or a hundred years into the future is in my view gross stupidity.
Reply
Barry
| #
Anyone who looks at climate change objectively would have to include the natural variability to at least some degree. If you are only going to use a single driver of the temp.(co2) you can only get erroneous results. To say that co2 is the only driver of the climate is like saying as long as there’s sand it’s a beach. The world would be covered in beaches if this were true,garbage in garbage out.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Three answers to “Should We Trust our Government’s Computer Climate Models?”:
1) No
2) GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out.
3) None of the climate models have been verified or validated. Until such time that they are then read point 2 again.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply