Climate Models “Thoroughly Flawed”
By Paul Homewood
London, 29 June — The world’s climate policies are based on computer simulations of the atmosphere that are thoroughly flawed. That’s the conclusion of a new paper published by Net Zero Watch.
The paper, by US climate writer Willis Eschenbach, describes the results of a review of the computer code inside NASA’s Model E climate simulation. It shows that, far from being based on basic physics, in many places the model incorporates crude corrections to make the output look vaguely reasonable.
Eschenbach says:
"It’s clear that in many places the physics in the computer code is simply wrong and gives ludicrous output. But instead of fixing it, NASA scientists have simply put crude corrections to hide the problem. This destroys the credibility of NASA’s predictions."
Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch director said:
"We know from the Covid debacle that computer models are no basis for public policy. It would be a pity if politicians refuse to learn that lesson and allow further damage to be inflicted on the public."
Eschenbach’s paper is available for download here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No Schmitt Sherlock!
Indeed, we’ve know this for years and years.
It should not require some detailed analysis or review to know that climate models can never accurately forecast the Earth’s unpredictable natural variability such as the ENSO, the jet streams and volcanic activity.
In addition… “There are areas that include large areas of the Southern Oceans, parts of the Antarctic, the central Arctic, central Greenland etc. To get values for these areas you have to make estimates and these introduce errors. Lapse rate estimates have to be used for mountainous regions such as Tibet and Greenland.”
Not if you use the satellite data rather than the legacy terrestrial data, which is not that good in the land where climate is not controlled, and manipulated to adjust its problems, and even worse and mostly interpolated and measuring surface water not atmospheric temperatures in the oceans.
Satellites do it the best, everywhere.
So the third graph is complete made up garbage, and the 1st and 2nd start at the cold nadir of 1979 and thus show insufficient time to be meaningful. If they started in hotter 1932 they’d likely average a flat line. So your point is?
“Satellites do it the best, everywhere.” Yes, but that record only goes back to 1979. There was quite a bit of “climate change” taking place before that, including a lot influenced by the UHI effect. Corrections have to be made for that as well.
“Satellites do it the best, everywhere.”
Satellites don’t get temp data above 60N nor below 60S.
Where do you get this “everywhere” BS?
Nothing like posting utterly fabricated rubbish with great authority to deceive people. Which bar do you post from?
Polar orbiting satellites gather data up to 7.5 deg from the poles, as any fool knows. Sic:
“Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N (70S to 82.5N for channel TLT) are shown in the table below, and include data through March, 2013:”
For more reality for others who want facts, which you clearly aren’t interested in, here’s a link.
https://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/
There are many more such easily available descriptions of reality for those with an interest in understanding the subject before telling other people what they made up without any real thought. Are you a climate scientist? Mixing up geo-stationary with polar orbiters?
Regardless of what satellites do, their coverage and data are that from 1979 forward. That excludes 100 years of data. One doesn’t need to be a “climate scientist” to understand that reality.
I love a trend line that starts with the majority of the data points below the trend. It’s abundantly clear that 1980 to 1995 is trendless. Just using Excel to best fit isn’t a trend
The THREE “ClimateGates” already exposed the fraud long ago, but the politicians ignored them and slapped a D-notice on the only newspaper that actually reported the first ClimateGate.
Or, as the IPCC states in a 2001 “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” because “the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system.” Predictions from climate models have shown that they generally over-predict warming by a factor of about three. They really don’t know clouds at all.
Slightly off-topic, Twitter has banned Willis.
Whatever happened to Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter that was supposed to stop such unfounded suspensions?
The only model that is close to reality is that of our allies against the WEF, Russia.
The Global Warming goals set by the UN in 1992 at Rio, where CO2 was to be blamed for any rise in temperature, and “models” were constructed to give the “correct result”. Of course the warming did not occur so Warming was changed to Climate. Last year the IPCC leaders stated that the environment was never an issue, the previous thrusts were to destroy Capitalism and re-distribute the West’s wealth. The whole notion that humans can have any impact on climate is a preposterous fallacy. However, the eco-science industry feeding at the public bottomless “trough” seems to be doubling down on efforts to justify the hypothesis that the climate can be controlled. Essexgate could be the model for the corrupt pseudo science of today. It is sad that many prestigious institutions have opted to embrace the concept of NetZero to support the political agenda’s to destroy life as we know it. NetZero is a vector used to reach the NeoMarxist goal of the UN and the WEF and all the disciples of this new religion think there can be a different result than those experiments of Stalin, Mao. Pol Pot in this area.
Nice illustrations of the problems from Willis. I had similar fun looking at the code for the Limits to Growth model back in the 1970s. It was considerably smaller than a modern climate model, and only ran to 100 time steps of a year. But still the 4th order Runge-Kutta differential equation solution algorithm used in the DYNAMO language had space to blow up. The model was essentially constructed to produce the desired result. And the data quality for the inputs was distinctly challenged.
In many ways it was the precursor to modern climate modelling which is made to sound so much more scientific, when in reality it is a giant kluge.
IDAU – I got my copy of ‘Limits’ in ’72 and still have it. I wonder what it’s worth now? I so remember the forecasts of oil running out in 1995 (or was it coal – with oil later?).
Possibly oil running out by 1982?
1972: New ice age by 2070, Oil will be gone in 10 years
Dr. S. I. Rasool NASA & Columbia University & Dr. S. H. Schneider backed up by Dr. Gordon F. MacDonald “It may be necessary to stop all use of coal, oil, natural gas and automobile gasoline and switch in the main to nuclear energy
Of course oil has been running out for a long time. I once tried to get back to the start but I couldn’t get beyoond 1862, which was a copy of a previous claim.
This was sparked by the Pennsylvania oil boom in 1859. And that caused John D. Rockefeller into the business, as he thought people were being wasteful on a valuable resource.
So much for so-called ‘state-of-the-art’ climate models. State-of-the-arc seems closer to the truth.
We know this about models:
1. They are relatively crude approximations of poorly understood physical processes.
2. They are fudged to give them the ability to hindcast.
3. They are linear models of non-linear processes.
4. Their starting conditions are always inaccurate.
Any sensible person who uses models therefore understands that they have very little chance of producing accurate forecasts. If you run enough of them enough times you will get some outputs that sort of match reality, but that’s just random.
As you go deeper into the Thread you lose the ability to reply to posts.
It would be much easier if this were also a proper e-mail distribution list so that we could use our e-mail clients instead of only web browsers. Others can do it, subscribe with an e-mail address and post and reply or use a web browser and posts made by those using web browsers still arrive on the mailing list.
>>As you go deeper into the Thread you lose the ability to reply to posts.