‘Climate models™’ are PURE HOKUM,

“Real science recognizes that repeatable measurements to very high accuracy and high resolution are need for good, worthy science, and not averaged means, or approximate guesses.”
– tomOmason

‘Climate models™’ are PURE HOKUM


The key to keeping the UN-IPCC show rolling along is the ‘Climate Models™’.

The climate models are NOT run on basic physics as many cAGW advocates claim, they are run on assumptions and ‘tuned’ parameters. They are run like this for two reasons —

1. The underlying physics is unknown (hows and whys of atmospheric of water — humidity changes, clouds, precipitation, snow and ice volumes and changes — is almost a complete mystery to the modelers, as too is the physics of the driving force(s) of the ocean cycles, and the how/what/why particulates, dust, and VOC change the climate is also very uncertain.)

2. Assumptions are made based on the idea that rising atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet. This assumption has never been validated, it is not evident in the real world.

These ‘climate models™’ are PURE HOKUM, they are a method by which the UN-IPCC assumption that CO2 is detrimental to life on the planet is subjected by confirmation bias, and not honest, objective and disinterested scientists working at honest science.

Real science understand its limitations, real science knows that a theory is only as good as the observation evidence that supports it, real science recognizes it is a flawed processes and that tomorrow new discoveries can overturn what is accepted today. Real science recognizes that repeatable measurements to very high accuracy and high resolution are need for good, worthy science, and not averaged means, or approximate guesses.

Elementary math today may conclude that 2+2=4, only to find later that the due to unknown factors, that the 4 result was only one of many number of loci around which our chaotic climate cycles. And that averaging loosely coupled feedback factors in a chaotic system does not reveal any true meaning or worth.

14 thoughts on “‘Climate models™’ are PURE HOKUM,”

  1. They’re curve-fitting. That’s why they have so many parameters in their ‘models’… the word put in quotes because what they’re using are not models (which attempt to mathematically mimic the underlying processes causing the observed output), they’re curve-fitting their mathematical algorithms to the output without any regard to the underlying processes which caused that output.

    Any futures or stock trader can tell you that curve-fitting on in-series data will invariably fail for out-of-series data, which is why the climate ‘models’ have always invariably failed.

    The only time a curve-fit can accurately model the underlying phenomenon is the exceedingly rare instance that the curve-fit algorithm accidentally models the underlying phenomenon exactly… and it would have to be accidental, given that if the climate scientologists understood the underlying processes, they’d model them, not curve-fit them.

    And given that the climate scientologists are attempting to model a complex, coupled, non-linear and chaotic system with unpredictable and intentionally misunderstood inputs such as solar insolation and cosmic rays, while attempting to advance a political agenda by foisting responsibility for all warming on a single trace molecule, they’ll never be accidentally lucky and happen upon the exact algorithm to model the atmosphere.

    So even in calling their climate models “models”, they are disingenuous. They are not using models, they are using curve-fits.

  2. The definition of science is being changed, even as we speak.

    What you call “real science” defined as starting with observation, where the observation is repeatable, from a collection of observations patterns are noticed and called hypotheses, then the hypotheses are tested against new observations, is being replaced by a definition that starts with models then “scientists” look for evidence to support the models. “Real science” is limited by its methodology to studying only present processes.

    For centuries, proponents of “real science” were content with keeping science within its limits. But there are people who want to make “science” the measure of all things, in other words, a religion. That’s why certain beliefs that are called “science” look and act like religion, e.g. AGW.

    The change over from “real science” to “new science” started in the mid 1800s, but the change was real slow until about 30 years ago when it was pointed out that certain popular theories that are called “science” and even “scientific facts” are not science at all according to “real science”.

    The change over is not complete yet, but far enough that often a person cannot get a job as a “scientist” if he doesn’t agree to certain beliefs that are not “real science”.

  3. Thank you; it’s nice to finally be able to put the proper name to exactly which kind of BS the Warmunists are shoveling at me.

  4. The basis of the AGW models is the assumption that CO2 is a driver of earth temperature. That assumption is false because CO2 follows temperature in the Ice Core data (on all time scales).

    When the planet warms CO2 comes out of solution (ocean water) and atmospheric concentration increases. The same in reverse, colder temperatures sequester CO2 into ocean waters. The ocean sink is gigantic compared to the atmosphere.

    Here’s the kicker, NASA puts up the O=C=O satellite and measured the effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and pray tell what did they find? Increased CO2 cools the planet, which is of course, the exact opposite of the initial assumption.

    When the parallel solar stream of photons reaches the atmosphere CO2 absorb them and then immediately re-emit them in all directions. The net effect is that less solar photons reach the planet surface, thus cooling.

    Now if you take a look at the real physics of photons making down to the last 100 feet of atmosphere where we breath the CO2 concentrations make little or no difference. What difference does it make if the photons get absorbed in the surface features or if the air in the first 100′ captures them? None. It makes no difference because it is the exact same amount of heat.

    Furthermore all these global warming theorists are not taking into account the biggest warming gas, H2O which is 96% compared to CO2 which is 3.618% (human’s add 1-3% of that). So if you do the math human generated CO2 is 0.117% of the total global warming effect.

    Well that is so close to zero that if you round it off to the nearest integer it is ZERO! No wonder their CO2 causal models are all wrong. LOL

  5. when any “study” uses the term we modelled…
    I pretty much know its utter trash, but the funding was good
    so far I gather theres only TWO of the 50 or more model sets…thats even close to reality and thats one russian one and ??the other
    and even then neither are close to present day REAL temps

    my math n pysics ed was lacking greatly , but even i know bullshit when i see it;-)

  6. These “models” are made to conform to their “beliefs”. It has become as a religion to the believers. What ever happens their “models” will be made to show it’s AGW as the root cause.

  7. Hi Robert,

    As too usual, I forgot to paste my PSI comment.

    Hi TomOMason,

    I have frequently read your comments here and at other sites. I went to ICE Age Now (IAN) and I learn that TomOMason is maybe Robert W. Felix.

    There, IAN, I read: “Real science recognizes that repeatable measurements to very high accuracy and high resolution are need for good, worthy science, and not averaged means, or approximate guesses.”
    – tomOmason

    This describes my ‘SCIENCE” better than I have ever done. Why haven’t I read it before? And who actually wrote it. For I am still confused if tomOmason and Robert W. Felix are one, or two, actual being(s).

    I have read many of your comments and have tried to identify who tomOmason is because I generally agreed with what he wrote and I am always trying to find someone to have an email conversation wjth. Because I doubt we have had the same lifetime experiences. For I have read: “The only source of knowledge is experience.” (Einstein)

    So I will now try to contact Felix to see if he can remove some of my confusion about him and TomOMason.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  8. Also of note is what one of the top climate scientists in the world, Kevin Trenberth said in journal Nature (“Predictions of Climate”) about climate models in 2007:

    None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the obsered state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus oceanic currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forest for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in serveral of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

    Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficiently reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.

  9. Garbage in Garbage out, This would have not worked in my Math class. When you put you thumb on the scale, you get bad data.
    skdvjbewfhgwefvkjigsvjk= Global Warming.
    aqwrhgwfejhbvjhasdjhvqfhqewfhjefhqef= Global Warming
    24896562586258930460650= Global Warming
    See I can do it too. We need to get back to facts and people that understand facts, Oh reporting the facts would be nice.
    sdJFHQFHGJVHWESDFHGFJFHJF= News, Let it Snow, Let it Snow.

  10. John von Neumann, on curve fitting:
    With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

Comments are closed.