In November 2021, one of the main programmers of the NASA climate model Gavin Schmidt told readers of the Spectator that the track record of models going back to the 1970s, “shows they have skilfully predicted the trends of the past decades”. Now that laughter has finally subsided, we have an expert analysis of NASA’s GISS Model E with its 441,668 lines of pre-historic (circa 1983) FORTRAN code. With water that doesn’t freeze and “negative” cloud cover, it is said that the claim the model is ‘physics-based’ is a term used in the same way that Hollywood producers say a movie is ‘based on a true story’.
The detailed examination has been written by the experienced computer programmer Willis Eschenbach and his paper Climate Models and Climate Muddles has been published by Net Zero Watch (NZW). Andrew Montford of NZW discussed the paper in a recent edition of the Daily Sceptic, noting that climate models are at the centre of the global warming scare and back all the weather alarms promoting the collectivist Net Zero project. But what if the climate models were all junk, he asked. Somewhat alarmingly, Eschenbach’s work shows “this is indeed the case”.
Eschenbach argues that the current crop of computer climate models are far from being fit to be used to decide public policy. To verify this, he says, you only need to look at the endless string of bad, failed, crashed-and-burned predictions they have produced. Pay them no attention, he cautions. “Their main use is to add false legitimacy to the unrealistic fears of the programmers.” If you write a model under the working assumption that carbon dioxide controls the temperature, then guess what you’ll get.
According to Eschenbach, climate models have a hard time replicating the amazing stability of the climate system. They are ‘iterative’ models, meaning the output of one timestep is used as the input for the next. As a result any errors are carried over, making it easy for models to spiral the Earth into fire and snow balls. NASA gets around polar water refusing to freeze and ‘negative’ amounts of cloud forming (what do minus-two clouds look like?) during model runs by replacing bad values with corresponding maximum or minimum values. “Science at its finest,” comments Eschenbach. He notes that he is not picking on just NASA. The same issues, to a greater or lesser extent, exist within all complex iterative models. “I’m simply pointing out that these are not ‘physics-based’ – they are propped up and fenced in to keep them from crashing,” he observes.
This is the graph produced by Professor Nicola Scafetta plotting 38 of the major climate models showing their temperature predictions set against the thick green line of the actual satellite record.
As can be seen, the predictions started to go haywire 25 years ago, just as the global warming fright started to gain political traction. In his Spectator article, Gavin Schmidt, a one- time ‘fact checker’ of the Daily Sceptic, noted that most outcomes depend on the overall trend and not the “fine details of any given model”. In fact the record shown above seems to back up Eschenbach’s view that all a computer model can do is “make visible and glorify the understandings and, more importantly, the misunderstandings of the programmers”.
The case against relying on computer models to back an insane global de-industrialisation campaign grows by the day. The latest nonsense, peddled by the BBC among many media outlets, is that a world’s hottest day temperature record was broken three times last week. As climate journalist Paul Homewood noted, the idea that global temperatures could shoot up by 0.22°C in just three days is physically impossible. The entire propaganda exercise is the product of computer modelling – any reader of Eschenbach’s diligent work might not be surprised to discover.
There is a great deal of excitement in alarmist circles about a new El Niño weather oscillation that is starting to brew and might come to the rescue with a little extra heat. Hence all the recent useful-idiot coverage of ‘boiling oceans’ and record heat days. Any El Niño warming will of course be entirely natural but, cynics might note, it will alleviate the need for surface datasets to make yet more upward retrospective adjustments. The dramatic effect of El Niños can be seen in the latest anomaly data from the accurate satellite temperature record.
The two high points shown in 1998 and 2016 were both very powerful El Niño years that pushed global temperatures up. If one takes the high point of 1998, a case can be made that global warming ran out of steam at this point. It is of course just one year, but it was 25 years ago and temperatures have only twice passed this peak since – in the dramatic El Niño of 2016. A small amount of warming can be discerned since, but hardly enough to justify the worldwide panic caused by manufactured climate models and heavily adjusted surface temperature data.
The widespread use of Armageddon model predictions was highlighted recently by research from Clintel. It showed that 42% of the gloomy forecasts made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on climate model scenarios that even the UN body admits are of “low likelihood”. They assume temperature rises of up to 5°C within less than 80 years. Almost nobody now believes the scenarios are remotely plausible. Yet it has been shown that around half the impacts and forecasts across the entire scientific literature are based on them. It is a fair bet that almost 100% of the increasingly hysterical climate headlines found across mainstream media are corrupted by these fantastical notions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m just amazed they even mention the established link to the death jabs;
”Peru has announced a national health emergency for a period of 90 days due to a concerning surge in Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS) cases.
The declaration aims to ensure an adequate supply of pharmaceutical products, enhance disease surveillance and research efforts, and improve patient care within healthcare services.
Acute bacterial or viral infections typically trigger Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The syndrome has also been isolated in the context of mRna vaccination (Covid) as one of the main side effects, along with myocarditis.
It manifests through symptoms such as weakness and tingling in the feet and legs, which can progress to affect the upper body and, in severe cases, lead to paralysis.
According to the National Center for Epidemiology, Disease Prevention and Control, as of June 23, 2023, there have been 103 reported cases of the syndrome this year.
The average monthly number of cases nationwide remains below 20, which is lower than the figures observed in previous years, particularly during the 2019 outbreak.
However, an uptick in cases has been observed since the end of June, with 16 reported cases compared to the earlier average range of 2 to 8 cases per week.”
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/mercosur/peru/peru-declares-health-emergency-in-response-to-rise-in-guillain-barre-syndrome-cases/
Shouldn’t this Comment be posted underneath a different article?
QUOTE
“I’m just amazed they even mention the established link to the death jabs;”
They dont……….
And which article from today would you deem to be suitable? Perhaps you need to amend your ”Profanity and abuse…” line above if you are now wanting to censor other posts or find them disagreeable, because I see nothing which is stopping me from posting what I want where I want as long as I adhere to the above warning. Or perhaps you’ve had some complaints against me, from certain people who shall remain nameless….?
Nothing to do with censorship, simply relevance
See my reply to Mogwai above.
Show me the small print then, because I must’ve missed it, where it states that comments below the article must be relevant to that specific article. I could understand if I were bombarding the comments sections with unrelated stuff, e.g cute animal videos, random recipes from cooking websites, but everything I post, regardless of where I post it, is relevant to the topics covered on this site.
For instance, yesterday’s post about the new European Citizen’s Initiative in Brussels, am I supposed to await the DS team to release an article so that I can pop a new post of relevance under that article? There were no related articles yesterday, but still people have to moan. I try to contribute and share things that are relevant to this site and some may find interesting, to keep them up to speed, but I guess some people just value conformity and order above all else. Ah well, Mogwai’s gone rogue, cannot be controlled and is clearly too maverick for this place…LOL.
I tend to agree with you Mogs, so long as it’s a relevant topic to the daily sceptic general debate on any post I don’t see any problem with it👍
Cheers Dinger. 🙂 You know what’s laughable? Nobody is obliged to read or click on any of my posts, they can scroll past and ignore. But now it seems it’s time to pile on and have a moanathon. The other irony, of course, is that this site’s whole ethos is ‘freedom of speech’! Guess not that ”free” though, eh? LOL
Maybe I should start dropping the odd cat video grenade here and there…”Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb”, right? 😉
”Heel, Mogs, heel. Naughty Mogs!!” haha..
The Lockdown Sceptics Reddit has a much more active comment culture, though the potential wider audience is much smaller.
Trying to get rid of me, eh? Well what’s one more to add to the ever-growing ranks?😆
Certainly not!
That Reddit is great, IMO – different to DS but still worth a look if you can spare the time.
I point people there from time to time.
We have touched on this topic previously and not long ago. I post links to articles which I believe might be of interest to other members of DS but it has become very clear that there is little traffic on the News Roundup forum after noon BST, so I have started to post links to the newest thread available at the time of posting in order to maximise views. I see nothing wrong in this.
I stand with Mogwai.
Ta, hux.😊 I have to laugh ( once more! ) because, what was just my singular off-topic, original post has now morphed into an entire comments section of mostly people moaning about off-topic posting. 🤭 And here’s me considering myself to be a very minor rabble-rouser until Hardliner came along and showed me how it was done! Fair play to HL on his achievement of transforming the comments into the very thing he was complaining about in the first place. Now we have a fully on-topic, off-topic section. And all because he couldn’t just leave me alone and say nowt.🤷♀️ Oh dear..
😀😀😀
And I do too. Hardliner is in danger of ‘having a relationship with Dot’ if they think that “relevance” has anything to do with comments being placed only under the ‘correct’ heading. It’s the quality of the comments that count and Mogwai’s are always of value, wherever they appear. DS will be the poorer if you leave Mogwai, so please ignore the numpties and keep on posting 👍
Ah bless ya, DBB. 🙂 You know, Hardliner says it’s nothing to do with censorship but yesterday my paranoid self went back to the previous day, under the article about the Labour Party ( where I shared that short vid as the first poster ) and Chris P, mine and Nearhoburn’s posts have been deleted. Chris only posted that Esther Rantzen had cancer then I responded with a link to Adrian Tan, who died of cancer, both factual posts deleted. Now who on earth could we have sufficiently offended for that to happen on a ‘free speech’ site?
You’re right though. A LOT of numpties ( hello 77th Hamster Penis Brigade and Misogynist Society! lol ) feel emboldened to crawl out of the woodwork and pile on at the slightest opportunity but, much like a Marmite-slathered boomerang, I’ll just keep coming back. I’m bummed out for them! 😉
Salute DBB
I find Mogs posts always interesting and read them carefully. Thank you for posting as you do.
Thanks for your support and kind words, ELH.😊 I’m only trying to supplement what the DS team already do. I think it’s nice and benefits others if anybody shares something they read and find may be of interest to other folk. I certainly don’t do it for clicks or ‘likes’. But apparently I’m committing misdemeanors by putting posts in the wrong place!🤦♀️ “Haters gonna hate” I guess and I can’t help people that are basically wired that way. Sucks to be them though.🤷♀️
There’s an argument that off-topic posts would be better placed under the News Review but as some have pointed out, people tend to stop reading that. I’ve just noticed (I’m a slow learner) that you can “subscribe” to a whole article so people could do that for the News Review and get notified of new comments, though people will forget. Would be nice if that could be switched on by default.
IMO we have so few people posting here and so few comments that off-topic comments are fine. If there were hundreds I would agree they should be discouraged, but that would be a nice problem to have…
I agree with ‘the argument’.
Post off-topic stuff under the News Round-Up please.
The place where nobody goes after lunchtime so no-one will see it? Yeah, totally worth my while..
No point as there is little traffic on NR after lunchtime which is why I will continue to post off-topic items on the newest available thread.
Well that’s what I thought. If it’s a slow day or certain articles don’t garner much in the way of traffic then where’s the harm? As I say, it’s not like I’m sharing make-up tutorials or cat videos! Then people would have justification for having a whinge.
tof, I will take your word that we can subscribe to articles but I have no idea how.
Above the “join the discussion” box there’s a bit of text that says “subscribe” with an email icon next to it. The “subscribe” has a little dropdown triangle next to it which gives you the option of either getting notified of replies to your comments or all follow up comments – which I take to mean all comments on the article. I’ve just tried this myself so will let you know! I should have checked this earlier as it saves a lot of wasted time re-checking old articles for new comments. I wish we could subscribe to it all by default.
Thanks. I do remember this now and have tried it but it drove me bonkers. I’ll pass.
It worked!
Or at least preceded by an indication that it is off topic.
”The syndrome has also been isolated in the context of mRna vaccination (Covid) as one of the main side effects, along with myocarditis.”
Anything else petty to throw at me?
You must be seeing an entirely different article to me, the article above is solely about climate change, with not a mention of covid. Maybe we need to investigate a broken link or something. What is your article called, please?
30 years ago Guillain Barre was so rare a friend had to help in medical final exams by faking it. Not easy.
Now I have seen it in a community clinic a couple of weeks ago.
15 months after onset nobody else has done a Yellow Card.
Once again recently Springwatch reinforces the mythology en passant by casually attributing some change in a British species, as a matter of course, to “climate change causing extreme weather events.” Ignore the fact that the latest IPCC technical report itself shows no increase in extreme weather events across the world, nor that the Met Office shows that England average temperatures have remained the same for the last twenty years. It’s The Science TM, isn’t it?
Springwatch, after all, prides itself on giving us real science, from research papers and everything, and as Chris Packham likes to say, “That’s what you pay your licence fee for.”
I wonder how many people pay the BBC tax to see the smug, ignorant Packham spout his wacky beliefs, that he suggests are science?
The validity of models is open to question, but so is the belief that there is a significant link to the weather (and the climate – using the definition that it is a long term set of records) from the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Even if that is a true relationship, is it closely related to our activities, or just a minor contribution to the whole lot (that we can’t do much about)? Or is there a degree of opportunism for certain industries?
GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. Same for Mann’s hockey stick fraud.
The models aren’t just inaccurate – they are built to lie and deceive.
As the article states 1983 FORTRAN code…. good christ, the code, the database, the data validations, the data integrity checks would fail a 2 day audit.
Mann’s hockey fraud was no different – whatever variable you fed it, the same answer was provided. Same for that little fascist Ferguson, and his junk models.
Models are not science. None of these clowns are programmers. They get others to write the code and the business and code logic have little relationship with the processes of climate in the real world.
But the average BBC baaing Sheeple is deeply impressed by the sciency output that ‘models’ fake. $cientism, money and all that.
Asserting any model output as ‘truth’ shows a lack of understanding as to the nature of modelling, ie a ‘low-res’ approximation of reality based on hunches and (possibly rigorous) statistical analyses.
The earth’s climate is many orders of magnitude more complicated than anything embedded into the model. Even modelling at the atomic level wouldn’t really get close to reality, and they’d probably miss loads of undiscovered relationships.
A model that cannot predict the past is already junk.
I recently watched a vid by a geologist (posted here I think) who said that we’re currently inter-glacial so temperature rises are expected and that six of the last six ice ages started when CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are today.
Go figure…
Computer models are not evidence.
Is this a private argument, or can anyone join in..?
Something related that will enrage us all!….NET ZERO – Unelected John Kerry has turned up with Biden to meet the King, to discuss how much more tax UK citizens will pay to save the planet.
They arrived by helicopter from the 27 car motorcade
Hypocrisy is the currency the climate change nutters deal in, bolstered by their gross ignorance. Or is it that nobs and bellends don’t cause the problems, it’s only us proles?
The climate now is no different to the climate we have had during the whole of my 60+ years. We get a few very hot days in the summer; a few very cold days in the winter; periods with little rain; periods with heavy rain.
It’s other factors which lead to problems as a result of this perfectly normal weather. A failure to dredge rivers, building on flood plains and inadequate drainage, leads to flooding.
A failure to build reservoirs whilst increasing the population by 10 million+ leads to water shortages.
A failure to prepare the country for the occasional very cold, snowy event leads to gridlock when we get more than 2 inches of snow.
It’s so obviously a scam I’m amazed so many people believe in and/or go along with the lunacy.
Excellent post.
As one of the silly alarmist scientists (modellers) said a few years ago. “We are not basing predictions on the data, we are basing it on the models”. ————-Lets get one thing straight——Models are NOT science and they are NOT evidence of anything, and they have poor predictive value as we see by them all being totally wrong so far. Yet more get wheeled out endlessly and referred to as “the science”. ————Nope they are NOT science, any more than a pocket calculator is mathematics. They are little scenarios, full of assumptions and speculations where many of the parameters are either poorly understood or not known at all. No wonder they are never correct and cannot even hindcast the climate when we know what it has been. Governments need answers to put public policy in place. They cannot wait 50 years to find out if model scenarios turn out to be true, and NET ZERO etc is justified by the reliance on these fanciful models and when it all turns out to be b..s..t they will just say “But we were only listening to the scientists”——No, they are only listening to the scientists they fund to find the answers they want, as we all know that who pays the piper calls the tune.
This passge caught my eye.
Got that? The code is written in archaic FORTRAN and they spend a fortune on supercomputers because it so bloated that it won’t run on anything smaller.
Isn’t it time to go back to the fundamental reason that the IPCC used to create the climate change nonsense based on an energy balance diagram for the earth. This was based on the belief that the sun was not capable of heating the earth to the claimed average temperature of 15C and they incorrectly calculated the sun could only heat the earth to -18C. Therefore 33C of heat had to come from somewhere else and this was the atmosphere through the concept of back radiation. This description is utter nonsense because temperature is not the same as thermal energy. -18C +33C does not add to 15C because temperatures cannot be added. If they could we could take two cups of water at 50C, put them together and get boiling water. The entire science of climate change was corrupted from the start and accepted by a population that has been educated into ignorance.
Warning – On topic comment –
There’s a climate change industry and many people are getting rich and powerful from it.
They make sure that only reports that strengthen their industry get funded and publicized.
It’s about their job retention.
Yup, there’s also a “public health” industry, a “pandemic” industry, a “safety” industry, a “vaccine” industry, a “medicine” industry, a war-fighting industry. Like all industries they talk their book, but somehow unlike other industries about which Joe Public and the state are sceptical/cynical and assume self-interest, these industries have somehow managed to persuade people that their motivation is just to HELP SAVE US FROM CERTAIN DOOM.