Why ‘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:
- The underlying physics is unknown (the hows and whys of atmospheric water — humidity changes, clouds, precipitation, snow, and ice volumes and changes — is almost a complete mystery to the modelers, as 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.)
- Assumptions are made based on the idea that rising atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet. This assumption has never been validated, and 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 to confirmation bias, and not to honest, objective, disinterested scientists working on impartial science.
Real science understands its limitations, real science knows that a theory is only as good as the observational evidence that supports it, real science recognizes it is a flawed process and that tomorrow new discoveries can overturn what is accepted today.
Real science recognizes that repeatable measurements of very high accuracy and high resolution are needed for good, worthy science, and not averaged means or approximate guesses.
Elementary math today may conclude that 2+2=4, only to find out later that due to unknown factors, the 4 result was only one of many numbers 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.
Read more at Ice Age Now
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
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
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Sorry to disappoint you Jerry but I’m not Robert W. Felix — he writes so much better than I. I doubt it would take him days to write that piece like it took me (even now I see things I wished I had put better, more correctly).
I will have to disappoint you too with an email conversation as despite being retired I’m quite busy, and not in the best of health. However during those days when I’m laid low and not functioning well I ponder on things like climate/weather and how the apparent chaos of it all forms patterns and cycles.
Hope you stay well TM.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tom,
Sorry to hear about your health problems. But thanks for removing my confusion. I am fast approaching 80 so I have experienced the lost of strength and the ability to do physical work for consecutive 8hr days, but I am have been blessed with good health and take no medications.
These after discovering all the natural laboratories that the USA government funds and having written the essays illustrating the use of this data, I see little purpose of writing more because what I have written seems basically ignored.
So I limit my writing comments and try to find someone with better skills and a similar passion about writing a book similar to Sutcliffe’s or a primer for elementary and secondary teachers of teaching young people about science by writing projects (experiments) that interested elementary and secondary students could easily do that is real science that would produce results that might really surprise the teachers and professors teaching meteorology at ‘higher’ education institutions. For I am sure you are aware of the need to educate the teachers and professors before they can actually begin teaching their students.
And thanks again for removing my confusion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
I would go further.
The first stage in any scientific analysis is the raw data collected. Raw climate data is very hard to come by. When yo do get data it has been massaged, tweaked, changed and generally mucked about with. It is therefore nigh on impossible to replicate any published results because we do not know how the data has been changed.
As far as computer models go, we do not have the raw data, we do not know the starting conditions, we do not know the assumptions given to the models and we do not have the code which generates the models. Computers are actually notoriously bad at some mathematics and can accumulate unforeseen errors. Usually due to bad programming. The longer and more complicated a programme gets, the less likely it is to produce worthwhile results.
There are many reasons why computer models for climate forecasts have never predicted reality.
Correlating variables is another area, perhaps the most important area, where climate ‘science’ is a complete and utter failure. Try out this site for a laugh http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations or read the comments section to the article https://principia-scientific.com/mathematical-analysis-debunks-33-degrees-greenhouse-gas-effect/#comment-25079 This was an excellent article proving the null hypothesis that CO2 does not correlate with increase or decrease in temperatures anywhere on the planet, debased by a plethora of inane and spurious comments.
And remember. Most of the people, most of the time, believe everything they see on Sky News or the EBC. (English Broadcasting Corporation)
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Finn,
You wrote: “For a laugh … read the comments section to the article https://principia-scientific.com/mathematical-analysis-debunks-33-degrees-greenhouse-gas-effect/”
Thank you suggesting that other readers to these comments. For I, as a participant, consider they are comments are a dialogue involving actual characters similar to Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences where the characters of the dialogue were imaginary except for the professor.
You wrote: “The first stage in any scientific analysis is the raw data collected. Raw climate data is very hard to come by.”
I agree totally with the first statement. I disagree totally with the second.
Go to the following links and you will find multitudes and multitudes of raw ‘virgin’ data.
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
https://raws.dri.edu/
Go to the following links and you will find how I used some of this raw data.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
As usual I forgot to paste the last links.
https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/
https://principia-scientific. /the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-four/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-five/
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hello Jerry,
I have read your article https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/
May i offer the following critique?
Your hypothesis is not clearly stated.
Your first line states ‘SURFRAD data indicates that thin cloud does not hinder the cooling of earth’s surface in any way’
‘Indicates’, ‘hinder’ and ‘any way’ are obfuscations.
Do you mean, ‘My hypothesis is that thin clouds have no influence on the cooling of the Earth’s surface.’?
The Null hypothesis is that thin clouds do have an influence on the cooling of the earth’s surface.
You have not included the data which will be used to test your hypothesis. By that, I mean there is no data file which you have used and is available to us to follow your assumptions and calculations.
You have committed the schoolboy error of choosing the data you want to compare to confirm your hypothesis. Data should be selected randomly to try and avoid selection bias and, in this case, I would probably select 5 data sets of say, 100 random days.
I see no evidence that the data can (sic) ‘clearly establish the presence of cloud during the 2013 for which there is no evidence during 2012.’ Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesn’t. I don’t see any numbers to back it up. Quote ‘subtle evidence of cloud’ is not evidence of cloud.
There is no numerical analysis of the data and the methodology used to draw conclusions. Therefore there is no chance to of replicability.
Are your visuals created by your own calculations from your data set?
What is your understanding of ‘Downwelling Infrared’ plotted in the graph from ‘Generated from ESRL/GMD – 2018-June-13 17:29 pm’?
The rest of the article and I mean no offense, is waffle.
To summarise:
Your hypothesis is not clearly stated.
The null hypothesis is not considered.
Your data is not presented for others to replicate your results.
The data you have used is user biased to your conclusions.
There is no methodology shown to arrive at your conclusions.
The data you have used is not explained and no explanation of correlation of the data is given or how it could be possibly derived.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Finn,
“Your hypothesis is not clearly stated.
Your first line states ‘SURFRAD data indicates that thin cloud does not hinder the cooling of earth’s surface in any way’
‘Indicates’, ‘hinder’ and ‘any way’ are obfuscations.
Do you mean, ‘My hypothesis is that thin clouds have no influence on the cooling of the Earth’s surface.’?”
You are quite correct. And I am aware of the problem and was shocked when I first discovered it. But I decided not to address this apparent problem because it seems no one seriously considers I write. I do not have time today to address this problem. But maybe tomorrow I will. I do have to refresh my memory of why I decided this problem was not actually the problem it seemed to be.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Finn,
Thank you very much for reading and critically examining what I wrote.
After reviewing again what I wrote, I find it should be obvious that I had concluded that data clearly indicated that I did not understand the system as I originally considered I had.
Hence, I had concluded this essay: “Clearly we must ponder the difference between a thin cloud and one which can be described as a thick cloud. But this is topic for a future essay,”
And a fact is this future essay has not yet been written.
But notice the ‘we’ in my statement: “We must ponder … “. I shared what I had learned by considering the data to which I drew a reader’s attention. Now, as you and others question what I write, I ask: What have you done to resolve the confusion?
Why cannot a reader be part of the solution?
Now as I review what I had written; I theorize the following.
The thin high cirrus of 2013 must be ice particles whose sizes are such that the magnitude of their scattering of the solar radiation is near maximum and their sizes not significantly larger so they could scatter the long-wave IR being emitted by the earth surface much more strongly than the solar radiation. Plus, the density of these ice particles is low because they are the remains of the towering thunderstorm clouds that are common north of the equator over the Pacific Ocean near the time of the Northern Hemispheres Summer Solstice. And these ice particles are small and their density low because the largest particles have settled into the lower and warmer atmosphere where they sublime (thus become smaller). So, by the time any cirrus cloud reach Desert Rock, the ice particles are small and their density low (because many particles have totally sublimed to gaseous water molecules).
Hence, my explanation of ‘the difference between a thin cloud and one which can be described as a thick cloud’ is quite brief.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Finn,
Sorry about all the inane and spurious comments.
The problem with mathematics and computer models is that they are tools, not science. They do what the operator directs and prove or disprove nothing. If you ask an accountant what’s 2 + 2? his answer is what do you want it to be?
Herb
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Herb,
My gripe with the comments was that they went off topic and a few insults were starting to be thrown around.
I don’t agree that mathematics is distinct from science. Without maths, all you have is a bunch of data points.
That being said, I have no belief in the fidelity of computer models to predict 50 year future temperature trends for the reasons I outlined. That is not science.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb and Finn,
Thank you both for your comments. Especially Herb because he had been an active part of the dialogue. But Finn, you have become a part of our dialogue and much of what you have written is something with which I agree. But the fact that I agree does not make whatever with which we agree the truth in science. Because in science there is no truth as there is in mathematics.
Except I have read that the Non-Euclidian Geometry is just as rationally valid as Euclidian Geometry is. It seems that the beginning assumptions of each are different. I have at one time Einstein questioned the validity of Quantum Mechanics because God doesn’t throw dice. I believe, but certainly cannot claim to know, that he changed his mind as QM predicted, and possibly explained, all kinds of exotic phenomena about which the classical physicists had no clue.
There is an arrogant statement: “I have forgiven more than you ever knew.” I can say this because I doubt (but don’t know) that you (whomever you might be) because I have read someone else’s writing that ‘you’ have not.
Starting with Galileo’s and Newton’s books.
Herb, I consider your comment about computers being merely a tool controlled by modelers to be ‘right on’. Have you considered that mathematics is merely a tool controlled by scientists?
And Finn, How do you ‘know’ that our comments have gone off topic? That’s a judgment call based upon your experiences. And we all have different experiences.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I asked: “Have you considered that mathematics is merely a tool controlled by scientists?” Sorry I had not read carefully. For you had written: “The problem with mathematics and computer models is that they are tools, not science.”
Sometimes I really question what you write, but other times, like now, I judge you are right on relative to what I consider my knowledge.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Jerry
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Were your comments implying that I have not read Galileo or Newton’s books based on scientific observations? 🙂
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Finn,
My answer to your question is yes. I was assuming that you had not. And yes, I know assuming anything is dangerous.
So, if you have read it you know that
Galileo invented the character he named ‘Simplicio’. Maybe you might consider I am Simplicio, or that Herb is, or that James is. As I am sure a reader must judge for themselves which character each of us might be. And I doubt if all the readers will agree. Just as James, Herb, and I maybe seem to seldom agree.
Have a good day, Jerry
John
| #
I was listing to the presentation done by Patrick J Michaels at the Science Award at ICCC13. He received the award for Courage in Defense of Science. And congrats to him. At the end of the presentation he discussed climate models and quoted from the paper THE ART AND SCIENCE OF CLIMATE MODEL TUNING- download available”There are a variety of goals for specific problems, and different models may be optimized to perform better on a particular metric, related to specific goals, expertise, or cultural identity of a given modeling center” so any model can be tuned to produce a required result. Cannot be used for a policy for sure
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom:
The underlying physics is unknown (the hows and whys of atmospheric water — humidity changes, clouds, precipitation, snow, and ice volumes and changes — is almost a complete mystery to the modelers, as 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.)
James McGinn:
Academia has done a brilliant job concealing the fact that science has failed to understand water. This subterfuge of reason finds its most explicit expression in models of the atmosphere.
Consider the longest standing model in the atmospheric sciences, the convection model of storms. It is based on observation of thunderstorms and direct analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Meteorologists are very careful to guard the sanctity of this notion. They do not and will not discuss its details–some of which are blatant nonsense. They do not want to break the spell that this absurd notion has on the public. They do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Jerry.
I don’t get it. All your replies continually make assumptions about others knowledge, character or thoughts. Yet you espouse the scientific method of garnering knowledge from observation. Do you think that this mental dichotomy could result in people not taking you seriously?
I would never dare to liken you to Simplicio. I saw him a couple of times when he was at Roma. Not a bad midfielder.
I hope you do not find me rude if I liken you more to Polonius.
Reply
Horace
| #
Finn, James, Herb et al., You really should know better than to converse with our resident, institutionalised, probably Aspergic, possibly senile, definitely muddle-headed, inane, repetitive and obsessive, quotation-spouting, rambling perseverator. For all our sakes, don’t encourage him. If you ignore him, he might just go away.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Horace,
I worked with a man with Asperger syndrome for 40 yrs. He was not talking or discussing things with you but lecturing you on how he believe things were and there was no room for dispute. My colleague’s son told me that once during a phone call he put the phone down to do something and when he returned 10 min later his father was still talking unaware of his absence. This is not something he could change and there was certainly nothing anyone else could do to change him. The only option is to deal with it as best you can and realize that any response is not intended for him but others that may be listening.
Herb
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Horace,
Point taken.
‘Perseverator’. I had to look that one up 🙂
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Finn,
I know about the observations upon which these others’ knowledge was based. I have spent several years doing experimental work and finding their results. Which I am confident that anyone else, who did the experiments as I described them, would find the same results.
A scientist does an experiment because he does not know what the result might be and then does the experiment again to check if the result is reproducible. And anyone who questions the results, is free to do the same experiment and compare theirs results with mine.
I ask you to read ‘The 7 Percent Solution’ by Richard Feynman in his New York Times bestseller–“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” I consider it an excellent example of how science works between the experimentalist and the theorist. But first in this case there had to been observed (experimental) results which do not fit an accepted theory
This story is an easy read and so is the book. And maybe you have already read it. Certainly do not want to imply (or assume) that you haven’t.
I do assume that every person who has ever lived has had different experiences and if, as Einstein stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience”, then if follows that each person that has lived has a different set of knowledge. Thus, it follows one can always learn something from another person. And a Galileo quote is: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.” Of course, I assume that someone has translated this and I cannot claim that Galileo ever stated anything like this.
Einstein also stated: “Information is not knowledge.” One has to ponder and reflect upon one’s experiences to transform information into knowledge.
You ask: “Do you think that this mental dichotomy could result in people not taking you seriously?” I know have no control over whether a person takes what I write seriously.
I know for many years (decades even) the geological community did not take Alfred Wegener (and many others) serious about continental drift.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply