- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

Climate Models are a Joke

An update on the graph that is death to climate models

Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons.  Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.

The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

Climate Models

5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.

Acolytes and fellow parasites will say that surface temperatures measured by NASA and Hadley show the models are consistent within the bounds of estimates, and error bars, blah, blah, balony blah.

Grown ups will reply that the Hadley Met Centre uses thermometers near airport tarmacs and air conditioners (when they are lucky enough to even have thermometers). It’s a shonky, degraded dataset with barely any data before 1950, and it starts with freezing tropical islands and boats roaming around on land and then adjusts up the kazoo to make it even worse. The NASA set uses the same bad equipment, holey data, and adjusts by the kazoo squared. The past is constantly changing, the trends are fitted post hoc to the models and the results don’t fit historical records, or satellite data and the weather balloons.

They will protest and say their trends fit the RSS satellite data. They won’t tell you that UAH satellite dataset is better because it agrees with the weather balloons, tosses out inconsistent satellite measurements, uses three channels not one, and uses satellites free of diurnal drift to estimate errors in others. The RSS set is internally inconsistent, starts with model estimates, not observations, leaves in an error that creates artificial warming, then corrects it just in time to stop the exact same error from creating cooling. What do you call a dataset with part-time non-random errors? Junk.

The Christy Graph has all the data we need. It’s as close as we’ll ever get to proof the models are guesswork that failed.

Stop pouring trillions of dollars into a hole.

Thanks to Tom Quirk, John Christy and The Climate Study Group.

9.6 out of 10 based on 139 ratings