What people do not understand is that there is no proof of
"Man-Made" Global Warming without using irrelevant
computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering
but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean "climate
prediction". With engineering you can build and test in
the real world to confirm the computer model's accuracy. You
can do no such thing with the planet Earth and it's climate.
You cannot build a planet and it's atmosphere to "test"
your computer climate model.
I am a computer analyst and can program a computer model to
do whatever I want. If you program a computer model so that
X amount of CO2 increase "forces" X amount of temperature
increase then it will happen, this does not make this true in
the real world.
"...all of our models have errors which mean that they
will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective
of how well they are initialised." - James Annan, William
GIGO: Garbage in = Garbage out
Computers need exact information and the exact procedures to
process that information to get accurate answers, without that
you get useless results, period. There is no way around this.
Computers cannot fill in the blanks for you like nature does
when you do an experiment in the real world. With computers
everything must be programmed into them from the beginning and
everything that is programmed into them must be 100% understood
and 100% accurate. Even the most advanced and expensive computer
climate models include various approximations known as 'parameterizations'.
These "guesses" include:
- Cloud Cover
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
Fundamental Computer Science - if a Computer Model includes
merely one approximation for what latter dependent calculations
or data are derived from then the output of the model is useless.
This is Computer Science 101.
(Article continues below)
Computing incomplete, biased or flat out wrong data (guesses
and assumptions) based on poorly understood climate physics
in a "model" will give you useless output. But since
these models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately
altered to get the results they want) they get results that
"seem" likely or even convincing to the average computer
illiterate, yet they are absolutely meaningless for prediction.
What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers until
they think they guess right, a useless exercise. Technically
they are mathematically adjusting various climate related equations
based on theoretical assumptions.
Alarmist scientists presenting their "predictions"
as fancy graphs or nicely colored renderings does nothing for
the accuracy of their predictions. They like to use colors such
as yellow, orange and red to have an emotional effect for worthless
computer generated results.
Question: Would you use a mathematically broken calculator?
Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical
machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use a mathematically
broken calculator based on poorly understood arithmetic to get
a correct answer but you have no way to confirm that "correct
answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Welcome
to Global Climate Modeling. Yes the models have to be exact
to give any sort of relevant results. That is like saying a
calculator does not have to be based on accurate arithmetic
to be a useful tool in mathematics - utter propaganda.
Weather vs. Climate
Computer models are used to predict your weather and you know
how accurate they are. But Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly
tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now. Give
me a break! Don't be fooled that the basic principles of how
computers work changes whether you are modeling the climate
or the weather. Nor is one more accurate than the other long
term. Computer code is computer code no matter what name you
give it and how a computer works does not change because you
change the name you call the code. You cannot simply excuse
away missing data, substitute mathematically created observations,
parameterize what you are unable to model and then run the model
over a longer time and think your results have any remote relation
The existence of parameterizations (approximated assumptions)
means that various calculations are not fully resolved to scale
and thus the models are flawed by design, this is basic computer
science. You have results based on estimated calculations and
thus worthless results. No hand waving can change this. Any
computer code that is not 100% perfect will produce meaningless
results with scientific and math calculations. That is the fundamentals
of how a computer works.
The Myth of Testing
Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise
in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing.
What this means is you are attempting to have your model's output
match the existing historical output that has been recorded.
For example matching the global mean temperature curve over
100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your
model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant
calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate
to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite
number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way
that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer
models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly
matches the real world. Do not be fooled this logic is irrefutable
by anyone who understands computer science and computer modeling.
"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years
and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not
professional software engineers), around a dozen different software
platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to
Fortran 95 on massively parallel systems." - Gavin Schmidt,
Computer Science vs. Natural Science
To make matters worse it is not computer scientists creating
these models but natural scientists coding them using Fortran.
These natural scientists do not even begin to have the basic
understanding of computer science or proper coding practices.
Their code is not 100% available publicly and you do not have
independent auditing or code validation. Sloppy and buggy code
is very likely littered inside these climate model programs
yet there is next to no accountability for any of this. How
do you separate a programming error from a temperature anomaly?
How can you replace observational data with a complex mathematical
equation? You can't.
How many of the models used by the IPCC have had ANY bug fixes
or code changes since the most recent IPCC report? If they have
had ANY - all previous model run results become null and void
based on simple logic thus easily invalidating the ridiculous
conclusions of the IPCC report.
"No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated
to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can
only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org
All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something
is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions
of dollars" it is infallible. The more complex the model,
the more "mysterious" it seems to the average person.
The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura
because they are largely computer illiterate about how they
actually work and when they hear the term "computer"
they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their
heads and go along with it.
Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for
everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them
work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short
term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing
that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and
the millions of variables they are not accounting for start
to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model
runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding, there are simply
way too many variables that they cannot account for and the
computer power necessary to even start to take these variables
into account does not exist.
The sheer ignorance of the scientists creating these models
is astounding. The fact that they have absolutely no scientific
understanding of computer systems in any remote way is appalling.
They instead rely on the computer illiteracy of the general
public and their perceived standing as "intellectuals"
to get away with this fraud.
You are expected to believe that they can "model"
the climate 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even
give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, I do this
for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with
anything as complex as the Earth's climate.
Climate models are rubbish (The Register, UK)
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global
warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy
brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded
citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.
[...] But I have studied the climate models and I know what
they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics,
and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions
of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of
describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology
of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe
the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and
messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is
much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building
and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure
what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
That is why the climate model experts end up believing their
own models." - Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics,