Weather, Climate and Model Madness

“The assumptions are suspect, the relationships are far more complex than the models assume, and the scary forecasts are worthless.”

By Viv Forbes

Weather or climate? It pays to know the difference before we slaughter our economy on the climate alarm altar.

“Weather” describes atmospheric conditions at any location – temperature, humidity, clouds precipitation and winds. Every place has its own weather which depends on the time of day, the season, the latitude, local topography and the surface temperature of the nearest ocean.

Meteorologists need a good knowledge of weather records, atmospheric physics, geography, oceanography and solar cycles. Weather is mainly about wind – is it hot or cold, moist or dry, strong or weak? Surface atmospheric pressure gradients control wind strength, direction and temperature, and are valuable tools for short-term forecasting. Longer-term weather forecasters will find value in studying sun spots and El Nino episodes in the oceans. Few weather-men see any value in measuring or forecasting atmospheric CO2 to help forecast the weather.

“Climate” is defined as the thirty year average of weather at that spot. One week of bad weather is not evidence of climate change, no matter how often the ABC claims that. And adding the word “Climatology” to the name of the Bureau of Meteorology does not magically convert weather men into climatologists.

To determine climate trends requires centuries of reliable weather records. This is why geologists feature so prominently in determining past climates by mapping earth’s crust and collecting deep core samples in ice sheets, ocean and lake sediments and crustal rocks. (And it explains why climate alarmists alter past temperature records to create spurious warming trends.)

A canny and persistent mathematician/engineer Milutin Milankovitch was one of the first to suggest that changes in various solar cycle orbits and axial tilts cause changes in Earth’s climate. He spent years carefully calculating (by hand) how such changes caused changes in solar heat received by the Northern Hemisphere landmass. He speculated that this caused the advance and retreat of the great northern ice sheets. Since then dozens of geologists, palynologists, astronomers and engineers have confirmed the reality of the Milankovitch cycles.

‘Models” provide the comedy act in the climate circus. Using taxpayer funds and massive computers they build super-complex models designed to prove that global temperature will rise dangerously because of human production of carbon dioxide. These models supposedly prove that the world faces an unprecedented episode of imminent and irreversible global heating.

Climate models have three features.

Firstly, they assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driven by human activity, and that CO2 drives global temperature. They calmly ignore the moderating effects of oceans, the unmeasured effects of volcanoes and the declining effects of extra CO2.

Secondly, they try to write formulae for the myriad of factors that drive the weather. Then these computers spit out their estimates for “average global temperature” – a bureaucratic invention – nothing lives or grows in “average global temperature”.

Thirdly, these models have only one valuable feature – they are known to be consistently wrong.

The assumptions are suspect, the relationships are far more complex than the models assume, and their scary forecasts are worthless. (see results below).


Even if the modelling scaremongers were correct, we would expect a greener earth as warmer temperatures, more carbon dioxide plant food and more rainfall encourage all types of food production, grass growth and forest expansion.

However the Milankovitch solar cycles have not suddenly stopped. The warming top has passed and colder times are ahead. Oceans retain heat longer than land. Warm oceans and cold land can cause massive precipitation of snow, advancing ice sheets and a cold hungry world.

When that happens there will be no electricity from iced-up wind, solar and hydro generators and electric vehicles will soon run out of juice. There will be battles for ice-proof energy like nuclear, coal, oil and gas and a scramble for old diesel generators, trucks and cars.

Read More:

John and Mary Gribbin, 2015: “Ice Age – the Theory that Came in from the Cold”.
ReAnimus Press, Colorado

This book is a careful and readable documentation of the big factors that determine global climate. It records how the detailed calculations of the Serbian engineer/mathematician Milutin Milankovitch (although doubted for decades) were eventually vindicated by emerging climate core records. This research shows we are well past the peak of the current warming and the next ice age looms ahead. John Gribbin is an astro-physicist, Mary Gribbin is a science writer.

Testimony of John R. Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist University of Alabama in Huntsville:

How they erased the Heat Wave of the 1930’s Dust Bowl:

Viv Forbes has tertiary training in Geology, Physics, Chemistry and Meteorology and years of experience in building computer models.

One thought on “Weather, Climate and Model Madness”

  1. The author does not seem to realize:
    — Climate models do NOT have accurate global average temperature projections as a goal. That goal would be real science, not modern “climate junk science”.

    The primary goal of the models is to create climate change fear, to support predictions of a coming climate change crisis, that I have traced back to 1957 (Roger Revelle). And they do exactly what they are intended to do.

    Reasons for my conclusion:
    (1) The average model (CMIP5) grossly over predicted the global warming rate, by more than 2x,

    (2) The average model has not become more accurate over the past four decades, and the evidence so far is that the latest CMIP6 models, on average, will over predict global warming even MORE than the CMIP5 models did, and

    (3) The one climate model that over predicts global warming by the least, meaning it is the most “accurate” — the Russian IMN model — does not get any special attention. It is binned together with dozens of other models, that ALL over predict global warming by even more than the IMN model does.

    These three points support my conclusion that climate computer games were never intended for accurate climate predictions.

    They are climate propaganda that seem very “scientific” to most people. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that a computer program will project whatever the owner / programmers want to project. They do not produce real data.

    The climate computer games produce rapid, and potentially dangerous, global warming projections. But no such warming has existed in the past 150 years. Rapid, dangerous global warming only exists in one place: In the over active imaginations of leftist Climate Alarmists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *