Climate Computer Games

Michael Kile

Computing has replaced bull entrails, but with no identifiable improvement in the quality of climatological prognostications

Complexity and perplexity go together like a horse and carriage, or in this case, like the climate and a modeller. When probability claims masquerade as genuine predictions about reality, and international agencies and governments promote alarmism at every opportunity, when confirmation bias distorts the search for truth, the outcome is the “climate change” hyperbole and “saving-the-planet” activism that is now disrupting every aspect of our lives.    

Consider the World Meteorological Organization’s press release of May 17, 2023: Global temperatures set to reach new records in the next five years. It warned that:

Global temperatures are likely to surge to record levels in the next five years, fuelled by heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a naturally occurring El Niño event, according to a new update issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 

There is a 66% likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year.  There is a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.

A temporary reprieve from a French-fry fate is possible. But hold the champagne. The world is still going to exceed1.5°C “with increasing frequency”. Unless we prostrate ourselves with more fervour at the altar of NetZero it could become permanent. Whatever happens, like Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, we will always have Paris. 

WMO’s Secretary-General Professor Petteri Taalas:

 This report does not mean that we will permanently exceed the 1.5°C level specified in the Paris Agreement which refers to long-term warming over many years. However, WMO is sounding the alarm that we will breach the 1.5°C level on a temporary basis with increasing frequency.

A warming El Niño is “expected to develop in the coming months”. So, dear reader, mark your calendar. It will “combine with human-induced climate change” and “push global temperatures into uncharted territory”. This will have “far-reaching repercussions for health, food security, water management and the environment. We need to be prepared,” he said.

Have modellers so mastered the arcane art of calculating probabilities they can now conjure up such precise short-term predictions?

The WMO press release went on to claim:

There is only a 32% chance that the five-year mean will exceed the 1.5°C threshold, according to the Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update produced by the United Kingdom’s Met Office, the WMO lead centre for such predictions.

The chance of temporarily exceeding 1.5°C has risen steadily since 2015, when it was close to zero.  For the years between 2017 and 2021, there was a 10% chance of exceedance.

Hold it right there. There apparently is “a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.” Yet there is only a 32% chance that the global temperature over this period will exceed the 1.5°C threshold. The probability of a two-sided coin landing on heads is ½, or 50%. Interesting.

A paper published three years ago concluded:

“For the period 2017 to 2021 we predict a 38% and 10% chance, respectively, of monthly or yearly temperatures exceeding 1.5 °C, with virtually no chance of the 5-year mean being above the threshold.

“We cannot directly assess the reliability of forecasts of the probability of exceeding 1.5 °C because this event has not yet occurred in the observations.” Predicted Chance That Global Warming Will Temporarily Exceed 1.5 °C (Geophysical Research Letters, October 12, 2018)

The authors, nevertheless, wouldupdate their forecasts “every year to provide policy makers with advanced warning of the evolving probability and duration of future warming events.”

What if the planet does exceed an arbitrary number selected by UN agencies in Paris? Would the world be more afraid – or resigned – than it is today? What if the global “climate”, whatever that is, is beyond human control?  Surely that’s the biggest elephant in the greenhouse.

The MSM, predictably, trumpeted the WMO’s alarmism. There was, the ABC wrote: a 98 per cent chance one of the next five years would be the hottest ever.

As for the timing, cometh the hour, cometh the prediction. The WMO Global Annual to Decadal Update 2023-2027 was released just five days before the 19th session of the World Meteorological Congress began in Geneva this week. (See WMO events).

One of WMO’s top priorities is implementing the UN Early Warnings for All Initiative. On World Meteorological Day last March, the UN Secretary-General announced “a new call to action to ensure every person on Earth is protected by MHEWS (Multi-hazard early warning systems) within five years: the Early Warning Systems Initiative (EWS4ALL)”. 

As mentioned above, the UK Met Office acts as the WMO Lead Centre for Annual to Decadal Climate Prediction. It now has to dance the MHEWS tango, as do 145 ensemble members from 11 institutes engaged in this global exercise.

Too many cooks tend to spoil the broth. Perish the thought, but perhaps too many modellers are trying to predict the unpredictable: natural and climatic variability.

Not so, says the WMO: “Retrospective forecasts, or hindcasts, covering the period 1960-2018 are used to estimate forecast skill. Confidence in forecasts of global mean temperature is high since hindcasts show very high skill in all measures.” Accurately forecasting the future, however, is surely a bigger challenge than hindcasting the past.

The new update includes a section evaluating forecasts for the previous five years (page 16). A mixed bag of outcomes indeed. The “ensemble” models, for example, did not “capture” the “cold anomalies in Antarctica and eastern Asia”. And so on and so forth.

As for complexity, there’s never been any shortage of it in the CC space. According to UK Met Office: “The evolution of climate in the near term, out to a decade or two ahead, is the combination of natural climate variability and human-forced climate change. Changes in natural variability are large enough from one decade to the next to temporarily exacerbate or counter underlying anthropogenic trends [presumably assumed in model simulations].”

How the two phenomena are quantified remains a mystery, at least to me. Even after reading the World Climate Research Programme on the Grand Challenges of Near-Term Climate Prediction I am, alas, none the wiser. For some reason, they ended last year, possibly because too many experts had Covid or apocalypse fatigue syndrome. Hardly surprising, given this ambitious Concept Note.

One aspect most modellers seem to agree on is that “decadal predictions need to take into account both initial conditions of the climate system as well as the evolution of long-term forcings. (See Fig. 2 (Box 11.1) in AR5-WG1.)

The Barcelona Supercomputing Center describes their dilemma here and here:

 Certain limitations, such as imperfect parameterizations and inaccurate initial conditions, introduce biases in the climate models, i.e. cause them to have differences with the observations. All models exhibit to some extent biases.


at sub-seasonal to interannual time scales, climate predictability is thought to arise significantly from the knowledge of initial conditions. Initializing climate models with observationally-based estimates is a very challenging task scientifically, but also technically.

Accurate near-term predictions from climate models rely, among others, on a realistic specification of initial conditions. The problem is simple to state, but difficult to address for two reasons: (1) the observational coverage is sparse, (2) climate models “live” in their preferred state.

Such perplexity is not new. A lot of folk have had it, including the late Stephen Schneider (1945-2010). A distinguished environmental researcher at Stanford University’s Woods Institute, he was an author for four early IPCC assessment reports, a “core member” for two of them.

When the UK Royal Society published a commemorative volume of essays in 2010, Seeing Further – The Story of Science and The Royal Society, it included this one by Schneider: “Confidence, Consensus and the Uncertainty Cops: Tackling Risk Management in Climate Change.

At the time, he was perplexed by the “significant uncertainties” that “bedevil components of the science”, “plague projections of climate change and its consequences”, and challenge the traditional scientific method of directly testing hypotheses (‘normal’ science). Schneider’s solution: to change ‘the culture of science’ by developing a language that would convey the gravity of the situation “properly” to policy makers.

As climate uncertainty was (and for me still is) so intractable — and incomprehensible to the public — Schneider introduced the rhetoric of risk management – “framing a judgement about acceptable and unacceptable risks” – and pseudo-probability. While he claimed he was “uncomfortable” with this “value judgement” approach – he was even “more uncomfortable ignoring the problems altogether because they don’t fit neatly into our paradigm of ‘objective’ falsifiable research based on already known empirical data.”

He proposed a new subjective paradigm of “surprises’ in global climate scenarios, one with “perhaps extreme outcomes or tipping points which lead to unusually rapid changes of state”; while admitting that, “by definition, very little in climate science is more uncertain than the possibility of ‘surprises’.”

According to Schneider, “despite the worry that discussions of surprises and non-linearities could be taken out of context by extreme elements in the press and NGOs [but apparently not by the IPCC], we were able to include a small section on the need for both more formal and subjective treatments of uncertainties and outright surprises in the IPCC Second Assessment Report in 1995.”

“As a result the very last sentence of the IPCC Working Group 1 1995 Summary for Policy Makers addresses the abrupt non-linearity issue. This made much more in-depth assessment in subsequent IPCC reports possible, simply by noting [that is assuming, not proving] that: ‘When rapidly forced, non-linear systems are especially subject to unexpected behaviour.”

This was a pivotal moment in the history of climate alarmism. Schneider had smuggled a Trojan horse into the IPCC, with a contrived “language for risk” inside it. It was a language derived from his personal (and the IPCC’s) “value frame” and was adopted in subsequent reports. They now had, he wrote triumphantly, “licence to pursue risk assessment of uncertain probability but high consequence possibilities in more depth; but how should we go about it?” How, indeed?

It took a long time for him to “negotiate” agreement with climate scientists on precise “numbers and words” in the Third Assessment Report cycle. “There were some people who still felt they could not apply a quantitative scale to issues that were too speculative or ‘too subjective’ for real scientists to indulge in ‘speculating on probabilities not directly measured’. One critic said: ‘Assigning confidence by group discussion, even if informed by the available evidence, was like doing seat-of-the-pants statistics over a good beer.’”

Schneider’s Royal Society essay nevertheless concluded: “Despite the large uncertainties in many parts of the climate science and policy assessments to date, uncertainty is no longer a responsible justification for delay.”

How can one argue the more uncertain a phenomenon, the greater the risk to us and the planet? Yet they did and are still doing it today.

That said, at least Schneider was sceptical about modelling. “There are many scientists who dispute that it is only humans controlling the climate thermostat,” he wrote. “Heat exchanges from the tropics to the poles, ocean currents of countless durations and size, changing amounts of heat from the sun, all operate in a chaotic non-linear manner to make climate modelling a largely fruitless, if politically necessary, activity.”

As for his “own personal value position”, Schneider stated it emphatically in this 2003 paper: What is the Probability of “Dangerous” Climate Change?

 Given the vast uncertainties in both climate science and impacts estimations, we should slow down the rate at which we disturb the climate system — that is, reduce the likelihood of “imaginable conditions for surprise”. This can both buy time to understand better what may happen — a process that will take many more decades of research, at least — and to develop lower-cost decarbonization options so that the costs of mitigation can be reduced well below those that would occur if there were no policies in place to provide incentives to reduce emissions and invent cleaner alternatives.  Abating the pressure on the climate system, developing alternative energy systems, and otherwise reducing our overconsumption (see Arrow et al., 2003) are the only clear “insurance policy” we have against a number of potentially dangerous irreversibilities and abrupt nonlinear events.

To deal with such questions, the policy community needs to understand both the potential for surprises and how difficult it is for integrated assessment models (IAMs) to credibly evaluate the probabilities of currently imaginable “surprises,” let alone those not currently envisioned.

As for “abrupt nonlinear events” that would “qualify as dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” use your imagination. It’s easy to find an “extreme weather event” in natural variability. They happen somewhere in the world almost every day. Bamboozling folk with data or simulations that may, or may not, describe reality can be fun too. Astrologers, readers of entrails and other prognosticators made a lucrative living from it, even when their so-called facts and predictions were “value-laden”, and riddled with confirmation bias.

Schneider again:

 Whether a few generations of people demanding higher material standards of living and using the atmosphere as an unpriced sewer to more rapidly achieve such growth–oriented goals is “ethical” is a value-laden debate that will no doubt heat up as greenhouse gas builds up…and references to the “precautionary principle” will undoubtedly mark this debate.

The rest is history: the history of how dodgy “post-normal” science joined up with a pseudo-scientific “precautionary principle” to corrupt the UN, IPCC and WMO and, despite the “vast uncertainties”, ultimately created the NetZero decarbonising monster that is disrupting countries – and energy markets – everywhere on the bogus pretext of “fighting climate change”.

This essay was posted in Australia at Quadrant Online on May 27, 2023, with the title: Climate models: rubbish in, rubbish out

Michael Kile

23 May 2023

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Fair
May 28, 2023 10:45 pm

Anti-human evil incarnate.

May 28, 2023 11:11 pm

Convinced that they are already at 1.2 C warmer than the Little Ice Age that ended in 1860, another .3 increase in temperate and polar zones due to an el Nino is within reach of what they believe.
The rest of us won’t notice the difference in the 10 or 15 C swing from night to daytime temp, or where I live in Canada, 70C swing from winter to summer. And Stephan Boltzmann T^4 feedback of IR leaving the surface starts undoing their fears above a couple of degrees warmer SST anyway.

David Dibbell
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 29, 2023 5:12 am

“…T^4 feedback of IR leaving the surface…” 
Good point.
I like this web page, noting that the near-surface temperature goes through its annual cycle reliably because of the T^4 concept, obscuring the claimed attribution of long-term warming to the minor influence of rising GHG concentrations.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 29, 2023 9:23 am

The feedback you mention is coming from a specific molecule. It is being blamed on CO2. So the feedback most have an emissivity assigned to it. What is the emissivity of CO2 at 280 K and 1 atm or less?

Reply to  mkelly
May 29, 2023 12:46 pm

The Planck feedback referred to is 5.4 watts per ONE degree of increased surface temp (at 288 C), whereas a DOUBLING OF CO2 only results in about 3 watts…see below fig 4 here

Reply to  mkelly
May 29, 2023 1:14 pm

emissivity….here you go…. but this is very broad band….CO2 varies from just about transparent to a few cm. of it appearing to be a black body depending on the wavelength of the IR …..and you haven’t told me the wavelength of your IR…unless you mean a Planck distribution from a black body at 280K through the atmosphere, in which case the broad band one below is probably about right.
A black body at 300C emits about 35 % of its IR in the 8 to 14 micron IR band, which is the atmospheric window (transparent to IR, escapes to outer space) so that basically agrees with these guy’s wide band calc.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 30, 2023 4:06 am

“Convinced that they are already at 1.2 C warmer than the Little Ice Age”

They are fooling themselves. The 1.2C figure was reached in 2016, and the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C since that time.

comment image

May 28, 2023 11:29 pm

I think they included a typo. “the Early Warning Systems Initiative (EW(e)S4ALL). The sheep shall follow the bell wether.

May 29, 2023 2:14 am


As they say, a new model…

Peta of Newark
May 29, 2023 2:25 am

The entire climate shebang is the ravings/ramblings of diseased and damaged brains/minds.

The actual frames/bodies carrying those brains around are an equally horrible mess.
(Falling life expectancy, a record ‘excess death rate‘ in the UK and a $4Trillion US medical bill say as much)
It is, should be, more obvious than a ReallyObviousThing – apart from – to damaged minds that are wilfully blind. They pretend not to see.

Contrary to Popular Opinion, getting fat, diabetic, obese, cancer, Alzheimers’, hypertension, stroke, autism, HeartAttack, MS, Psoriasis etc etc are NOT = Lifestyle Choices made by people because they actively seek out those things and enjoy being that way
nor because they are intrinsically stupid
nor because they don’t do as they’re told
(We are ‘naturally obedient‘ as it happens. Hence the fixation on ‘always right’ Computers)

They do it because they are starving hungry
To compensate, they eat ever MoreMoreMore of the nutrient-free mush they do have available, in search of the trace-elements, micro-nutrients and vitamins (= what defines: Food) they need.
And those things aren’t there any more.
So they eat ever more in the hope of getting what their bodies/brains/minds need for health and proper function.

Nice try and what else to do?
Problem is: It’s not working and every attempt to stop/repair the damage only works to make it all worse. As might be expected.
e.g. No-one is going to employ BlindDrunkard, WeedAddictedHippy or HabitualCokeSnorter to do heart surgery so why employ one to do Climate Surgery?
….or baby-making
….or conduct a battlefield
….engage in international trade
….steer the economy of anywhere bar ToyTown
….maintain a parliament
….operate a school/university

The UK did, It elected BoJo as PrimeMinister and USA employs an AlzheimersVictim as President

Why: Because those places had no choice, there was No Other Candidate.
i.e. The damage and the disease had/has become normalised – it had been building and going on for sooooo long. (aka Homeostasis)

Everybody is affected and the ones who protest their innocence most strongly, are in fact TheWorstAffected (aka: Magical Thinking)
Such is the nature of the beast

it was predicted
and has happened myriad times throughout all of human history – SINCE – the joint inventions of Settled Society & Farming. But those events were small and localised.

But, SettledSociety was invented as a response to Hunger/Starvation.
(We ate all the nice easy-to-catch critters and burned the trees they hid amongst)

It could never last because Settled Societies demand Tax, Socialism and Monogamy – and humans are NOT in any way inclined to any of those things.

……as Climate Science always tells us though, there maybe is still time to turn it around.

But shooting the Livestock Farmers will be the last thing humanity ever does because This Time, it’s Global.

May 29, 2023 3:25 am

This report does not mean that we will permanently exceed the 1.5°C level specified in the Paris Agreement which refers to long-term warming over many years. However, WMO is sounding the alarm that we will breach the 1.5°C level on a temporary basis with increasing frequency.
Whatever the demerits of the WMO when it comes to climate change, at least they know how to punctuate the word ‘however’ correctly. Not a lot of people know how to do that these days.

Dave Fair
Reply to  CampsieFellow
May 29, 2023 8:45 am

How about “…, however, …?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  CampsieFellow
May 30, 2023 4:09 am

An English major probably wrote that.

David Dibbell
May 29, 2023 4:47 am

Good article.

As of early 2009, NASA knew better than to expect any sort of runaway climate outcome from what non-condensing greenhouse gases do.

Schneider was way off the mark, as I see it.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Dibbell
May 29, 2023 10:15 am

David, I read your excellent, easy to read linked article ‘nasa knew’. This compelling description of the earth’s dynamic heat engine and how it strongly regulates earth’s temperature should be distributed as broadly as possible.

I’ve posted on numerous threads over the years that the Le Châteler Principle (LCP), seemingly little known outside of the field of chemistry and chemical engineering, is eminently applicable to the dynamic inter-reacting system of oceans, atmosphere, land and biosphere.

LCP states that with any perturbation of one (or more) component(s) of the system (say an increase in T), all the other components react in such a way as to resist the change. The resulting change is rendered very much reduced from a ‘ceteris paribus’ (all other components remaining the same) condition – the “static response” you rightly criticize as invalid.

The heat engine of course dwarfs all other responses to warming, but the myriad other responses is a remarkable catalog of the fine tuning of this huge negative feedback system. Increased CO2 gets taken out of service by photosynthesis (35% ‘leafing out, and forest expansion over 40 yrs), solution in the oceans, generation of carbonate cocolithospores of expanding plankton swarms etc. And BTW, photosynthesis is an endothermic process, it sequesters heat as well as carbon dioxide! Etc and etc.

Mark BLR
May 29, 2023 4:47 am

That said, at least Schneider was sceptical about modelling.

When taking notes while skimming through the AR6 WG-I report I would occasionally (9 times) add a “Why we need ‘experts’ …” tag to the text I’d just copied.

Some of those extracts are related to computer models, their limits, and the limits of the people interpreting the “Garbage Out” half of the equation.

SPM, paragraph C.1.2, page 23 :

Projected human caused changes in mean climate and climatic impact-drivers (CIDs) [36], including extremes, will be either amplified or attenuated by internal variability [37] (high confidence).

Section, “Hydrological processes related to ice and snow”, page 1072 :

In summary, it is virtually certain that warming will cause a loss of frozen water stores, except in areas where temperatures remain below 0°C for most of the year.

Section, “Direct anthropogenic influence on the regional water cycle”, page 1076 :

A warming climate combined with direct human demand for water is expected to deplete ground water resources in dry regions (high confidence).

Section, “Model evaluation” (of tropical cyclones, or TCs), page 1588 :

In summary, various types of models are useful to study climate changes of TCs, and there is no unique solution for choosing a model type. However, higher-resolution models generally capture TC properties more realistically (high confidence). In particular, models with horizontal resolutions of 10-60 km are capable of reproducing strong TCs with Category 4-5 and those of 1-10km are capable of the eyewall structure of TCs. Uncertainties in TC simulations come from details of the model configuration of both dynamical and physical processes. Models with realistic atmosphere-ocean interactions are generally better than atmosphere-only models at reproducing realistic TC evolutions (high confidence).

Section 12.5.1, “A global synthesis”, pages 1851 + 1852 :

Globally, fire weather is projected to increase in future, primarily due to higher temperatures and exacerbated where precipitation reduces.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mark BLR
May 29, 2023 8:11 am

Oh lord.
Section – if the temperature goes above 0C, snow and ice is likely to melt. They are absolute geniuses – who would ever have thought of that one?

Plus warmer air, in general, is moister air – so if temperatures increase, wildfires will not be more likely as the increased moisture is likely to inhibit combustion rather than enhancing it, isn’t it?

It’s an absolute triumph of ill-informed opinion over facts.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Richard Page
May 29, 2023 9:52 am

… so if temperatures increase, wildfires will not be more likely as the increased moisture is likely to inhibit combustion rather than enhancing it, isn’t it?

The following extracts show the difference between the “Oh my $DEITY, we’re all gonna diiiiiiiiie ! ! !” approach of the SPM and the more “scientific” contents of the main (WG-I) report, which includes elements of doubt and uncertainty about the details of what “will” happen as GMST rises over the next few decades.

Section 11.8.3, “Concurrent droughts and heat waves”, page 1600 :

There is high confidence that fire weather conditions will become more frequent at higher levels of global warming in some regions.

Highlights the “some” regions that “will” burn as a result of AGW, but allows readers to infer that maybe, just maybe, there are “some other” regions that might survive despite the ever-worsening “fire weather conditions”.

In FAQ 11.1, “How do changes in climate extremes compare with changes in climate averages?”, on page 1608 :

Climate change will manifest very differently depending on which region, which season and which variable we are interested in.

In business jargon this “anything could happen, we just don’t know” type of baffle-gab is also known as “CYA” [ NB : moderator discretion required ] … i.e. Cover Your Ass (US) / Arse (UK) …

Reply to  Mark BLR
May 29, 2023 11:37 am

While the Americans may not know an arse from an elbow, the Brits are well acquainted with the Yankee ass.

Richard Page
Reply to  cilo
May 29, 2023 12:13 pm

I was given a rude awakening to the CYOA mentality early on in my working life when I had to resign because of another’s incompetence. The climate enthusiasts couple this CYOA mentality with a shotgun approach to hitting targets (climate change claims) and yet, despite this (or, perhaps, because of this) are unable to convince many people of the validity of their ‘science’. If it wasn’t for the general indifference of most of the population, these jokers would’ve been shown the door long ago.

Reply to  Richard Page
May 31, 2023 2:48 am

Yeah, I was just trying to make a wide joke. Very wide…

May 29, 2023 7:36 am

The politicians supporting the “Climate Change” activists are only and always strictly interested in acquiring and holding power. The ‘scientists’ pushing this 1.5 C tipping point nonsense are just useful idiots doing what the venal politicians want.

Ulric Lyons
May 29, 2023 7:48 am

“The chance of at least one of the next five year’s exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is now about 50:50 (48%).”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 30, 2023 3:22 pm

They keep saying it as if it were bad news. The Little Ice Age (aka “pre-industrial”) WAS the climate “bad news.”

1.5 degrees warmer than that is paradise by comparison.

May 29, 2023 8:19 am

The authors, nevertheless, wouldupdate their forecasts “every year to provide policy makers with advanced warning of the evolving probability and duration of future warming events.”

Humph. That’s just so they can pay their instigators to write new extremist copy on an annual basis and scare hell out of the population more frequently, in hopes of More Income.

Gary Pearse
May 29, 2023 8:31 am

“May 17, 2023: Global temperatures set to reach new records in the next five years.”

These are really marching orders for the temperature fiddlers. I give it 100% probability that “The Clime Syndicate” (thank you Mark Steyn for this clever term) will do all in its power to fulfill this target.

Danley B. Wolfe
May 29, 2023 8:48 am

Note; AI, ChatGPT etc. can be used as a tool to disprove, dismiss and embarrass the Chicken Little Sky is Falling claims as being unverifiable therefore knowingly inerently dishonest at multiple levels including intent to deceive.

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Danley B. Wolfe
May 29, 2023 10:02 am

ChatGPT does exactly what it’s programmed to do. It bases its output on a curated set of data. Since the curators (low-paid believers mostly in California) have been trained to curate using the climate religion as a filter, that’s what ChatGPT will assert.

Most ChatGPT users do not understand the conception of curating and think it’s a magic truth box. They will not challenge the logical inanity of the religion any more than people challenged Christianity when that was the predominant religion.

The separation of church and state is what made the United States what it was. We are, unfortunately, seeing in a very small amount of time, what happens to a civilization when that separation is eliminated.

May 29, 2023 8:58 am

Doesn’t matter how big or fast the supercomputer is. If the input parameters are bullshit, the output is still bullshit. Imagine using Models to make major policy decisions… oh, wait, they are!

Walter Sobchak
May 29, 2023 9:40 am

Like I have often said. Just a bunch of dudes smoking weed and playing video games.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 29, 2023 12:00 pm

I smoked some once, never made me see no horror flick of no melting planet… Maybe they are on the needle, or snorting John Kerry’s armpit hair?

May 29, 2023 11:32 am

to make climate modelling a largely fruitless, if politically necessary, activity.”

I am saving that quote for future reference.
On a lighter note:

Astrologers, readers of entrails and other prognosticators…

As many of us long feared, most astronomers are now part of that list. Dark mutterings, like inviting perdition upon sinful Man, will always be a tithe-collecting crowdpleaser, I guess, but it’s not science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  cilo
May 30, 2023 4:23 am

Yes, I read in Astronomy magazine last month that the extreme heat on Venus is caused by CO2. The author is obviously clueless about the subject.

One of my pet peeves with the Astronomy community is too many times they talk about astronomical objects as though they were sentient beings. I guess it’s natural for human beings to do that, but they should keep in mind that these are inanimate objects, and describing them differently is incorrect (and irritating to some people:).

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 31, 2023 2:06 am

…heat on Venus is caused by CO2…

Climate is of only tangent interest to me, so I get many things wrong, but this is one of the basic paradigms informing my view of climastrology: Venus is hot, with lots of carbon in the air, so the original climastrologist twerp (I never bothered memorising its name) started calculating the warming by division, and then came to the conclusion he can predict our own perdition by simple multiplication of our atmosphere’s carbon content. Sort of like 600ppm = 400 degrees therefor 200ppm will give 400/3 = 133.333 degrees. Make sure to add digits after the comma, to show how precise you are.
I may be wrong on this, but I see no evidence that I’m incorrect.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 31, 2023 3:00 am

…as for anthropomorphisised astral bodies… well…okay, but “inanimate”?
Imagination is, too, part of the scientist’s toolbox, only the unimaginative think otherwise.
The problem comes when imagination is your only tool, I guess. And never underestimate the damage done by classicism!

May 29, 2023 11:51 am

Sleight of hand, so the comment:

There is a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.”

Becomes “UN report says there’s a 98 per cent chance one of the next five years will be the hottest ever”

Of course ABC, will ignore the Medieval, Roman and Minoan optimums.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bobpjones
May 30, 2023 4:26 am

And they ignore the Early Twentieth Century, and the 1880’s, when it was just as warm as it is today.

May 29, 2023 3:39 pm

They like to do this predictions so that we have to wait to laugh. But I’m done with that. I’m laughing at their rubbish now. If they’re right, it will be a first, and so there’s a slim chance I’ll be wrong.

Reply to  Decaf
May 31, 2023 3:01 am

laughing at their rubbish now.

100 pluses!

Tom Abbott
May 30, 2023 4:40 am

From the article: “There is a 66% likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year. There is a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.”

Good! We have a prediction that most of us will see.

Back in 1998, when temperatures were just as warm as 2016, Hansen and the other climate change alarmists thought the temperatures were going to continue to climb (because CO2) and would exceed the temperatures in the 1930’s.

It looked like their predictions were going to be correct but then Mother Nature intervened and the temperatures started cooling which sent the climate change alarmists into a panic and caused them to get real serious about bastardizing the modern-day temperature record to make things appear warmer than they really were. Remember all those “hottest year ever!” predictions? The facts are none of those “hottest year ever!” claims (about 10 of them between 1998 and 2015) by the climate change alarmists at NOAA and NASA were true since none of those years were warmer than 1998, if you go by the unbastardized UAH satellite data (see chart below).

Look how much it cooled after 1998. The climate change alarmists don’t expect to see that kind of cooling again. But history shows cooling is a normal part of the pattern. So we will see if CO2 can overcome the historical pattern, and thanks to the WMO we have a date certain.

comment image

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights