By Steve Goreham — April 29, 2025
“The Trump administration is cutting funding for climate research across all federal departments…. Maybe it’s time for NASA to stick to space exploration, NOAA to stick to weather forecasting, and for the climate models to be shut down.”
Climate models have been the basis for concern about climate change for more than 35 years. The US government, the United Nations, and organizations across the world have used model projections to warn about global warming and to demand a shift to renewable energy. But Trump administration budget cuts at NASA, NOAA, and other federal agencies threaten to shut down the models, the heart of climate change alarmism.
In June of 1988, Senator Tim Wirth, then chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, held the first-ever hearing on the science of climate change. Dr. James Hansen, head of a computer-modeling team at NASA, testified that he was “ … 99 percent confident that the world really was getting warmer and that there was a high degree of probability that it was due to human-made greenhouse gases.”
Since Dr. Syukuro Manabe of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Washington D.C. developed one of the first climate models in the 1960s, modelers have been warning that humans are causing dangerous climate change. Global surface temperatures have risen only a little more than one degree Celsius over the last 140 years, but models project a faster additional rise of 0.5ꟷ3.5oC by the year 2100.
Climate models have been used by scientists, researchers, and governmental policy makers to estimate possible future climate impacts. Global organizations, such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations and the World Bank use model projections to urge climate action. Non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace use model projections to raise funds. But the Trump administration appears to be about to shut down the US climate models.
There are more than 40 climate models operating across the world, with 13 of the leading models located in the US. The US models are operated by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in New York City, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Princeton, New Jersey, and the Department of Energy (DOE) in Boulder, Colorado. Each of these organizations has been ordered to reduce staff as part of Trump administration budget cuts.
The White House may soon tell NASA to focus work on space programs, not climate change. In February, the administration denied NASA officials permission to travel to an international climate meeting in China. At the same time, NASA management cut off funding for a support contract for the 7th Assessment Report of the IPCC. NASA has been a primary contributor to previous IPCC Assessment Reports. Preliminary government spending plans for fiscal year 2026 would cut NASA’s science budget by almost half, to $3.9 billion.
The administration also wants to end climate change programs at NOAA. Plans call for a 27% cut to NOAA’s budget, down to $4.5 billion. Final budget totals for NASA and NOAA will need to be approved by Congress, with members concerned about the climate sure to put up a fight.
Climate models run on supercomputers and are expensive. Supercomputers cost about $50 million up front and $20 million per year to support each climate-modeling team. The NASA, NOAA, and DOE modeling teams may not be able to survive large projected cuts.
Beyond climate models, budgets of other climate projects will also be cut. The Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado has been studying sea level rise for about two decades. This group gets much of its funding from NASA and other federal agencies. The Mauna Loa Laboratory in Hawaii has been measuring the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the 1950s, but it may be closed due to NOAA funding cuts. Three NASA satellites used to collect climate data also need to be replaced, but there are no plans to do so.
The Trump administration is cutting funding for climate research across all federal departments, with major impacts on US and world efforts to force action on climate change. Maybe it’s time for NASA to stick to space exploration, NOAA to stick to weather forecasting, and for the climate models to be shut down.
——————————-
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource are here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s a lot of cash to be saved where the modelling community is concerned.
O/T Looking after what’s important
Users of the parliamentary estate have been informed that from Friday this week they won’t be able to charge their electric vehicles in New Palace Yard’s underground car park:
“These charging points are due to be removed on health and safety grounds following a review by the Safety and Fire teams, and in consultation with the Chair of the Administration Committee.”
https://order-order.com/2025/04/30/parliament-scraps-electric-car-charging-points/
They’re alright, Jack.
Unhuh, can they still park their electric cars there?
Guy Fawkes must be shaking with laughter in his coffin.
Probably not for long.
Nothing wrong with having climate models as long as you don’t assume they’re correct. Let academia do this modeling- many like Hah-vid have the money- though that might mean smaller pay raises for their elite. Astronomers have “the standard model” but they all agree it’s not definitive and they keep working to improve it.
Fine, as long as they remove CO2 from the models. Whatever role it plays is too small to either measure or to be in any way, shape or form a significant factor or “climate knob”.
The only “climate knob(s)” are the bedwetting modellers.
I agree that scientists can learn from models. But scientists are as vulnerable to hubris as the rest of us. The current crop is almost completely rotten (the researchers and the models) needs to be thrown out with the rubbish.
Agreed. If 131 models give different outputs, you learn that you have wasted money on at least 130 of them. At least it’s someone else’s money. Phew!
“Nothing wrong with having climate models as long as you don’t assume they’re correct.”
Au contraire. There’s a great deal wrong with forcing the public to pay for climate models. Particularly when most of the public and all of the ruling class assume they are correct, even though they are demonstrably wrong, and the fate of industrial civilization will be decided on their predictions.
Climate models are not predictions, they are a way to test the assumptions in the models by comparing their results to real world data. In earlier days, that was a given that the modelers themselves were careful to point out. But after they were politicized and the “consensus” was bruited about they became gospel, contrary to their original purpose.
So they are just a way to see how stupid your assumptions are. But when they became “data” and “science” they were not fit for purpose.
“Climate models run on supercomputers….”
That’s because the models aren’t very good and by using a supercomputer it’s meant to impress people. I’m no scientist but I suggest that with a very good climate model you wouldn’t need a supercomputer. Perhaps the idea is you need all that power to determine the relationship between all the variables. But, if you knew the relationships you might end up with a fairly simple formula. Look how Einstein reduced a number of problems in physics with E=MC2. (I don’t know how to make a superscript)
MC^2
how do you make that symbol?
Character mapping. On a windows machine, left click on “start”, go to Windows accessories, chose character map, select the character you want and click copy. Then paste into the text.
˄˄˄˄˄˄˄
Be sure to check out wingdings and symbols font for extra symbols.
thanks- haven’t looked at the character map in ages- forgot about it
Shift 6 on a keyboard.
OK, but what I’d prefer for that formula is a small “2” elevated- but I will look at the character map. I didn’t realize that ^ meant the same thing. Learn something new everyday.
The caret is a common operator for “to the power of” in many programming languages and spreadsheet programs (including Excel)
For the superscript 2 in WIndows: Alt + 0178 E=MC²
It’s on the keyboard. ^
On a US keyboard and some others, you can make the caret/circumflex/hat with Shift + 6 ^ (or AltGr + 6 on some European keyboards)
In Windows, you can also use Alt+0178 E=MC²
Joseph, surely your secretary / typist / personal assistant will know this, and draft your comments accordingly?
You do have a secretary / typist / personal assistant called Shirley.
Surely?
Those “supercomputers” can’t even reliably predict the weather for the next week. Why do they think they can predict climate for the next hundred years? What a waste of money, time and energy, which they also use in large quantities.
Next week? Hardly get the next day right.
“There is no point in being precise if you do not even know what you are talking about.”
John Von Neumann
I think the modelers rely on the general public not unerstanding what a computer actually does.
yuh, they hear super computer and think of Super Man
Smart phone?
Smart battery?
New and improved
Designer …
Advertising techniques.
Our smart phones would be considered super computers 40 years ago. Just bought my first- after only using ancient flip phones- and since I also wanted a new camera, I got an I-Phone 16 Max Pro which can do 4K video at 120 FPS. In case a UFO flies over my house, I’ll get a nice video of it. 🙂
Wow, I wonder what AI video “deep fake” tech is going to do for/to the UFO subculture
That’s already starting to happen so few people, even UFO fans, trust any photos or videos. We’ll need them to land, step out, and announce themselves. Since I had a great view of the Hudson Valley boomerang UFO in 1984, seen by thousands of people- I know they’re out there. Why all the mystery- why they’re mostly hiding out- nobody knows. I’m waiting for the first alien to be on Joe Rogan’s show. 🙂
[ ALT]0178
if you’re on a PC
E = MC² … like that , you mean ⸘
There is a windows app called “Character Map” where you can get all sorts of strange symbols..
eg ۞ ⁐ ᾎ ╚╝ ↈ
Science is science when it is not made political, such as has occurred over the past several decades. Keep science pure should always be the goal.
That said, I perceive value in NOAA and NASA satellites for more than weather forecasting. Collecting atmospheric data for use by science should be considered.
It’s not what we know we don’t know that is the risk.
The risk is what we do NOT know we don’t know.
NOAA should be about the oceans and atmosphere aligned with weather.
NASA should be space, including satellites for a variety of purposes.
Neither should have even a low level priority for politics.
It’s water, not trace gases.
It’s the sun (and other energy sources), not hydrocarbons and coal.
It’s measurements and observations, not non-validated computer models.
That’s not my question.
As a skeptic, realist, pragmatist, I always challenge myself, seeking to identify assumptions that need further consideration.
As a skeptic, I have to ask, what if we are wrong, meaning:
What if something is happening that we do not yet see, do not yet understand, that will cause changes to the environment that will overtax our ability to adapt?
Humans cannot control the weather. Period. What we can do is seek answers to questions we do not yet know to ask so we can be better prepared for the unknown and perhaps even the unknowable.
Re ” Science is science when it is not made political, such as has occurred over the past several decades.”
Flashback to A.D. 1961 (that’s –64 yrs ago, at the dawn of the era of satellite-based instruments & large-scale computational algorithms):
——————————————————
” Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. ”
— Excerpted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961)
On January 17, 1961, in this farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a “military-industrial complex.” …
————————————————————
*[… that’s right, plus this little something more]
Cannot say that no one tried to warn us of this equal & opposite danger.
Source: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
I know that speech and fully agree.
Best presidential speech in the history of presidential speeches.
Atmospheric data is important, but the agency for that would be NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not NASA. NASA is supposed to work on aeronautics and space.
I believe I said that, but NASA launches satellites.
Government’s job is to obtain data, as accurately and as comprehensively as possible. Government research should be into obtaining necessary data with better and better devices and methods. One area sorely lacking is the data necessary to examine enthalpy. Soil temperatures are hit and miss. They are important as the natural absorbers of insolation on land. The starting point of radiation budgets from land should begin with these temperatures and their distribution.The government should be dealing with this.
The raw data should be available to all in an easy to access method. Let the researchers in climate science massage the raw data as they see fit. Their procedures should be included in each and every study and open to criticism. The excuse of we used official modified data should disappear.
“Humans cannot control the weather.”
But they can control the climate and predict the temperature to 1/100ths of a degree 25 years from now! Imagine that! (Yes, only in your imagination.)
I wonder who went through the comments and put negative marks? One of the usual suspects?
Why spend more money on climate research? The Science Is Settled!
Ah, but you see, the Science is (and always has been) just Settled enough that it is obviously ignorant to argue with it, but not so Settled that they don’t need more money to Settle it even more. Try to keep up 🙂
‘Global surface temperatures have risen only a little more than one degree Celsius over the last 140 years’ And we know that how?
By setting the start date in the 1850-1880 time frame when the country was the coldest in the 19th century.
With our universal thermometer?
Which version of thermometer?
We resolved to a mercury thermometer but after many other attempts.
Whatever temperature from the mid-1800s should come with a +/- 0.5 to +/- 1.0 F error, perhaps greater.
Apparently the North Pole and the South Pole are ancient thermometers put there by ancient aliens to measure the globes temperature.
One in the mouth and one in …
A few days ago I made a comment on Exxon new, which ended up as the first comment there:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/24/the-plagiarism-problem-plaguing-the-exxonknew-lawfare-lawsuits-summary-for-policymakers/
and also mentions a comment about F. Otto´s attribution I made last week.
My tenor is always the same..
Before moving on to ever new models it seems very important to develop a procedure to re-evaluate old statements made by modelers in published science.
Funding choices sound like a good way forward. Personally, I think we need global climate model development, but we also need a clear communication what climate model cannot and could not do.
For example the question if Exxon´s scientists were calculate anything with great certainty with their lacking models can be answered without doubt:
We know without any uncertainty that older models lacked resolution and science (for example improved cloud physics between CMIP5 and CMIP6 models) any therefore any calculated scenario back then cannot be assumed to necessarily match reality!
“Models of the past predicted the global warming trends”
How can that be if they were lacking? (both in resolution and physics)
This is a very important question!
How can something wrong seemingly give the correct answer?
If my opinion is true and it really means that the past articles only reflect the believe of their makers, they must clearly say so! (and withdraw any article which does not as nu-scientific!)
“I have been warning about climate change for more than 20 years!”
Did you make sure to tell everybody the whole time that the basis for your statements was and is highly uncertain and was proven incomplete and wrong repeatedly with every new CMIP model generation? We know now that you were wrong to do so for most of the time (current CMIP models are still evaluated, but there is good indication that they also lack resolution, measured input data and science to made reliable predictions.)
There’s light at the end of the tunnel. But if the US doesn’t follow up Trump with another Conservative president I fear we’ll be yanked back to climate alarmism. The recent Eu blackout won’t be forgotten soon and probably more to come if they keep adding and relying on wind and sun. They still haven’t realized that you can’t realistically store electricity for the grid and without expensive frequency matching it’s worse than losing one fossil fueled power plant.
Every college freshman returning home for Thanksgiving since the ’60s has bored his/her parents and siblings to tears reciting Eisenhower’s admonition re. the military industrial complex. What they never learned from their professors was that Ike had equal misgivings re. government funded science.
Re “… what they never learned …”
So true, and then he [Eisenhower] finished that portion of his brief Farewell* with this bit of prescience:
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that **public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.** “
*It’s only 15 minutes of audio-video, with the MIC / Capture warnings near the very end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VWb384lfsE
I think Ike’s idea has been corrected out of history. Schools only teach presidential speech anomalies now, so they can throw away the error terms.
Two relevant comments summarized from many previous posts and comments.
Re “So important the Russians wrote a long peer reviewed (in English) paper as to why.”
Please, if you could, provide a link to the published report, thanks. — RLW
Volodin et al, Simulations of the present day climate with the climate model INMCM5, in Climate Dynamics (2017), Clim Dyn DOI 10.1007/s00382-017-3539-7. Key graphic is fig. 5a.
Done. I had to go to my main computer where all climate stuff plus all for all three ebooks is both archived and backed up.
Thanks, that worked!
“A more sophisticated parameterization of condensation and cloudiness formation was introduced as well.”
Dear Rud,
did you mean this group:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342753936_Simulation_of_Possible_Future_Climate_Changes_in_the_21st_Century_in_the_INM-CM5_Climate_Model
“””In the warmest SSP5-8.5
scenario, the temperature rises by more than 4° by the
end of the 21st century. In the SSP3-7.0 scenario, dif-
ferent members of the ensemble show warming by
3.4°–3.6°. In the SSP2-4.5 scenario, the temperature
increases by about 2.4°. According to the SSP1-2.6
scenario, the maximal warming by ~1.7° occurs in the
middle of the 21st century, and the temperature
exceeds the preindustrial temperature by 1.4° by the
end of the century. “””
They seem to focus on the 2nd highest emission scenario in their analysis, like everyone did after it became very obvious that the highest emission scenarios do not match reality at all once they upgraded to CMIP6.
At least in that article (which is probably their first INM-CM5 CMIP6 one) they seem to be as alarmist as possible just like every one else!
No. Gave the exact reference to Whitten, just above.
Sorry, but not ‘as alarmist as’ the others. From the paper’s concluding summary:
” It is shown that the global warming predicted by the INM-CM5 model is
the lowest among the currently published CMIP6
model data. … None [ not even the extreme SSP5-8.5 case ] show the complete melting of the Arctic ice cover by the end of the 21st century. ”
Perhaps the problem is with the extracted temperature rises (mentioned above, from Fig. 1) start from (2020 – 25) at ~ + 1.2 C. [ Presumably assumed rise from the 19th-C. until now. ] Subtracting this ‘baseline’ ( – 1.2 C ) from those values yields the following rises (A.D. 2025 – 2099):
SSP5-8.5 [ ~ + 2.8 C ]
SSP3-7.0 [ ~ + 2.2 – 2.4 C
SSP2-4.5 [ ~ + 1.2 C ]
SSP1-2.6 [ ~ + 0.3 C & declining]
— in rough agreement with that noted by Istvan for the ECS estimates (for doubling, correct?).
[Presumably he extracted those estimates from papers, described in his ‘previous posts’, other than the 2020 or 2017 ones; the latter having been cited by 252 times (!) by now, according to the google Scholar tabulation.]
Regarding the ‘spurious hotspot’ (graphical Fig. 5 – top frame), here’s how they describe their results — answering the ‘why question’:
Positive bias near the tropical tropopause is about 1–2 K. It is smaller than the one in the INMCM4, where the positive bias was equal to 4–5 K. The reason for this improvement is the adjustment of the deep convection parameterization.
Also ignored it seems is the Happer and Wijngaarden conclusion that doubling CO^2 cannot warm the atmosphere more than about 0.5C, or less if there are unknown mitigating processes.
If Mr trump can succeed in pacifying Russian aggression, he might consider annexing the Russian climate model as part of the ‘Deal’. The other 130+ models can then be discarded.
THIS is what I voted for!
I have yet to hear one credible claim of voter regret regarding Trump. Show me someone who regrets their vote and show me an online trail of posts, tweets, comments and emails indicating support forTrump during the election.
Trump foreign policy is atrocious.
Too soon to tell.
GW, perhaps true if you are a foreigner. Not otherwise. Looking good so far to us Americans.
What was it that Obama told Putin when he didn’t know the mic was on?
Words to the effect that he’d be able to do “more” after the election? In other words he was telling not to much attention to what I say now. I don’t really mean it.
Trump, on the other hand, has backed up his words with actions. In only his first 100 days.
Other nations are now paying attention. That’s a good thing.
Any deal/arrangement with the US that’s good for them must also be good for the US.
What’s wrong with that?
Are you asking for a trillion for Ukraine 😉
Repeat: I have yet to hear one credible claim of voter regret regarding Trump.
Give examples of how Trump’s foreign policy is atrocious, since you changed the subject,
In your opinion, of course, which I should value because . . .?
Why? Because he wants to stop illegal immigration?
Why? because he wants to level import tariffs for trade?
Why? because he wants armed conflicts killing young people stopped?
Why? because he won’t let Iran get a nuclear weapon?
These are Donald Trump’s foreign policies. You must have good reason to find them atrocious, but you didn’t offer any.
As an Australian, I don’t think Trump’s foreign policies are atrocious. Western nations need to stand on their own two feet and be counted on to support Western Civilisation. I could not care less about ‘tariffs’. Every country has these tools in their trading policies to leverage advantage … the EU, and France in particular, being amongst the worst offenders … They have nothing to complain about. Even our country has a myriad of so-called ‘regulations’ to prevent the import of products that may out compete local products, especially in agriculture and food. “Biodiversity” is the biggest BS excuse ever.
I have been actively searching for a week now, can’t find a single one. Lots of Democrats crying like little beeatches, no Americans upset with Trump.
I think Trump’s victory has finally driven the radical Democrats off the Deep End. They have lost what little mind they had.
It sounds like Trump is going after CO2-caused Climate Change hard.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said today at the public Cabinet Meeting that “the Green New Deal is dead!”
As an aside: President Trump held a public Cabinet Meeting today where the average citizen could listen in to each and every Cabinet Secretary tell what they had done and what they were going to do in the future, and it was a very educational session.
Fox News covered the entire two-hour cabinet meeting. One piece of breaking news after another, for two hours. CNN and MSNBC and the rest of the Leftwing Media didn’t give it one minute of coverage.
Trump aaid at one point that he had eight TRILLION dollars of new investments in the United States lined up. I guess CNN and MSNBC don’t want their viewers to hear such things. They want their viewers to remain uneducated about the facts.
It is unfortunate that their viewers don’t want to be educated about anything that challenges their beliefs for fear of extreme cognitive dissonance and the resulting self-loathing at having been so easily manipulated.
I have noticed a similar trait among Climate True Believers. Many times I have tried to explain to them the importance of Paleoclimates in understanding today’s climate. They do their best to block out the information. They are really terrified that such knowledge will destroy their fundamental beliefs.
Many of us here have known the ‘usual’ problems with GCMs for a long time:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/10/the-dirty-secrets-inside-the-black-box-climate-models/
However, it’s my opinion that the real problem, which only recently has been getting any play, is that reliance on radiative transfer models (RTMs) to model heat transfer in the troposphere has fooled many scientists into erroneously believing that adding IR active gases (CO2) to the atmosphere will inevitably lead to ‘catastrophic global warming’.
While RTMs may appear to ‘work’ because they can be tuned to reproduce the tropospheric lapse rate, this is simply an artifact of radiative heat transfer that happens to coincide with an observed temperature profile that results from convective overturning.
Given that there is absolutely no geological evidence over the past 65 my (at least) that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of the Earth’s climate, perhaps it is time to stop the circular logic of invoking models that say it is.
‘…an observed temperature profile that results from convective overturning.”
I am impressed by Simpson and Brunt in 1938 in their straightforward and insightful responses to Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to rising CO2, consistent with your point here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322
Hindcasting is simply curve fitting renamed.
As far as I can tell, none of those easily-fooled scientists you mentioned can demonstrate that they understand the difference between radiant energy (in Joules) and radiant power (in Watts). Indeed the entire climate “science” scam rests on not knowing this difference. Of course, it’s very difficult to understand something when your paycheque depends on not understanding it…
Lack of understanding or ignorance will always be with us. I worry more about those scientists who have serious doubts about the alarmist narrative but find it impossible to speak out because their paycheck depends on their supporting that narrative.
Climate models are important tools to see if we have the correct understanding of climate. However, until we can give climate models all data, except the last 20 years, and the models can accurately produce the last 20 years, then are simply wrong.
Without hindcasting, of course.
OT. Wailing and gnashing…
It’s the anti net-zero, anti-woke Tony Blair – how was this man ever considered a progressive? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/30/tony-blair-anti-net-zero-anti-woke-corporate
You must have found a lot of nice sandy beach to keep burying all your heads in. Unfortunately it will not stop climate change.
Neither will eliminating fossil fuels or otherwise crapping on Western civilization.
Tell that to all of the elite climate alarmists who are building mansions on the beach.
“will not stop climate change”
From doing what?
?
When has the climate not changed?
Well?
Boy, that’s profound. The climate is always changing, always has and always will.
Stopping climate change? Are you God?
Mr. halfrunt: At least we can pull all our heads out, the sand between your ears seems more permanent.
No one here is denying climate change.
Current definition: 30 year average of weather (usually assigned to a region).
So, if the weather this second is not identical to the weather exactly 30 years ago, the running average (aka climate) changes.
“You must have found a lot of nice sandy beach to keep burying all your heads in. Unfortunately it will not stop climate change.”
Odd. The only ones denying the climate changes are those complaining their $Green$ is being cut off in their attempts to stop the climate from changing.
When has the climate not changed? Or even the weather for any given local from year to year?
The only thing that’s changing is where the $Green$ is going.
Now more might stay in the US taxpayers’ pockets.
What cliamte change is that?
My region has the SAME climate the entire Interglacial period.
Koppen Climate Classification,
BSk
Look it up.
Ok Marxist.
Nothing will, twaffle. And humans are not causing it, either.
Define ”climate” and define ”change” or piss off.
The great oracle halfnut has decreed it and shall now be known as oracle fullnut 🙂
As an interesting piece of NASA history I just ‘unearthed’ this in a pile of papers from the Earth Resources Laboratory, National Space Technology Laboratories
Dow, David. D.1982. Literature Review of Organic Matter Transport in Estuaries. NASA-Technical Paper. 2022:1-74.
It’s actually very good, especially for the time and was not political. Their intent was to build an “INPUT-OUTPUT FLOW MODEL” for fisheries purposes. Salt marshes were first considered to be the “outflow”supplier for fisheries which led to many attempts at reconstruction, but it proved much more complex with questions of the extent that they were the producer, consumer, or just reservoir of nutrients and living food in general. They had a good marine biologist helping them but don’t what became of it. The lab is at NSTL Station, Mississippi near the coast and fisheries models are still inadequate.
Re “build an “INPUT-OUTPUT FLOW MODEL” ”
That’s very interesting IMHO, for it reminds me of a new book* [ 11 Nov. 2024 ] based on that very concept, as a way to resolve a certain paradox that apparent troubles the ‘Klima-Krise’ folks in Europe.
https://www.amazon.de/Gerd-Gantef%C3%B6r-ebook/dp/B0DJT2JWF1?ref_=ast_author_mpbP.S. Please don’t complain that it’s only been published in German, so far. I have a draft English translation in PDFormat, titled (tentatively) Plan B for the Climate: Overcoming Climate Change with the Forces of Nature . It’s written in a ‘popular’ style, in other words for the general public. But I can vouch for the Author, Gerd Ganteför, alternatively spelled Gantefoer, having known him since 1990, at least.
Looks valuable from reading the book’s description and his interesting background. I can read German with lots of help from a nearly worn out Wörterbuch. Translating automatically may work, but do know that it has trouble with errors. German isn’t easy anyway. It would help our ‘ecological engineers’ to study what gas and other engineers deal with since environmental flows are full of ‘leaks.’ Somehow too many ecologists now seem to have trouble with natural nature. NASA should know about leaks.
Karl Möbius coined the term “biocoenosis” in the 1880s, but I don’t think he meant it’s use now as ecosystem. Modern scientists seem to have trouble now even with 20th century work, exceptions, of course. .
I have been fluent in both spoken (4 of 5 dialects—SwitzerDeutsch is also eine Halskrankheit) and written German since lived in Munich starting 1978. Will read the book auf Deutsch and get back here somewhen with some comments.
Dear Hoese & Istvan et al.,
Here’s a quick update.
The Author (Gerd Gantefoer) has informed me that the English -Language version (translation) is final, and that it should be available — from the same publisher* — on Amazon (USA?), “if not now then in the next few days.”
[I searched anglophone sites in the usual way, using the author & title. No luck and, worse, ‘Plan B’ evidently refers to something else of great interest to the youth-feminine readership.]
That ‘certain troubling paradox’ (mentioned above) is taught by way of an “INPUT-OUTPUT FLOW MODEL” [Hoese], as I recall from reading it in February, but without the mathematical details (coupled 1st-order LDEs), as the book’s target audience is generally educated public.
Perhaps this could be a Tip for a future posting?
— RLW
*P.S. the publisher, Westendverlag.de, has put out a glossy 10-page PDF document* (in english) ‘Foreign Rights List — Spring 2025’, which includes a page that promotes this work (also with a star label ‘Spiegel Bestseller-Autor’) under the same title given earlier:
*Source: https://westendverlag.de/media/8b/fc/10/1740391170/FRC-Westend-01_2025_final.pdf
Just put the verb at the end of the sentence and you’ll be good to go 🙂
I’m all for supercomputer-based general circulation models for numerical weather prediction and for reanalysis. I’m all for radiosondes and modern weather station instruments and data acquisition from aircraft and ocean buoys. I’m all for space-based observation platforms and the computer systems that process the resulting data for interpretation. Great.
But from the very beginning the pre-stabilized “climate” models have been a persuasion tool. The “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the investigation of rising CO2 concentrations was the beginning of an utterly circular exercise. If the radiative “forcing” from incremental CO2 is assumed to be valid at the outset, then the step-iterated models will show a warming influence because essentially they are stepped-static numerical machines spitting out the expected response. They are coded and tuned to do this task faithfully. As Biden might say, “Not a joke!”
There. My view is that skeptics of climate alarm should re-wind back to the beginning. The valid null hypothesis is “no effect” from incremental IR-active gases in the highly dynamic circulation in which energy conversion dominates. That null hypothesis has not been falsified by any truly reliable means.
Very nice comment. I re-watched a Tom Nelson video interview with Will Happer the other day. When asked if there were any good climate scientists out there, Happer’s response was that the ‘measurement’ guys were generally doing good and necessary work, but that the ‘modelers’ were basically a lost cause.
This was not a secret to either Edward Lorenz or John Von Neumann. Why modern day scientists continue to ignore them is beyond me. Apparently, settled science written before they were born bothers them if it doesn’t fit their agenda.
With the exception that the pyrgeometer “scientists” are flat-out lying about what they are measuring, I would say that’s probably about right. (They don’t publish their raw power measurements, they only publish fictional “adjusted” conflations of energy and power somehow summed together, which isn’t how “measurement” works)
I have never been able to grok how an energy transfer model did not use energy as its primary input.
“with 13 of the leading models located in the US”
What constitutes “leading”?
I think they mean in the sense of ‘down the garden path’.
Funding?
America First!
/humor
Why aren’t the Climate Models open source? Why not publish the source code for all to see and use?
Why have the climate models (software) been subjected to independent validation and verification?
Sort of like, grade your own paper.
The SR-71 was designed using slide-rules.
Pocket calculators replaced slide-rules.
Both wonderful tools that saved a lot trees.
The problem that developed is that people forgot how to solve the math problems themselves.
Computers are wonderful tools.
(I think it was on WUWT that someone brought an issue with an early PC’s calculator where it gave a wrong answer to a particular math problem. They didn’t change the rules of math. They changed the calculator’s programing.)
CAGW/AGW/Climate Change’s have given wrong answers for decades. How many old projections have come true? (When was the last time you could buy a boiled lobster right off the boat? 😎 )
Grok’s assessment of this post, what do you think?
**Assessment of the Text:**
The article from *Watts Up With That?* titled “Time to Defund Climate Models?” argues for redirecting federal funding away from climate research, particularly climate modeling, under the premise that these models are unreliable and driven by political agendas rather than scientific rigor. It cites the Trump administration’s cuts to climate research funding across federal departments as a starting point, suggesting that agencies like NASA and NOAA should focus on their core missions (space exploration and weather forecasting, respectively) rather than climate modeling. The piece questions the accuracy of climate models, pointing to discrepancies between model predictions and observed data, such as water vapor trends in arid regions. It also criticizes the funding of climate science as a means to perpetuate alarmist narratives, proposing that academic institutions like Harvard should take on modeling efforts instead. The tone is skeptical of mainstream climate science, aligning with the blog’s reputation for challenging the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.[](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/30/time-to-defund-climate-models/)
The article lacks peer-reviewed sources to substantiate its claims about model inaccuracies and relies on selective examples, which weakens its credibility. It also conflates funding cuts with scientific validity, ignoring the broader evidence supporting climate models. However, it reflects a sentiment among some groups that distrust centralized climate science efforts, which is worth noting for understanding public discourse.
**TL;DR:**
The article argues that climate models are unreliable and politically motivated, advocating for defunding federal climate research in favor of redirecting NASA and NOAA to their primary roles. It suggests academia should handle modeling but lacks robust evidence to support its claims.[](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/30/time-to-defund-climate-models/)
It also conflates funding cuts with scientific validity, ignoring the broader evidence supporting climate models.
Really?
Got it wrong. We argue the the models have no scientific validity and the broader evidence is manipulated to fit an agenda, with substantial evidence that it is true.
Cutting off the $Green$ is like feeding Pepto Bismol to a bull.
So, a computer model says computer models work perfectly. Got it.
Mr. K: I think you waste your time and ours.
Ask Grok what climate is, then point out that research into the statistics of weather observations is pointless, being calculations which can be performed by a reasonably smart 12 year old.
Keep on in this vein, and you will no doubt receive several abject apologies from Grok for feeding you misinformation.
Or you can just continue being ignorant and supremely gullible.
And if you asked Grok if Bernie Madoff was a good choice as a finance advisor, it would probably say that Bernie was well regarded by his peers.
“It also conflates funding cuts with scientific validity, ignoring the broader evidence supporting climate models.”
If this is an example of Grok’s ability I humbly suggest it isn’t ready for PrimeTime and, because you chose to post this here, I also suggest you look to developing your own analytical capabilities. Unless your point was to demonstrate the failings of relying on computers too much, in which case stop being cute and make your own point directly.
To conflate is to “bring together as one”. Nothing in this article says or even hints that “funding IS Scientific validity”. What this article is arguing is that funding should be PREDICATED on scientific validity, which is a distinctly different thing.
To mischaracterize in that fashion demonstrates more an attempt at persuasive writing than at critical analysis. This is especially evident when it makes the judgment of “ignoring the broader evidence supporting climate models” while criticizing this article for lacking “peer-reviewed sources to substantiate its claims about model inaccuracies and relies on selective examples”, without choosing to backup it’s assertion in the way it would expect a solid argument to be formed.
So far Grok’s apparent intelligence is indeed Artificial.
JK will not understand exactly how AI works. JK believes that AI is actually capable of reason. JK is a funny moron.
Gino: Thanks for your comment. There is a small chance that Mr. K is being cute in showing the failings of grok, but not likely. I think we’ve seen K before as a simple-minded gaslighter, and he failed here. Good. Your takedown was excellent.
By the year 2100, I will not know if the computer models were correct or not.
So all the discussion about these predictions are meaningless to me.
But I’m sure that future generations will be able to walk uphill or take off their coats to adapt to any truth that the computer predictions might have.
That was the hearing they stagecrafted, so that folks were sweating. They chose a day when statistically it was most likely to be the hottest, and it was. Then, the night before, they opened all the windows. Air conditioning? What air conditioning? Then while Hansen gave his testimony, he was sweating, and had to wipe his brow. It was the perfect propaganda. All in a day’s work, for Climate Liars.
WHY MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY SHOULD BE KEPT OPEN
This is a story tip, for the Hilo office of the Mauna Loa Observatory may soon be closed, which will require finding storage space for the many files and instruments stored there. This will also cause a major problem for shipping and receiving instruments. I will be glad to provide some unique photos of MLO.
The historic mountain station should definitely be kept open, for it monitors much more than just CO2. For example, it measures the primary greenhouse gas, total column water vapor–but has yet to publish the trend since a few early papers. The NOAA scientist who was formerly in charge of the column water vapor measurements told me he lacked the time to study the trend. He has since passed away.
My published 35-year time series of total water vapor over Texas has a trend of zero. Why can’t we know what the total water vapor record is over MLO?? Whoever closes the mountain station should be held accountable for destroying the crucial, ongoing total water vapor record.
MLO also measures the density and altitude of desert dust and air pollution travelling from China to the US. How will these significant measurements be made without MLO?
One of NOAA’s permanent U.S. Climate Reference Network weather stations is at MLO. It is located up slope from the main observatory buildings to avoid heat island effects. (I have serviced it a few times at my own expense.) This station is crucial, for it is part of a network that shows little warming.
MLO also measures volcanic aerosols without interference from tropospheric aerosols from stations at much lower altitudes. MLO also provides some of the best measurements of the altitude and profile of the ozone layer.
As part of my proposal to measure solar UV from drones, I made a series of flights of a personal drone with an attached UV sensor and data logger over MLO. These experiments proved the validity of such measurements.
MLO hosts a wide variety of measurements by other organizations. For example, NASA calibrates its AERONET robotic sun photometers there. (One has been in my field for nearly 4 years at my expense.) Colorado State calibrates its shadow band photometers for the Dept. of Agriculture at MLO, one of which is my personal shadowband radiometer with LEDs as detectors. (I receive a modest weekly fee for inspecting and cleaning an array of these instruments at a local university.)
I assembled and tested my first twilight photometer at MLO in 2013. This instrument was built with my personal funds. During a few subsequent years, at my own expense I compared my twilight photometry measurements with the MLO lidar developed by Dr. John Barnes (who taught me how to operate his lidar.) These tests showed that the MLO lidar and my simple instrument both indicated the same altitude of the stratospheric Junge layer.
Finally, I calibrated my atmospheric monitoring instruments at MLO annually from 1992 to 2018, usually at my own expense. (University of the Nations paid my airfare when I was teaching short courses there for 17 years. GLOBE paid for a few years.). These calibrations included Langley plots of the first sun photometer to employ LEDs as spectrally selective detectors instead of filtered photodiodes. I hope to resume essential calibrations when the road is reopened. I know of no other location as well suited for these calibrations than MLO.
DISCLOSURE: I have spent more days and nights at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory (235) than anyone on staff. I also wrote “Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory: Fifty Years of Monitoring the Atmosphere” (2012, University of Hawaii Press) under a NOAA contract.
You make a very good case.
Given it pursues pure research as it has.
The problem is, MLO got sucked into the Climate Alarmism, not of its own choice.
“My published 35-year time series of total water vapor over Texas has a trend of zero.”
Don’t doubt it, but serious droughts seem to have a longer time frame. Would appreciate a reference. DISCLOSURE: I started my professional career at the end of the 1950s drought so such data would be interesting and Texas has a serious water problem. Hope they don’t throw the ‘baby out with the bathwater’ as the old saying goes.
“Mauna Loa Observatory may soon be closed, which will require finding storage space for the many files and instruments stored there.”
By the time anyone goes to get those instruments and files from storage, the only people who know how to use the instruments or know what the files mean will be gone. Science and tech in the West have become a gerontocracy.
(the knowledge won’t be lost, rather the million dollar electronic boxes will be phone aps)
Remember “deep thought” and it’s legendary answer “42”…at least we all got a good laugh out of it.
Today’s modelling crap is not even worth to shed a tear if it spontaneously selfcombusted, programmers included.
Until AI learns self-doubt and can answer with “I can’t give a definitive answer.”, I would not trust it anymore than I would the people who trained it.