Facebook vs Climate Models

Posted: April 24, 2014 by oldbrew in alarmism, atmosphere, climate, data, Forecasting, propaganda, Uncertainty

Storm clouds arriving [image credit: Wikipedia]

Storm clouds arriving
[image credit: Wikipedia]

A line from a GWPF report illustrates one of the many problems faced by the UN IPCC in its efforts to understand the world’s climate(s):
‘Facebook has over fifty times more lines of code than climate models.’


Having no way of verifying that, we’ll have to take their word for it, but it’s probably not that surprising. Facebook would be out of business if its code consistently failed to work as expected, but no such problem for climate models it seems.

Of course number of lines of code is not necessarily a true measure of quality, but as the report notes:
‘Today’s climate models are conglomerations of hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller models, each with their own limits and shortcomings, simplifications and computational approximations held together by a glue of assumptions and educated guesses.’

Computer modelling

Computer modelling

These are the models the IPCC and its defenders would like us to believe are ‘robust’. Since they have been unable to model reality for over a decade and a half surely the appropriate word is now ‘bust’?

On top of that: ‘different models produce different outputs using the same input data.’
That wouldn’t matter too much if at least one of them was in the ballpark for accuracy, but they almost never are – always too warm, of course. It’s programmed in to their assumptions, so they can only be right by accident, like the clock that’s stopped.

Worse still, they have no proper method of modelling clouds. As Dr Roy Spencer and others have pointed out, a 2% change in global annual cloud cover would swamp any conceivable effect of increases in trace gases such as CO2.
How do we know that hasn’t happened? We don’t – and maybe it has.

And yet we’re being frog-marched into the future with hollow-sounding cries of confidence from the creators of these faulty Heath-Robinson models, which constantly forecast things that aren’t happening and haven’t happened for years.

Funny old world.

  1. Jaime Jessop says:

    Ah yes, models. The clue is in the word. Would a high profile fashion designer dress a frumpy, unattractive, ungainly, misshapen man or woman in their finest creations then send them stumbling and tripping along the catwalk? Doubtful. They choose elegant, attractive models to show off their finery. Yet climate scientists expect us to accept unquestioningly that their tired old hags modelling the complex beauty of our ocean/atmosphere coupled climate system are doing a grand job – when it is obvious to all and sundry that they aren’t.

  2. p.g.sharrow says:

    I remember when Hanson and company were lobbying for time on government super computers. Cloud behavior was too complex for them to decipher. So, If they plugged in everything THEY knew about weather into code, surely a super computer would give them the answers to predict weather far into the future. Miraculously, it gave them the answer that they wanted. The “hockey stick” of Human caused, run away global warming! They had solved a great “scientific” question. And it must be right! super computers did it. Now you can solve all the worlds’ difficult scientific problems. Just tell a super computer to do it………………GIGO pg


    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.


    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

    I challenge anyone to prove my assertions wrong which are these four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth.

    1. The initial state of the global climate.

    a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.


    2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.

    a. solar irradiance changes

    b. cosmic ray changes

    c. volcanic activity

    d. UV light changes hence ozone /atmospheric circulation changes.

    e. ocean current changes due to atmospheric changes.

    f. ocean heat content changes.

    g. albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover ,precipitation changes.

    h. thermohaline circulation changes.

    3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.

    a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.

    4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.

    a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.


  4. Joe Public says:

    “Facebook would be out of business if its code consistently failed to work as expected, but no such problem for climate models ”

    Ironically, it’s only by demonstrating that their models fail, can further research grants be sought and justified.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Salvatore del Prete insists:

    But if they did, they might not be able to produce the ‘right’ result – shock, horror – and many ‘experts’ might have to look for alternative employment, or at least for other ways to fill their employed hours.

    Can you imagine the suffering 😉

  6. mitigatedsceptic says:

    There is nothing wrong with any of the models – they are all predicting the high probability of warming in the future – Correction – not predictions but “scenarios” now! “Scenario” = ‘an outline of a plot’ or ‘a postulated sequence of events’.
    How can one fault such a thing? If things in the real world turn out differently, such as 17 years cooling – so what?
    Its just a pity that some rich concerned citizens have not yet funded models that build global cooling scenarios? Truth be told – much scarier! More publicity for the lucky young PhDs and their institutions.
    Why has post-nromal science not been invoked by sceptics? We old-fashioned ‘normal’ scientists believe that empirical observations should be sacrosanct and so eschew guessing how chaotic systems may behave in the future. Perhaps we need not relax our hold on that stanchion in order to offer ‘proof’ that there is a LIA in the offing.
    The media are sick of AGW – time for a change. Let us be like Mike Hulme and announce the adoption of post-normal science in support of a contrarian future!
    If you want your children to enjoy the benefits of civilised living focus on population control and celebrate the increase in carbon emissions as an enhanced source of nutrients for our vegetable friends and beware the cold to come!

  7. oldbrew says:

    As I understand it Prof. Mike Hulme wants us to ask: ‘warming – what are we going to do about it?’

    One alternative question springs to mind: ‘warming – where is the upward trend?’
    Answer: ‘nowhere.’

  8. catweazle666 says:

    ‘different models produce different outputs using the same input data.’

    That is because they emulate “natural variation” by means of functions to create “stochastic” model inputs.

    Programmers call them random number generators.

    [Reply] not so random that phantom warming disappears though

  9. tom0mason says:

    The Facebook analogy is fine up to a point. Yes it is large and interactive to the customer/advertiser but is fairly constrained in what it is required to do. It does not have to do much in the way of predictive ‘scenarios’.

    I would offer a different piece of software or amalgam of software processes that has to assess realtime data and event changes, track cycles, and some habitual events but must be ready to correct the system when a sudden unscheduled events occur. Coupled to this it must itemize every event for each of it’s millions of users. I’m looking at SkyTV’s customer datadase and program control. This software must do ad hoc scenario prediction and get them correct or the business suffers.

  10. oldbrew says:

    tom: that was my point. Facebook should have far less to do than a climate model, but has 50 times more code.

    That suggests either Facebook is employing terrible coders (unlikely) or that climate models are, let’s say, ‘under-powered’ (check their results) 😉