Science or Astrology?

Fig 7 from John Christy’s paper showing model predictions of tropospheric equatorial temperature and actual measurements. (Image: Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Global average temperature has risen by about  1oC over the last century. But it has not risen steadily. There have been ups and downs. The record is noisy. When the data is analysed its variance spectrum is “red”, i.e. there is a concentration of variance at low frequencies. This gives rise to “spurious regression”  which is sufficient to account for the observed variation, that is, there is no statistically significant trend in global average temperature. The presumed correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentration is also spurious for the same reason.

In 1962 philosopher Karl Popper set out seven principles defining the Scientific Method, e.g. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Climate models are certainly refutable and so are indeed scientific theories. Prof John Christy of the University of Alabama has spent decades collating model predictions of global average temperature and testing them against observations. All but one of 102 models failed the test. Clearly the models don’t work. They don’t work because the equations on which they are based do not satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If climate “science” really were a science this sort of fluid dynamic modelling would have been abandoned decades ago.

Instead millions of dollars in research funding is being wasted on projects that are no better than Astrology.


The Fluid Catastrophe by John Reid


11 Replies to “Science or Astrology?”

  1. John,
    I have always wanted to know what is the “one” model that has closely predicted what has been closest to the Satellite record post 1979. Christy and Curry have mentioned it over the years but never identify it. It is an obvious outlier to all the others. Do you know what it is? Can you identify it? What are it’s assumptions?
    I wouldn’t be surprised if it is not Russian as most of them don’t believe in Alarming/Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by positive feedbacks from increasing “greenhouse gasses”

    1. A good point, Peter. I have wondered about that myself. I intend to get in touch with John Christy and ask him.

      1. You are right, Peter. John Christy responded as follows: “The Russian model (inmc4) was the only one that matched 40 years of reality. “

          1. Thanks for that link. Getting into the detail:
            “Spatial Coverage:
            United States

            which is a worry because Christy said his comparisons applies to the tropics.

  2. John,
    Do you ever get a response from the climate promoters, i.e. Will Steffen, etc?
    We are governed by the Liberal Party in Tassie – have you tried to talk to these guys or are they “scared” to engage, preferring to follow the rest of the sheep or should I say lemmings, and spend scarce resources on the “science”?
    Ralph Williams

    1. Give them a break. Of course they are going to keep their heads down. They have all seen what happened to Tony Abbott.

  3. While I agree with all your sentiments I think you should be more specific in stating where the equations violate the second law of thermodynamics. (To my knowledge the second law says that the overall entropy increases in all irreversible processes and it is rather general.) You may find that to be difficult to pinpoint as you trawl through the various models as there are so many of them and they tend to hide their assumptions.

    Have you tried submitting your article to Jo Nova or WUWT? Their blogs have a considerable readership.

    The climastrologists will likely ignore your comments as they have their noses firmly embedded in the gravy train. They do not want the flowing grants to cease as they will be out of a job. There are too many young scientists who have to earn their living and will not take the risk of bucking the trend.

    1. That is what The Fluid Catastrophe is about!

      Entropy is an emergent property of stochastic systems. The Navier-Stokes equations, like Maxwell’s equations, are not stochastic, they are deterministic and work equally well if you reverse the direction of time.

      Re WUWT and Jo Nova. I completely agree. I am in the process of preparing a marketing campaign which targets blogs and researchers in individual disciplines according to the table on the home page. The hard part is getting email addresses.

  4. Peter,
    Re:“I wouldn’t be surprised if it is not Russian as most of them don’t believe in Alarming/Catastrophic ”
    It is my understanding that it is the russian one and its sensitivity to CO2 is low. I don’t have a reference on hand but I probably picked it up on jonovas or WUWT sites.
    Thanks John. I find your work easy to understand and refreshing to read.

Comments are closed.