Skip to main content

Climate Change Research

By April 5, 2022Commentary

The warmup for politicized science has been climate change.

Here are a couple of papers worth reading if you want to get a little more sane perspective on supposed warming trends.  The first looks at long-term climate trends.  As many of you are likely aware, the big picture on earth’s climate over the last few million years has been a series of relatively long cold periods, including significant ice sheets, interspersed with briefer periods of warmth.  We are currently in a warm period, likely near the end of it, based on the length of past cycles.  All of modern human history has occurred in this warm period.  These cycles are largely driven by orbital dynamics.  While human activity, such as forest clearing and farm field expansion, building large, warm cities, damming rivers, and even use of fossil fuels, may impact weather, those activities’ effect on long-term climate trends is quite dubious.  Unlike sensationalist claims about immense warming and coastal flooding being imminent, this paper finds a more moderate future change.  My money is on a new ice age within a thousand years.  That will be a human catastrophe.   (Health Physics Paper)

Renewable energy is great for the environment, right, and couldn’t possibly itself have any effects on weather.  Wrong.  Renewable energy production produces immense hazardous waste, kills birds and affects animals habitat in the case of wind turbines and solar plants, creates aesthetic ugliness and in fact obviously does change the weather.  If you think that taking energy away from normal wind flows or interdicting solar energy that otherwise would reach the ground doesn’t have an effect, you are ignoring common sense.  This paper describes the current and water mixing effects of large wind farms off the east coast of England.  Think those changes don’t affect sea life?  But these consequences get ignored.    (Arxiv Paper)

And this paper is a reflection of one of many issues with climate models, which are truly horrific.  This is an immensely complex system and the notion that any model comes close to replicating it, much less predicting the future, is absurd.  These researchers found large variability in a key climate factor–the strength of El Nino.  This large historical natural variability means it is no possible to ascribe current changes to human activity.  (Science Article)

My takeaway from years of reading climate science is that the models are garbage, that natural forces far outweigh any human impact and that claims of impending doom are simply lies fostered by ideologues who want to tell us all how to live and don’t care if they ruin the quality of our lives while doing that.  Meanwhile China keeps building coal plants, which gives them cheap energy, and tells you how worried they are about supposed fossil fuel driven climate change.

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • Count Your Megawatts says:

    Some interesting analysis on this subject comes from Rob West of Thunder Said Energy:

  • Craig B says:


  • joe Kosanda says:

    note that most of the climate activist strongly promote renewable energy with all the fallacies associated with RE

    Which raises the obvious question – How can someone who lacks the mental capacity to understand the hurdles and inefficiences and basic math of renewable energy possibly have the superior intellectual capacity to understand climate science

  • JT says:

    Delusional, Al Gore Jr. I hope I’m around to see the next 30 years of ‘energy’ transition. But in the meantime, I’ll do my part by sending blankets and warm undies to Germany.

    BTW, Fusion makes this entire video obsolete !

  • Blackwing1 says:

    For the last 20 years of my engineering job part of what I did was the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) modeling for my division. I was modeling air flows and pressure drops for large industrial systems, and started out working on a remote terminal hard-wired to a very large, very expensive (at the time) super-computer. Our models were limited by the number cells that the machine could handle. As time went on and the super-computer was replaced with a new one, our models got much better. Eventually, all of that computing power was contained in a desktop PC with multiple processors, and it could handle a model with up to around 15 million cells. You could say that I know more than a little bit about computer modeling of air movement.

    The accuracy of the results was a direct function of the size of the cells used in comparison to the size of the physical geometry involved.

    I’ve laughed out loud when I’ve seen some of these prediction models…some were so limited in cell number that they had to eliminate little details…like entire sub-continents.

    To accurately model the Earth’s weather systems has never been done. With advances in computer technology maybe someday it could be, but not currently. The complex interactions of land, clouds, ocean currents, evaporative cooling, solar heating, the list is almost endless…that the hubris with which they calmly announce the next climate disaster (“We only have 10/20/30 years to save the planet”) is stunning. That anyone takes them seriously, when every previous prediction turned out to be nonsense is simply an indication of how far gone our government education/indoctrination system has failed in its purported task (to educate) and has overwhelmingly succeeded in its actual task (brainwashing).

  • Chris W says:

    Indeed, the climate models are garbage. The computer models meteorologist use (GFS, NAM, EURO, etc.) that use actual current climate observations very often can’t get “tomorrow’s” weather forecast right. To think that any climate model can accurately predict what will happen with long-term weather is absurd. Climate model creators are nothing more than “creative accountants” – what do you want the numbers to be? – oh sure, we can do that. 🙂

Leave a comment