Back to...

GET VISIBLE! Advertise Here. Find Out More

Share Our Stories! - Click Here


Climate Supercomputers - Garbage In, Garbage Out

by Ray Larsen
Exclusive to

I'm often asked if I believe in so called climate change theory that we used to call "global warming." Happens even more often now, since President Trump decided to get us out of the Paris climate accords, the best thing he's done since becoming POTUS. My usual answer is an emphatic, "No, I don't believe and here's why Iíve become a climate realist."


The science behind this divisive subject is far from settled, though the MSM obviously disagrees and wants you to believe that it is. At this point, it's really no more than a theory grown into a belief system, with a lot of converts, likely to be seen by future historians as the biggest boondoggle in the history of science. It's not uncommon for scientists and people in general to blindly believe in whatever the scientific herd is saying about any given issue. Grants are at stake. The main reason so many scientists believe is in the results spewing out of supercomputers. They must like what they've been seeing.

Supercomputers are never wrong, right? Seems that questioning climate science has become a taboo, with overtones of religious fervor, becoming a just a bit scary. Considering the current, early stage of software development, imprecise coefficients, variables and errors, I figure it has about a 20% chance of roughly predicting the course of our future climate 10 years out. Something to believe in?


Once upon a time, like many other environmentally conscious people, I believed in the theory that our CO2 emissions were contributing to global warming. It seemed reasonable at the time, as I knew little about it. It is so easy to blindly believe when you don't know or understand the facts. We humans have a tendency to seek the truth in easy to get to places rather than the places where itís most likely to be found, even when itís not easy.

History is replete with cases of blind belief resulting in people dying. Two great examples are the cases of Rev. Jim Jones and David Koresh. We all need to be careful about allowing the climate change priesthood/piper to lead us in the wrong direction.

Please, be careful what you choose to believe, as it can take some serious work to un-believe. Learning more and looking back, I realized that I had been fooled just like billions of other Earthlings and decided it was time to become a ìclimate realist.î

Perhaps Stevie Wonder said it best, "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you'll suffer." From "Superstition."


A supercomputer does nothing, it just sits there, waiting until you load and run a program on it. That program has to be created, typically by a team of software engineers. The code they write is based on sets of complex equations. Basically, the engineers translate the physics and chemistry equations into executable instructions that do billions of fancy calculations really fast.

These equations attempt to use mathematics to construct a theory describing reality. They are working to model Earthís atmosphere in increasingly small bits (using a 4-D matrix), hence the need to use supercomputers for their speed.

Natureís equations are analog, while computers are digital. Computers take in analog data that has been converted to digital by chopping it up into lots of bits and fewer nano-Seconds, tiny slices of time. The computers most of us use have evolved from 4 bits to 8 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits with 64 bit resolution common in todayís desktops and laptops. Supercomputers have way more bits of resolution and are much faster at doing complex calculations.

Over the centuries, scientists have deduced many basic equations that describe the way nature behaves, models that have been well proven. Scientists and Engineers use computer programs that incorporate these equations of nature in their day to day work. Issac Newton is famous for figuring out how gravity works in the solar system. F=MA and his other equations accurately predict planetary orbits and ballistics for deep space craft, missiles, artillery shells and lowly bullets.


Albert Eisenstein opened up a whole new way to view the Universe with his Theory of Relativity, E=MC2 (squared) along with related equations.  At the time, few other scientists thought his new theory was worthy of much attention. They were so wrong!  Just because the majority of scientists believe in a theory does not make it correct. Science should not be about belief. Since then, a wide variety of experiments have validated Relativity. It's amazing how accurately Relativity predicts the bending of a distant star's light because our Sun's great mass warps the local space-time.

During the recent solar eclipse, astronomers got a close look at starlight that passes close to the sun using state of the art instruments. Almost 100 years ago, astronomers used an eclipse to do the first measurement verifying that the equations of Relativity predicted correct numbers. The mountain of evidence for Relativity has convinced the vast majority of scientists that it accurately describes reality of the largest scales. It's a great example of Settled Science.

Unlike Relativity, Climate Science is in it's infancy and far more complex. Some of the climate equations may prove to be correct, while others will not. We still have so much to learn. Wonder what Ol' Albert would have to say about todayís Climate Science?


Climate scientists, mostly well meaning people, have worked for many decades trying to develop sets of equations to calculate predictions of Earth's weather 10, 20 even 30 years into the future, a most difficult and challenging endeavor. These equations are incredibly complex with many variables and data inputs. This huge amount of data likely includes inaccurate measurements, errors in recording, deliberate alterations (yes, thatís fraud) and such that when fed into the supercomputer, even if the math and programming are good, is likely to result in predictions of the future that are way off. Might as well just roll the bones.

We have made great progress in meteorology over the last century. Predicting tomorrows weather was once just a guessing game, because of lack of data. In the 40s-50s, we built weather stations all over the country, usually at airports, large and small. Basic weather measurements were hand translated into maps. The finished maps were sent out to fax machines all over the country. Forecasters could now see the movement of fronts, high and low pressure zones, temperature, humidity and other weather variables. Advanced Doppler radar and satellites came next, adding rich visual data. All this technology has enabled your local weather-casters to get tomorrow's weather right, most of the time.


We now have thousands of weather stations spread all over the place, even in the oceans. Some report only temperature and humidity, others report more variables. Scientific instruments such as thermometers, barometers, hygrometers, etc. are only as accurate as their latest calibration. I'll bet a third of these weather stations haven't been calibrated in a decade, when they should be calibrated annually, especially if they are located in a harsh environment. Their readings are likely to be way off.


Today's TV weather reports have a feature called nowcast or futurecast. It's like a video of your future weather, generated by a computer running a software model fed with tons of data. This software attempts to create a digital world (Matrix?) and run it into the future. Itís thousands of times simpler than Climate prediction software. Beyond 3 days, it can get pretty murky. As software evolves and measurements get more accurate and detailed, perhaps a fairly accurate forecast might go out a week.


Astronomers can easily measure the surface temperature of other planets. They do it by focusing their telescope on a tiny thermocouple sensor while aimed at the planet. All bodies, your body, a planet or that rock over there radiate infrared energy, it's dominant frequency is proportional to the temperature of the object. Thermocouple technology has evolved into small handheld non-contact readers that display the temperature of any small object they are pointed at.

A planetary temperature measurement results in a number that is an average for the whole side of the planet the telescope sees. Climate science uses tens of thousands of readings from weather stations and weather satellites, basically averaging them to obtain that elusive number, global temperature. It's like the old adage of not seeing the forest for the trees. The truth is, nobody really knows if that number, endorsed by mainstream science, reflects reality or not!


Climate science has aimed it's wrath at CO2, EPA actually used to call it a pollutant. It is no more a pollutant than O2, Oxygen. Yes, it's a minor greenhouse gas, but there are many other greenhouse gases, such as methane. Climate modeling software likely makes CO2 a much badder player than it really is. Water vapor is also a really good greenhouse gas, even better than methane or CO2.

The composition of our atmosphere (excluding water vapor) is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon, 0.39% Carbon Dioxide, along with smaller fractions of Nitrous oxides, methane, neon, krypton, xenon and others. CO2 is one molecule to about 256 other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies, depending on where the relative humidity measurement is taken, deserts are dry (10%) and rain-forests are wet (95%). When an area has clear conditions, surface heat is easily radiated out to space resulting in a colder night. Cloud cover tends to act like a blanket, retaining surface heat.

Nuclear power plants have gigantic cooling towers that spew large amounts of warm water vapor into the atmosphere. Itís just steam, not considered a pollutant, but it is a potent greenhouse gas source that the climate models donít consider. This steam has been known to create small scale weather systems downwind!

Contrast that with the atmosphere of Mars, 95.32% Carbon Dioxide, 2.7% Nitrogen, 1.6% Argon, 0.13% Oxygen along with other trace gases. With that much CO2, With that much CO2, shouldn't Mars be way warmer than it is?

Volcanoes can bring up heat, along with CO2 from inside a planet to the surface, but the inner planets get most of their warmth from the sun's radiation. The sun's infrared is direct heat, but visible light and Ultraviolet turn into heat when they are absorbed by matter. A black car will be 20-30 degrees warmer than a white car getting the same sunlight. On a clear night, the reverse happens, the top of the black car gets colder, faster than the white car. It radiates more of itís heat to space, due to the ìblackbodyî effect.


We are fortunate that our Sun is a pretty well behaved star in it's middle age, though it does have some output variability that has a direct effect on Earth's temperature, both short term and long term. This is very real. If you observed the recent eclipse in totality, you experienced what happens locally, when the Sun is shut off, even for just minutes. The Sun ñ Earth connection is strong. Having weather requires a major energy input. Other planets are similarly affected by the Sunís variability.

Some 300 to 400 years ago, our Sun went into a quiet phase (known as the Maunder Minimum) and Earth's temperature dropped by quite a bit. There was ice on the Thames and growing seasons got shorter. Longer Spring and Fall took the place of summer. Mars was probably in a super deep freeze at the time.


Not surprisingly, a steady output from the Sun is the major energy input (the most important number) to any software climate model. What should be treated as a variable over time, seems to be more of an assumed constant in these models. It drives Earth's weather on both the macro and micro scales.

Climate science hasn't a prayer of predicting what the Sun is going to be doing 20-30 years into the future. Without accurate predictions of the Sun's future output, climate prediction software might as well be an expensive random number generator. In addition to all the aforementioned sources of error, this one huge fact makes questionable any results the supercomputers have been churning out. Always remember this truth about computer modeling on any scale; Garbage in = Garbage out.

Some graphs I've seen show a very small planetary temperature increase over the last 15 years while the supercomputers were predicting a continued rise (the infamous hockey stick). Are those numbers real? Depends on the method of calculation and the purity of the data. It's a massive averaging process that magically cancels out some of the error, because some false readings are high, others low.


What if the climate decides to change in the opposite direction? There are some dissident scientists who are predicting the global temperature will start going down, thanks to a quiet Sun they believe will continue for a century or more, like the Maunder Minimum.

Anything we do on a large scale (Chemtrails, HAARP?) attempting to cool the planet could wind up making their predicted mini-ice age worse than it would have been had we done nothing. Unfortunately, current science has no way to predict just how long the Sun's current quiet period will last, could be as little as the next solar cycle, around 11 years, or it could last for centuries. Forecasting solar and space weather is getting better, thanks to the McMath Solar Telescope in Arizona plus NASAís new sun orbiting satellites, busy collecting data for analysis. The future of our climate is largely dependent on the mood of Ol'Sol. He is vastly more powerful than he gets credit for.

Very recently, OlíSol has been spitting out some new flares and showing some new spots, magnetic storms on the Sunís surface that can fling huge balls of fire and electro-magnetic energy out to space in whatever direction. Who knows if this is a sign of the future or just a random hiccup and back to his nap. Could there be an energy connection with the Hurricanes and earthquakes?


You can safely bet that the believers will jump all over this chance to use Horrible Harvey, Irma, Jose and Katia to promote their climate change theories when we should be doing all we can to help the victims of these monster storms recover.

I wonder when High Priest Al "Alarmist" Gore will start talking about the Hurricanes being caused by CO2/warming? He has his sights set on becoming a billionaire from climate change and Hurricanes are a golden opportunity to promote his belief system. Yes, there's a ton of money to be made in carbon credits trading (a new type of currency?), new taxes and climate related financial schemes and scams. Climate change monetization is already descending upon us, making the average working American poorer thru new taxes and higher energy costs is likely to be itís main effect. Will CO2 emissions actually decrease because of these social engineering taxes and financial schemes? Take a wild guess.

I wonder how long it will take for Sen. John ìbomb Iranî McCain to take advantage of his own golden opportunity to blame the Hurricanes on those pesky Russians, who get blamed for nearly everything these days. Much of our petroleum infrastructure is located right where Harvey hit the hardest. Coincidence? Russia does have its own version of HAARP along with some far out technologies we may not have yet. Canít you just imagine President Putin and Mad Dog Mattis personally at the controls? Actually, around 12 other countries have HAARP like devices. Both Russia and Iran obviously benefit from higher oil prices. Circumstantial evidence, but McCain could turn it into a great excuse for more stupid sanctions that economically hurt everyone.

Iím surprised Kim and ISIS havenít yet claimed responsibility for the serial Hurricanes and Earthquake. Who knows, they could have weather weapons unknown to us?

Since Harvey, Iíve watched a procession of prediction maps based on many state of the art computer models. These models include data from the whole planet and take 4-6 hours run time for a supercomputer to churn out a new prediction. None of them agree on the paths and intensity of these Hurricanes, but there are enough of them that one will wind up being pretty close, just by chance. The difference between all these models is in the basic equations underlying their evolving software. Harvey teaches us a serious lesson about computer modeling. Interesting, but it needs a lot more work before trying to forecast much more than a week out.

Now, we have Hurricanes Irma, with Jose and Katia following, growing stronger out in the Atlantic, heading towards North America. Will the computer models correctly predict where these gals will hit? They have been getting a lot more accurate over the last 20 years thanks to improved equations/software and better quality data. Just watch and learn. As the President likes to say, ìWeíll see.î


Itís a well known fact that warmer water under a Hurricane powers increases in itís strength. A Hurricane is one of Earthís natural cooling mechanisms. Heat flows through it, from the oceanís surface up to outer space. The vertical thermal flow imparts the energy to power the rotation that was originally started by the Coriolis force caused by Earthís rotation. Contrary to popular belief, CO2 has no role in starting Hurricanes, the Coriolis effect does. See the short video, ìWhy All Hurricanes Spin Counterclockwise.î linked on This applies to all rotating low pressure weather systems. Thereís also an electrical component at work inside a hurricane, it moves a vast amount of electricity up that comes back down as lightning.

How does the ocean get warmer? The climate change alarmists would like you to believe that the heat is transferred to the water from CO2 in the atmosphere that has absorbed solar radiation. Heat transfer from a warm gas to cold water is very inefficient, simple thermodynamics. Just try heating up a bowl of water using a hair dryer pointed at the waterís surface. Youíll tire of holding the hair dryer before the water gets warm. An easy experiment that busts a part of climate science.

Itís way more efficient the other way around, the way a Hurricane does it. Try heating a pan of water on the stove. Just before it starts to boil, pour it in a room temperature bowl. Hold your hand a foot or so above the water. Feel the heat transfer from hot water to air. Simple proof.

The top layer of the ocean receives solar radiation, some is reflected, but most is absorbed and converted to heat, raising the waterís temperature. Itís obvious that CO2, at 1 of 256 atoms/molecules in the air, has nothing to do with warmer sea surface temperatures. The Sunís direct radiation into the water does. Deeper layers in the ocean are cold, as the Suní energy doesn't penetrate very deep.


Could the recent spate of powerful hurricanes be a message from Mother Earth? Might be a good idea to start thinking about moving away from coastal areas. Some like to believe that we have become powerful enough to buck the natural cycles. Our geo-engineering (Chemtrails, HAARP, Fukushima and more) attempts to make climate remain the same are as futile as resisting the Borg. Perhaps, she wants this interference stopped so the natural cycles can go back to work the way they are supposed to?


Mother Earth is an incredibly complex living system with a number of balancing acts going on. It works the same regardless of our presence and she changes however and whenever she wants. Other than Nuclear bombs, our energy technologies are dwarfed by the forces of Nature. Not much we can do, we're just not powerful enough to force things to remain the same, but there's a lot we can do to prepare for and adapt to whatever kinds of changes the future may have in store for us. Future climate will not be the same as it is now, guaranteed. Intelligent people find ways to adapt to a variety of changes.

Earth has been a planet for about 4.5 billion years. Since no one was around to keep records that long ago, science learns by examining the rocks, sediments and ice cores. For those who know how to read the record of the rocks, the temperature can be inferred. It's been up, down and all over the place in just the last billion years. There have been periods that got hot enough that tropical critters ranged pretty far north. Other periods had most of North America and Europe covered in mile thick ice. The evidence in the rocks is clear. More recently, over the last million years, climate has changed, both on the long scale and the shorter term, without any help from us. The last few centuries of weather looks like the tail end of the last ice age.

Yes, the level of CO2 has increased over the last century, no doubt about it. The real-time measurements are taken on top of the world, on a volcano in Hawaii and are assumed to be representative of the entire planet, though increasing emissions from China coming across the Pacific may skew the readings a little bit higher than the real planetary average. Some of the additional CO2 is ours, some of it comes from fires, volcanoes and other geologic or natural phenomena. The belief that our CO2 emissions are the main reason for climate change is clearly wrong. CO2 is a minuscule player on a planetary scale, basically a trace gas in our air, just enough to keep plants growing. All life on the planet depends on it.


Plants use the Sun's energy to convert CO2 to O2, producing food, fuel, fiber, etc. Animals do the opposite using the Sun's energy as stored in food, converting O2 to CO2. Nature used to take care of the O2/CO2 balance. It's a natural regulatory cycle that goes back millions of years and we have tossed in a monkey-wrench by cutting or burning down so much forest. The South American rain-forest has to be the prime example, but huge swaths of forest have been cut down all over the world.


If we really cared about the health of our little blue planet, we would find a way to restore as much of those former forests as possible, even if some type of military intervention becomes necessary. Trees love breathing in CO2. In the natural balancing cycle, if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, more and bigger plants will grow, until CO2 decreases. Nature appears to use forest fires to shift the balance the other way when CO2 gets too low.

Most plants thrive at 400+ PPM, but below 300 PPM, plants begin to starve for CO2. Many indoor farming operations (Cannabis, Tomatoes and other veggies) add CO2 to the indoor air because they will get bigger, happier, tastier plants faster.  Undoing the damage we have done will give our planet a fighting chance to restore the O2/CO2 balancing process.


It takes many decades for a re-planted forest to grow back. Meanwhile, we should plant hemp everywhere. This amazing plant provides a very impressive range of useful products while converting CO2 to O2.

There are some pioneering hemp farms here in Colorado, encouraged by our state government. So far, they have been remarkably successful. Hemp is actually beneficial to the land it is grown on. Only a few years ago, if you purchased a hemp product, it was imported, mostly from Canada. As state laws change, the trend toward American grown hemp and economical goods manufactured from it has nowhere to go but UP!


When I reply, "No, I don't believe in climate science." The next question is typically, "Then you must believe that evil industrial polluters should be allowed to spew out whatever wastes they generate into the air, water and land?"

Of course I don't! Just have a look at cities in China. Gas masks sell very well there. I stand with the water protectors. That pipeline will leak, they all do, it's just a matter of when. Sadly, most people tend to lump "climate realists" in with those idiots who don't care about having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fukushima, now thatís real pollution! If Yoichi Shimatsuís theory is right (see Yoichiís latest article on, the radioactive atoms emitted by that disaster go way up into the atmosphere, messing with Earthís UV shield, the Ozone layer. Increased UV energy coming down to the surface changes the thermal balance, affecting weather patterns. Climate science hasnít a clue about this new driver! I wish the ETs would just beam it off the planet, but itís probably not going away anytime soon, yet another good reason to be skeptical about the predictions of the supercomputers.


Thank you President Trump for getting us out of a really bad deal for America. Also, thanks for your fast response and personal million dollar pledge to help the people of SE Texas. You've put Dubaya to shame. Let's just hope you don't spin a 180 on this one, as you have on so many of your other campaign promises. If you are feeling pressure from the believers to reverse your wise decision, please refer them to this article. It will at least give open-minded people something good to think about. Just because a belief is common or popular does not mean it is correct. Donít give in. Your Generals probably don't care much about any of this, so there's a good chance your decision will be allowed to stand.