Climate Models “Over-Estimate Future Warming By As Much As 10 Times”

I know you’re utterly shocked that there are vast problems with the Cult of Climastrology’s computer models

(Perth Now) A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

It’s rather surprising that this is such small news. Why is this not being shouted by the news media?

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Oh. That’s why. The CoC doesn’t want to admit that the hysteria and doomsaying they’ve engaged in for almost 30 years has been based on a lie, and, really, they do not care a whit about the science, because this is about implementing a far left Progressive (nice fascist) agenda.

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Time will tell. If Dr. Evans is correct, we can expect the CoC to admit they were wrong, right? For governments to finally say “enough. Just stop”, right?

Na. The CoC will once again find creative Excuses which will still allow them to blame Mankind’s “carbon pollution” output, and say that the future is rather doomy from heat.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Climate Models “Over-Estimate Future Warming By As Much As 10 Times””

  1. Jeffery says:

    What’s your reasoning for believing this man’s computer model over all the others, not to mention that it’s currently warming?

    Where is this model published?

  2. Jeffery says:

    Lol. It’s published on his wife’s (jo nova) blog. So, nevermind.

    Once he publishes his new theory, real scientists can examine it.

  3. Jl says:

    You mean “the real scientists” who have themselves way over-estimated the alleged warming? Why not listen to a new study-the other ones suck. What would publishing it on Jo Nova’s blog have to do with the validity of the study? Nothing

  4. Zachriel says:

    “All the establishment models assume carbon dioxide warms the sky, which leads to the surface warming”

    Greenhouse gases slow the transfer of heat from the surface to space. The surface warms, while the upper atmosphere cools.

  5. Jeffery says:

    I suspect, jonova, his wife, was not a very critical reviewer. Evans has a history of presenting pseudoscientific hypotheses. This is the latest. And yes almost all scientists are persuaded by the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW.

  6. Phil Taylor says:

    >not to mention that it’s currently warming?
    This statement is not completely true if you look at the last several years data.

    > almost all scientists are persuaded by the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW.
    However, this is a Global Warming Petition project to the American climate based Scientific community. 31,487 signed it. Of those 9029 have Phds. Google it. The names of all the people who signed are on record on their webpage so you can see for yourself.. Warming promoters wishing to discredit this, claim “how can you verify all those that responded.” You can’t, but random samples have proved to so far 100 percent correct and warming promoters have yet to find anyone that did not qualify.

    Regardless this study as well as all others must be fact checked. Jeffrey has done his part on this and has made some good points.
    I wish he fact checked pro AGW press releases to the same degree.

  7. Zachriel says:


    Actually, multiple peer reviewed studies have supported the consensus concerning climate change.

    Phil Taylor: Of those 9029 have Phds.

    Of those, only a very small percentage have the requisite expertise in climate science.

  8. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Zachriel:

    I was not aware of any surveys that were conducted. I am glad they were peer reviewed. Many climate studies are not peer reviewed.
    A lot of pro AGW research is done by non climatetoligists. That is a concern.
    Thank you for posting.

Pirate's Cove