In a memorable scene in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Marvin the Paranoid Android is offered a whole new life full of excitement, adventure and really wild things and groans “Oh, not another one.” But yes. A whole new generation of climate models is apparently upon us with excitement, adventure and really deadly things. For instance “The latest climate models indicate that moderate emissions can also increase global temperature, rising by even 7°C.” As Marvin says, “Sounds awful.” The pseudo-science, we mean. Not the blazing Earth. And by pseudo-science we definitely include the bit about mistaking model projections for sober reality, as in “The world of climate science is buzzing with excitement and curiosity as NOAA unveils its new climate models. These models have revealed some surprising trends that have caught the attention of weather enthusiasts and scientists alike.” Yes. But not trends in actual real-world events. Just sci-fi that isn’t even witty.

The latter story is classic Fox Weather clickbait as you battle through repetitive slides that gush stuff like:

“NOAA’s new climate models are a significant leap forward in climate science. Utilizing vast amounts of data collected from satellites, ocean buoys, and ground stations, these models aim to predict climate patterns with greater accuracy.er4444rtffffffffffffffffffg

Yes, and we aim to be taller and better-looking. How’s it going so far?

Better for them than us, supposedly:

“The models incorporate cutting-edge technology, such as machine learning algorithms, to analyze complex climate data. This approach allows for more detailed and precise simulations of weather patterns and climate changes.”

Oooh. Cutting-edge technology. What were they using before, a Commodore 64? But wow. Machine learning algorithms. Complex data. And precise simulations.

Not, alas, precise in the sense of matching what actually happens. Precise in the sense of adding decimal places to rubbish. Do not suppose that feeding in conditions from the year 1000 AD would let them gaze forward to 2000 AD and guess what things would be like, though they might spray such a range of scenarios that one would have to be right. But it’s not about the real world. Instead:

“Enthusiasts and experts eagerly anticipated these models, hoping they would offer new insights into the factors driving climate change. As the models are now released, they have indeed presented some unexpected trends that challenge preconceived notions.”

Again, see, it’s not actual trends, the kind where you look at data going back a while and then forward to the present and do a best-fit line. The kind where you make stuff up.

Some of which, oddly, isn’t even “unexpected” even in the wacky world of climate alarmism. For instance:

“The new models have also highlighted surprising changes in precipitation patterns. These changes suggest that some regions will experience increased rainfall, while others may face prolonged droughts.”

And that wasn’t already the theory? Along with “communities dependent on consistent rainfall may need to adapt to more unpredictable water availability”?

Now we do want to give credit where due. Thus:

“One of the most striking revelations from NOAA’s new models is the unexpected temperature projections. While previous models predicted a steady rise in global temperatures, the new data suggests fluctuations that were not anticipated. These fluctuations indicate that certain regions might experience temporary cooling periods amidst the overall warming trend.”

Good. Very good. Because that’s exactly what has happened since the invention of temperature proxies. And we even do our best to clap at:

“This challenges the idea of a linear temperature increase, urging scientists to reconsider the dynamics of climate change.”

Yeah? As in it’s non-linear so you can’t model it? Which the IPCC did actually say back in 2001 in a report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, in Chapter 14:

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

So back to the future. In fact that passage added: “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

So make enough vague guesses and you’ll probably bracket the actual future. But not in a way that’s useful to anyone.

Mind you back in 2022 USA Today ran a “fact check” on people citing that passage to claim the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible arguing such a claim:

“misrepresents the IPCC statement by treating the phrase ‘climate states’ as though it is interchangeable with the word ‘climate.’ That’s not the case. The word ‘climate’ refers to the range of expected weather conditions, including temperature and precipitation levels. Conversely, ‘climate states’ refers to the presence or absence of relatively discrete weather events like a rainstorm.”

Bosh. Climate states are the state of the climate at various times, as is obvious from the phrase “the system’s possible future states” rather than “What it will be like in Fresno on June 13, 2055.” And the trouble with the new models is that they discard this insight and then tell you gosh, there’s a pretty wide range of possibilities because the dynamics of climate change can be pretty dynamic sometimes. As in:

“The interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere is more dynamic than previously thought, requiring a deeper exploration of their interconnectedness.”

Aka you and your models don’t understand it and never did. Hence:

“While NOAA’s new models offer valuable insights, interpreting the data presents challenges. The complexity of climate systems means that predictions are subject to uncertainty and variability. Scientists must carefully analyze the data to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and long-term trends. This requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining expertise from fields such as meteorology, oceanography, and environmental science.”

Um yeah. Twenty years late and billions of dollars long, but you finally grasped that there’s a huge amount of uncertainty. Way to go.

On which the first story, from the Daily Wrap or perhaps Fishwrap, appears to have been written by someone whose math skills were left behind in junior high. It declares that:

“Scientists have created a climate model to study potential scenarios for the next 1,000 years. The research results indicate that even with moderate greenhouse gas emissions, there is a 10 percent risk that Earth’s temperature will rise by 7°C over the next 200 years.”

The next thousand years. Sure thing, buddy. And then there’s that suspiciously round 10 percent. Except the story immediately babbles:

“Even if we reduced emissions to zero, the current models suggest a 10-percent risk that the atmosphere would still warm by more than 3°C.”

Three, or seven? It’s kind of important to the story. But instead of trying to make sense, arguably with the horse sense long gone, it pivots to:

“People around the world are already feeling the consequences of the climate catastrophe. Last year, powerful storms and tornadoes in the USA, a massive flood in Valencia, and the tragically impactful Typhoon Yagi. The situation is difficult globally, including in our country, which does not escape the consequences of rising temperatures. Just recall the September floods.”

You get the idea. Or maybe not, because quite apart from the well-documented lack of trends in tornadoes, floods or typhoons, the hapless author describes events from North America to Europe to Vietnam before invoking the global picture with reference to “the September floods” in… um… where was that?

In this case Poland, a spillover from Austria and the Czech Republic. And unfortunate but hardly unprecedented. But in any case what has any of this to do with prattle about hitting Net Zero and still going up 7°C in 200 years, or a thousand, or 3°C, or whatever someone told a computer to say in the hopes that gullible journalists would write purple prose like:

“Although the 23rd century seems distant to us, it will be an everyday reality associated with living in an era of climate catastrophe for future generations. According to scientists, reducing emissions may help avoid a temperature rise of 3°C, but it is already too late to keep it below 2°C.”

Alas, 1.5°C, we hardly knew ye.