Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are ‘Mathematically Impossible’

Written by Dr. Duane Thresher, Climatologist

Top American Climatologist, an expert in climate modeling, exposes the fallacy that current climate models provide a realistic or reliable prediction of future climate change. In a 1-2-3 step guide to disposing of the global warming debate Dr. Duane Thresher says successful modeling with modern computers is “mathematically impossible.”

Dr Thresher is among the elite of computer climate modelers. He has performed extensive work in climate proxy modeling at the University of Alaska and the Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany. He earned his PhD in Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies) from Columbia University and at NASA he worked for Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt.

Dr Thresher offers his step-by-step guide below:

1. It is fundamentally mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate.

Chaos Theory’s Butterfly Effect is usually described as the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Japan resulting in a hurricane in the Atlantic. This is not artistic hyperbole, this is mathematical reality.

Climate is a quintessential example of this phenomenon.

Unless climate models do the absolutely impossible and account for even a butterfly’s wings flapping, particularly when they are initialized, and then calculate with infinite precision, they can not predict climate.

Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models, which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future. Predicting climate decades or even just years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for publication and funding.

Qualified climate modelers know all this but almost all won’t publicly admit it out of fear for their careers.

2. Climate proxies are far too inaccurate, unreliable, and sparse to prove anything about past global climate, e.g. that it was colder.

Climate proxies are things like tree rings and ice cores. Given old methods and instruments, even historical climate measurements have to be considered climate proxies.

They are called climate “proxies” because they are substitutes for real climate measurements. Obviously, there are no instruments in these climate proxies so how is it done? The climate measurements have to be inferred from loosely-related characteristics of the proxy, e.g. temperature from tree ring widths. This usually involves primitive modeling or misuse of statistics. It is thus inaccurate and unreliable well beyond what is required for the conclusions drawn.

Climate proxies are very sparse. A single measurement often has to represent thousands of square miles or more, particularly in remote ocean regions, and is usually not representative of that area (e.g. sampled trees are not chosen randomly) or doesn’t even have a knowable bias. A single temperature for the Earth averaged from these measurements is meaningless and absurd.

The reason for using climate proxies is that there is nothing else, which is not a good reason … unless you have to get published or funded.

3. Scientific consensus is not proof of global warming, just publication and funding bias.

Scientific consensus = all published research shows global warming.

Climate model/proxy research that does not show global warming will not get published or funded because of:

  • Non-publication of negative results (no global warming found)
  • Fearful self-censorship
  • Conflict of interest (a need to get results, regardless of validity, that further careers)
  • Corrupt fanatical unqualified “working” scientists
  • Censorship by established scientists in a fundamentally-flawed peer review process (peers are all-too-human competitors)
  • Corruption of climate science overall

.. the rest:

Dr. Duane Thresher

Postdoc, tree ring climate proxy modeling, University of Alaska (ARSC and SNRAS).
Postdoc, ocean climate proxy modeling, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
PhD, Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Columbia University and NASA GISS (working for Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt).
MS, Atmospheric Science (climate modeling/tree rings/chaos), University of Arizona and NCAR.
BS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT and NASA.

Dr.Duane.Thresher (at sign)
I can and will track any threatening emails back to their senders. Sending a threatening email is a federal crime: US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 41, Section 875(c).

Selected publications:

Thresher, D., 2010: “Report: International Winter School on Wood Anatomy of Tree Rings 2010”, Dendrochronologia, 28, 259–260.

Thresher, D., 2007c: “Improving Alkenone Temperature Paleoclimate Reconstruction, with Example from the Last Glacial Maximum Tropics”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Questions the validity of the established method for sea surface temperature reconstruction. Rejected after standard sloppy peer review: I requested three specific less-biased reviewers, got three very-biased reviewers instead (careers dependent on established method), only two responded, one against, one neutral, and the editor cast the deciding vote against, not even being qualified to review the paper. Available here.

Note below: Hansen is Dr. James Hansen, the former head of NASA GISS and the father of global warming. Schmidt is Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the current head of NASA GISS anointed by Hansen.

Hansen, J., …, D. Thresher, …, 2007b: “Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE”, Climate Dynamics, 29, 661–696.

Hansen, J., …, D. Thresher, …, 2007a: “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7, 2287–2312.

Schmidt, G. A., …, J. E. Hansen, …, D. Thresher, …, 2006: “Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE: Comparison to In Situ, Satellite, and Reanalysis Data”, Journal of Climate, 19, 153–192.

Hansen, J., …, D. Thresher, …, 2005: “Efficacy of climate forcings”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1–45.

Thresher, D. E., 2004: “Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and Present Day Climate Using an Accelerated Coupled GCM Carrying Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons to Ocean Sediment/Ice Cores and Observations”, PhD thesis, Columbia University.

Thresher, D., G. Schmidt, D. Rind, and G. Hoffmann, 2004: “Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and Present Day Climate Using a Coupled GCM Carrying Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons to Ocean Sediment/Ice Cores and Observations”, EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AGU, 85(17), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract A52B–05 (American Geophysical Union, May, Montreal).

NRC, 2002: “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises” Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Participant in National Research Council’s Abrupt Climate Change Workshop, October 2000, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, which contributed to this book. and search for “Thresher”.

Thresher, D. and NCAR, 1997: shr_orb_decl and shr_orb_params, GCM source code (Fortran 90) subroutines for calculation of earth’s era-appropriate orbital parameters (i.e., Milankovitch parameterization). Part of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s GCMs from CCM3 to the current CCSM. This code was added by Thresher after he found a related major bug in CCM2, which called into question the many scientific results from using CCM2 but was never widely publicized. and search for “Thresher”.

Media Coverage:

Climate Change Skeptics Welcome Open Debate Under Trump Presidency

Climate Alarmists Warn Fewer Picnic-Perfect Days Thanks to ‘Global Warming’

Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference

Scientists Warn of Climate Apocalypse: CO2 Emissions Will Send Earth Back to ‘Triassic Period’

Climate Scientists Spread Panic: ‘Ten Years’ to Save the Earth

Climate Scientist Urges President Trump not to Cave to Ivanka’s ‘Climate Change Madness’

Climate Expert to Trump: Treaties Like Paris Agreement Are About ‘Economic Competition’



Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!