Breaking: 1920’s Brit ‘fatally infected’ All Government Climate Models

A sensational new study shows western government climate models rely on a fatally flawed 1920’s algorithm.  Scientists say this could be the breakthrough that explains why modern computers are so awful at predicting climate change: simulations “violate several known Laws of Thermodynamics.”

British climate researcher Derek Alker presents an extraordinary new paper ‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models ‚Äì Is It A Sound Basis?‘ exposing previously undetected errors that government climate researchers have unknowingly fed into multi-million dollar climate computers since the 1940s. [1] 

Alker explains:

“This paper examines what was originally calculated as the greenhouse effect theory by Lewis Fry Richardson, the brilliant English mathematician, physicist and meteorologist.

In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations. His ingenious method is still used today in climate models. But unbeknown to Richardson he had inadvertently relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”

Unfortunately, for Richardson Dines wrongly factored in that earth’s climate is driven by terrestrial (ground) radiation as the only energy source, not the sun. Richardson had taken the Dines numbers on face value and did not detect the error when combining the Dines numbers to his own. Alker continues: “The archives show Richardson never double-checked the Dines work (see below) and the records do not show that anyone else has ever exposed it.”

The outcome, says Alker, is that not only has the original Richardson & Charney computer model been corrupted ‚Äì  but all other computer climate models since. All government researchers use these core numbers and believe them to be valid even though what they seek to represent can be shown today as physically impossible.

Alker adds:

“My paper specifically describes how the theory Dines calculated in his paper violates several of the known Laws of Thermodynamics, and therefore does not describe reality.

The greenhouse effect theory we know of today is based on what Richardson had formulated from the Dines paper using unphysical numbers created by Dines. But Dines himself later suggested his numbers were probably unreliable.”

Unfortunately, Dines died in the mid-1920’s and did not inform Richardson about the error. Thereupon, in the late 1940’s, Richardson began working with another world figure in climate science ‚Äì Jule Charney  as the duo constructed the first world’s first computer climate model. It was then the dodgy Dines numbers infected the works.

Alker, who studied the archives scrupulously for his research reports that there is no published evidence that Richardson understood Dines’s calculation method. And we think he and Charney put the Dines numbers into the world’s first computer model verbatim.

In essence, the ‘theory’ of greenhouse gas warming from the Dines numbers can be shown to start with a misapplication of Planck’s Law, which generates grossly exaggerated ‘up’ and none existent ‘down’ radiative emissions figures. Then, layer by layer, part of the downward radiation is added to the layer below, which is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thereby, like a domino effect, this bogus calculation method becomes GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out”) to all computers that run the program. Alker adds:

“What the climate simulations are doing is creating energy layer by layer in the atmosphere that shouldn’t be there (it has no other source than of itself). It is then destroyed layer by layer (it is absorbed and then discarded ‚Äì in effect destroyed). This is all presented in such a way to give the appearance that energy is being conserved, when it is not being conserved,”


[1] Alker D.,’Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models ‚Äì Is It A Sound Basis?’ (October 30, 2016),; (accessed online: November 02, 2016)

Read the full paper at

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Simon Ruszczak


    Meaning, greenhouse gases don’t really exist !

    • Avatar



      Yeah, that’s right.
      It’s always been a lie.
      And a myth to legitimize the enslavement of the non-elite.
      Laws are for little people, not the elite.
      Did you notice that the congressional pigs
      who ramrodded Obamacare on the populace
      exempted themselves from it ?

      Most people are suppressed by laws while others are
      Naturally EXEMPT.

      The fact that Hill-Ree Rodass Clinton is not in prison
      means that she is naturally

      EXEMPT !!

      • Avatar



        She is not in jail YET, Mr. Comey said that they would not move forward with prosecution. The problem with that is that it’s not his call on who does or does not get prosecuted. That is up to the DOJ not the FBI, the FBI is an investigative agency only. So, I think it’s entirely possible that the new head of the DOJ might move forward with things. I have no doubt that Hillary, Podesta, Huma and many others are looking at potential jail time

  • Avatar



    The fact that they have never identified or quantified the forcing’s on climate have nothing to do with model failures? How can you successfully model what you will not, or cannot measure?

  • Avatar

    Bob Armstrong


    The enabling falsehood in the massively destructive AlGoreWarming fraud is the assertion that some electromagnetic spectral “GreenHouseGas” effect is the cause for the bottoms of atmospheres to be hotter than their tops . The Earth’s surface is about 3% warmer than the 279K of a gray ball next to us in our orbit . In the extreme case of Venus , the surface is 125% , 400K , hotter than the gray ball temperature in its orbit and thus is the fodder for James Hansen’s “runaway” horror tale .

    See my for the computations showing the notion is quantitatively absurd by an order of magnitude .

    The only force which can balance the equations is the other macroscopic force — which is conspicuously absent from the GHG equations — gravity .

    • Avatar



      The great anomaly of Venus which anti-gravitationally rotates on its axis in opposition to its revolution.
      The FACT that Venus radiates into interplanetary space MORE energy than it receives from the Sun has not only
      Never been explained
      It has

Comments are closed