Climate scientists can restart the climate policy debate & win: test the models!

Summary; Public policy about climate change has become politicized and gridlocked after 26 years of large-scale advocacy. We cannot even prepare for a repeat of past extreme weather. We can whine and bicker about who to blame. Or we can find ways to restart the debate. Here is the next of a series about the latter path, for anyone interested in walking it. Climate scientists can take an easy and potentially powerful step to build public confidence: re-run the climate models from the first 3 IPCC reports with actual data (from their future): how well did they predict global temperatures?

“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963).

The most important graph from the IPCC’s AR5

Figure 1.4 from the IPCC's AR5
Figure 1.4 from AR5: Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (in °C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Click to enlarge.

Why the most important graph doesn’t convince the public

Last week I posted What climate scientists did wrong and why the massive climate change campaign has failed. After 26 years, one of the largest longest campaigns to influence public policy has failed to gain the support of Americans, with climate change ranking near the bottom of people’s concerns. It described the obvious reason: they failed to meet the public’s expectations for behavior of scientists warning about a global threat (i.e., a basic public relations mistake).

Let’s discuss what scientists can do to restart the debate. Let’s start with the big step: show that climate models have successfully predicted future global temperatures with reasonable accuracy.

This spaghetti graph — probably the most-cited data from the IPCC’s reports — illustrates one reason for lack of sufficient public support in America. It shows the forecasts of models run in previous IPCC reports vs. actual subsequent temperatures, with the forecasts run under various scenarios of emissions and their baselines updated. First, Edward Tufte probably would laugh at this The Visual Display of Quantitative Information — too much packed into one graph, the equivalent of a Powerpoint slide with 15 bullet points.

But there’s a more important weakness. We want to know how well the models work. That is, how well each forecast if run with a correct scenario (i.e., actual future emissions, since we’re uninterested here in predicting emissions, just temperatures). Let’s prune away all those extra lines on the spagetti graph, leaving forecasts from 1990 to now that match the actual course of emissions.

The big step: prove climate models have made successful predictions

“A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.”
— From Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.

A massive body of research describes how to validate climate models (see below), most stating that they must use “hindcasts” (predicting the past) because we do not know the temperature of future decades. Few sensible people trust hindcasts, with their ability to be (even inadvertently) tuned to work (that’s why scientists use double-blind testing for drugs where possible).

But now we know the future — the future of models run in past IPCC reports — and can test their predictive ability.

Karl Popper believed that predictions were the gold standard for testing scientific theories. The public also believes this. Countless films and TV shows focus on the moment in which scientists test their theory to see if the result matches their prediction. Climate scientists can run such tests today for global surface temperatures. This could be evidence on a scale greater than anything else they’ve done.

Model of a hurricane.
A hurricane in the Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) Model. From NCAR/UCAR.

Testing the climate models used by the IPCC

“Probably {scientists’} most deeply held values concern predictions: they should be accurate; quantitative predictions are preferable to qualitative ones; whatever the margin of permissible error, it should be consistently satisfied in a given field; and so on.”
— Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

The IPCC’s scientists run projections. AR5 describes these as “the simulated response of the climate system to a scenario of future emission or concentration of greenhouse gases and aerosols … distinguished from climate predictions by their dependence on the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used…”. The models don’t predict CO2 emissions, which are an input to the models.

So they should run the models as they were originally run for the IPCC in the First Assessment Report (FAR, 1990), in the Second (SAR, 1995), and the Third (TAR, 2001) — for details see chapter 9 of AR5: Evolution of Climate Models. Run them using actual emissions as inputs and with no changes of the algorithms, baselines, etc. This is a hindcast using data from the “future” (after the model was created), a form of out-of-sample data. It would cost a pittance compared to the annual cost of climate science — and the stakes for the world. How accurately will the models’ output match the actual global average surface temperatures?

This was proposed by Roger Pielke Jr (Prof Environmental Studies, U CO-Boulder) in “Climate predictions and observations“, Nature Geoscience, April 2008.

Of course, the results would not be a simple pass/fail. Such a test would provide the basis for more sophisticated tests. Judith Curry (Prof Atmospheric Science, GA Inst Tech) explains here:

“Comparing the model temperature anomalies with observed temperature anomalies, particularly over relatively short periods, is complicated by the acknowledgement that climate models do not simulate the timing of ENSO and other modes of natural internal variability; further the underlying trends might be different. Hence, it is difficult to make an objective choice for matching up the observations and model simulations. Different strategies have been tried… matching the models and observations in different ways can give different spins on the comparison.”

On the other hand, we now have respectably long histories since publication of the early IPCC reports: 25, 20, and 15 years. These are not short periods, even for climate change. Models that cannot successfully predict over such periods require more trust than many people have when it comes to spending trillions of dollars — or even making drastic revisions to our economic system (as urged by Naomi Klein and Pope Francis).


Trust can trump Uncertainty.”
Presentation by Leonard A Smith (Prof of Statistics, LSE), 6 February 2014.

Re-run the models. Post the results. More recent models presumably will do better, but firm knowledge about the performance of the older models will give us useful information for the public policy debate. No matter what the results.

As the Romans might have said when faced with a problem like climate change: “Fiat scientia, ruat caelum.” (Let science be done though the heavens may fall.)

“In an age of spreading pseudoscience and anti-rationalism, it behooves those of us who believe in the good of science and engineering to be above reproach whenever possible.“
P. J. Roach, Computing in Science and Engineering, Sept-Oct 2004 — Gated.

World Models

Other posts about the climate policy debate

  1. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
  2. Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
  3. Thomas Kuhn tells us what we need to know about climate science.
  4. Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
  5. Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
  6. Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.
  7. Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
  8. We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.

For More Information

(a)  Please like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter. For more information see The keys to understanding climate change and My posts about climate change. Also see these posts about models…

(b) See the papers about model validation listed in (f) below. But this is especially clear about the situation: “Reconciling warming trends” by Gavin A. Schmidt et al, Nature Geoscience, March 2014 — Ungated copy here.

“CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations.

“{We} collated up-to-date information on volcanic aerosol concentrations, solar activity and well-mixed greenhouse gases in the 1990s and 2000s. These updates include both newly observed data and also reanalyses of earlier 1990s data on volcanic aerosols based on improved satellite retrievals {and compared} the updated information with the data used in the CMIP5 climate model simulations …”

(c)  This proposal is an obvious one; I don’t claim it is original. Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies, U CO-Boulder) made a similar proposal, but more complete in “Climate predictions and observations” (Nature Geoscience, April 2008). Also see “Carrick” in this Sept 2013 comment at Climate Audit) There are probably others.

Why has this test not been done? We can only guess.

(d)  I learned much, and got several of these quotes, from a 2014 presentations by Leonard A Smith (Prof of Statistics, LSE): the abridged version “The User Made Me Do It” and the full version “Distinguishing Uncertainty, Diversity and Insight“. Also see “Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy“, Leonard A. Smith and Nicholas Stern, Phil Trans A, 31 October 2011.

(e)  Introductions to climate modeling.

These provide an introduction to the subject, and a deeper review of this frontier in climate science.

Judith Curry (Prof Atmospheric Science, GA Inst Tech) reviews the literature about the uses and limitation of climate models…

  1. What can we learn from climate models?
  2. Philosophical reflections on climate model projections.
  3. Spinning the climate model – observation comparison — Part I.
  4. Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II.

(f)  Selections from the large literature about validation of climate models.

(1) Any discussion of climate science should start with what the IPCC says. See AR5, WGI, Chapter 9: “Evaluation of Climate Models” for a long detailed analysis. The bottom line, from the Executive Summary:

Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend.

(2) Perhaps the best known attempt at model validation is “Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model” by Hansen et el, Journal of Geophysical Research, 20 August 1988. Its skill is somewhat evaluated in “Skill and uncertainty in climate models” by Julia C. Hargreaves, WIREs: Climate Change, July/Aug 2010 (ungated copy). She reported that “efforts to reproduce the original model runs have not yet been successful”, so she examined results for the scenario that in 1988 Hansen “described as the most realistic”. How realistic she doesn’t say (no comparison of the scenarios vs. actual observations); nor can we know how the forecast would change using observations as inputs.

Two blog posts discuss this forecast (for people who care about such things): “Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast” (Roger Pielke Jr, May 2006) and “A detailed look at Hansen’s 1988 projections” (Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science, Sept 2010).

(3)  Also important is this evaluation of forecast in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report “Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change“, David J. Frame and Dáithí A. Stone, Nature Climate Change, April 2013. They evaluated the original projections (i.e., runs using simulations), which did not include the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc economies, or the rapid growth of East Asia’s economies. Nor did they show the difference between the scenarios used and actual observations.

(4) Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” by an all-star group of scientists — Stefan Rahmstorf, Anny Cazenave, John A. Church, James E. Hansen, Ralph F. Keeling, David E. Parker, Richard C. J. Somerville — in Science, 4 May 2007. Ungated copy here. This is often cited as proof of models’ forecasting skill. It makes no such claim. The paper is only one page long. It has one paragraph describing global surface temperature changes and one about sea levels. There is little description or analysis, and no statistical testing.  Also note this claim, which evidence in the past few years reveals to be exaggerated at best. Models are tuned to match past data (details here), make extensive use of parametrization.

“Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990: Climate models are physics-based models developed over many years that are not ‘tuned’ to reproduce the most recent temperatures …”

(5) Test of a decadal climate forecast“, Myles R. Allen et al, Nature Geoscience, April 2013 — Gated. A follow-up to “Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change” (Allen et al, Nature, October 2000), evaluating one model’s forecasts using data through 1996 over the subsequent 16 years. They re-ran the model, but do not state if they used the original scenario or actual observations after 1996 to general the prediction. The forecast was significantly below consensus, and so quite accurate. Odd that this examination of it provided so little information.

Other articles about validation of models. Most are just the usual hindcasts.

  1. Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption“, James Hansen et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 24 January 1992. Ungated copy. Nice validation of long-standing theory, including the early 1980s “nuclear winter” simulations.
  2. Irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations” by James C. McWilliams in PNAS, 22 May 2007.
  3. How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?“, BAMS, March 2008 — Comparing models with the present, but defining “present” as the past (1979-1999).
  4. Similar proposal to mine, but more complete: “Climate predictions and observations“, Roger Pielke Jr., Nature Geoscience, April 2008.
  5. Should we believe model predictions of future climate change?”, Reto Knutti, Philosophical Transactions A, December 2008.
  6. Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models“, Elisabeth A. Lloyd, Philosophy of Science, December 2010. Ungated copy.
  7. Important: “Should we assess climate model predictions in light of severe tests?”, Joel K. Katzav, Eros, 7 June 2011.
  8. More hindcasting: “Skillful predictions of decadal trends in global mean surface temperature“, J. C. Fyfe et al, Geophysical Research Letters, November 2011. Gated; open draft here. Comments by Pielke Sr here.
  9. The Reproducibility of Observational Estimates of Surface and Atmospheric Temperature Change” by B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, and K. E. Taylor in Science, 2 December 2011. Discusses proof and replication, but in only binary terms — models showing warming or cooling. Nothing about matching the pattern of temperature change over 10 or 20 year periods (warming and pauses).
  10. Reliability of multi-model and structurally different single-model ensembles“, Tokuta Yokohata et al, Climate Dynamics, August 2012. Uses the rank histogram approach.
  11. Important: “Assessing climate model projections: State of the art and philosophical reflections“, Joel Katzav, Henk Djikstra, and Jos de Laat, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, November 2012. Ungated copy.
  12. The Elusive Basis of Inferential Robustness“, James Justus, Philosophy of Science, December 2012. A creative look at a commonly given reason to trust GCMs.
  13. Real-time multi-model decadal climate predictions” by Doug M. Smith et al., Climate Dynamics, December 2012 — Gated. Open copy here. Hindcasts and forecasts. “Verification of these forecasts will provide an important opportunity to test the performance of models and our understanding and knowledge of the drivers of climate change.” Yes.
  14. Initialized near-term regional climate change prediction“, F. J. Doblas-Reyes, Nature Communications, 13 April 2013 — Hindcasts.
  15. Can we trust climate models?”, J. C. Hargreaves and J. D. Annan, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, July/August 2013.
  16. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years”, John C. Fyfe et al, Nature Climate Change, September 2013. Hindcasts.
  17. Important: “Severe testing of climate change hypotheses“, Joel K. Katzav, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, November  2013. Ungated copy.
  18. Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?“, H. Von Storch et al, 2013 — unpublished. Hindcast of models used in AR4 and AR5 vs. two scenarios.
  19. Important: “Reconciling warming trends” by Gavin A. Schmidt et al, Nature Geoscience, March 2014 — Ungated copy here.
  20. Recent observed and simulated warming“, John C. Fyfe and Nathan P. Gillett, Nature Climate Change, March 2014 — Gated. “Fyfe et al. showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors… It is this light that we revisit the findings of Fyfe and colleagues.”
  21. CMIP5 historical simulations (1850–2012) with GISS ModelE2“, RL Miller, Gavin Schmidt, et al, Journal of Advances Modeling Earth Systems, June 2014.
  22. Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase“, James S. Risbey et al, Nature Climate Change, September 2014. Hindcasting of CMIP5. Reported as “Study vindicates climate models accused of ‘missing the pause’“.
  23. Predictions of Climate Several Years Ahead Using an Improved Decadal Prediction System“, Jeff R. Knight et al, Journal of Climate, October 2014.
  24. The Robustness of the Climate Modeling Paradigm“, Alexander Bakker, Ph.D. thesis, VU University (2015).
  25. Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise“, Patrick T. Brown et al, Scientific Reports, April 2015.
  26. Uncertainties, Plurality, and Robustness in Climate Research and Modeling: On the Reliability of Climate Prognoses“, Anna Leuschner, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 21 July 2015. Typical cheerleading; proof by bold assertion.
  27. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures“, Kevin Cowtan et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 15 August 2015. Open copy here.
  28. How well must climate models agree with observations?“, Dirk Notz, Philosophical Transactions A, 13 October 2015.
  29. Evaluation of forecasts by accuracy and spread in the MiKlip decadal climate prediction system“, Christopher Kadow et al, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2017. Hindcasts.
  30. Assessing temperature pattern projections made in 1989” by Ronald J. Stouffer and Syukuro Manabe in Nature Climate Change, March 2017. They compare the geographical pattern of warming in their 1989 model forecast vs observations. Limitations in their model cause “problems in comparing models to observations and makes the comparisons shown here qualitative in nature. It is one of the reasons why we focus our attention on the geographical distribution of surface temperature change rather than the magnitude of change in this study.”
  31. Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales“, Roger N. Jones and James H. Ricketts, Earth System Dynamics, 8 (1), 16 March 2017.
  32. Apparent limitations in the ability of CMIP5 climate models to simulate recent multi-decadal change in surface temperature: implications for global temperature projections” in Climate Dynamics, July 2017 “Given that the same models are poorest in representing observed multi-decadal temperature change, confidence in the highest projections is reduced.”
  33. The epistemological status of general circulation models” by Craig Loehle, Climate Dynamics, March 2018.
  34. “Validation of Climate Models: An Essential Practice” by Richard B. Rood in Computer Simulation Validation: Fundamental Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Philosophical Perspectives, Editors Claus Beisbart and Nichole J. Saam (2019). Post-review draft here.

122 thoughts on “Climate scientists can restart the climate policy debate & win: test the models!”

  1. Pingback: A Red Team to end the climate wars: fun but likely to fail. | Watts Up With That?

  2. Thank you for the great idea. Lord Monckton has posted some comparisons of the older models with subsequent temperature data but your idea is even better: plug in the post-publication CO2 emissions and rerun the old models.

    You want to plug in more than just CO2 emissions; you also should plug in the other real-world inputs: solar, volcanic activity, aerosols, etc.

    Two years have passed since this post was written, and I’ve seen this done now. The models do fine under these conditions, although of course they still can’t replicate the timing of ENSO, which means that short-term comparisons may still be a little rough (i.e., in the 5-15 or 5-20 year range).

    1. Windchaser,

      “You want to plug in more than just CO2 emissions”

      The post says input “Run them using actual emissions as inputs” (e.g., GHG and aerosols). From memory — it’s been two years, as you note — I do not believe that most models include solar fluctuations or episodes of volcanic activity (more sure of the former than the later).

      “Two years have passed since this post was written, and I’ve seen this done now.”

      Please give a citation or link or something. I’ve watched the literature — casually — and have not seen anything like that. At the end of the post is a list of relevant papers from p-r journals. Updated but not comprehensive (of course). I believe I have listed most of the high-profile ones.

  3. Pingback: Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work. | Watts Up With That?

  4. Pingback: Josh on Pielke Jr. and Mann-ichean paranoia in Climate Science | Watts Up With That?

  5. Pingback: Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed | Watts Up With That?

  6. Pingback: Paul Krugman Shows Why the Climate Campaign Failed | US Issues

  7. Pingback: What you need to know and are not told about hurricanes | Watts Up With That?

  8. Pingback: A climate science milestone: a successful 10-year forecast! | Watts Up With That?

  9. Pingback: What You Need to Know and are Not Told About Hurricanes | US Issues

  10. Alan Tomalty

    “So they should run the models as they were originally run for the IPCC in the First Assessment Report (FAR, 1990), in the Second (SAR, 1995), and the Third (TAR, 2001) — for details see chapter 9 of AR5: Evolution of Climate Models. Run them using actual emissions as inputs and with no changes of the algorithms, baselines, etc. ”

    I had a big laugh out of that one. That one suggestion proves that your site and you have no idea of just how bad computer models of the climate are and no idea that it is impossible to model down to a scale of 1mm. Until you can get the science correct, models will always be garbage. And even if you had the science perfect since you will never be able to model on a spatial scale of 1mm, you cannot duplicate the action of a raindrop never mind a cloud. Present scaling is down to 1.5km which cannot include clouds accurately therefore the models are kaput even before you start. I have been looking atall anles of this hoax for 6 months and I see one lie built upon another lie. I am even beginning to suspect that the Vostok ice cores do not accurately represent the CO2 levels for last 300000 years and now I even suspect the Mauna Loa CO2 increases. However even if though those 2 concerns are not considered, everything else in climate science doesn’t make sense including back radiation. This hoax is built on one lie after another and you have bought into it by trying to resurrect computer models.

    The inconvenient questions that the IPCC nor Michael Mann can’t answer.

    1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
    2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
    3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
    4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
    5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
    6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
    7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 ppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emissions CO2 by 75%?
    8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for those time periods?
    9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
    10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
    11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
    12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
    13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
    14) Why do clmate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
    !5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
    16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming lost every debate that has ever occurred?
    17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
    18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
    19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
    20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
    21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
    22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
    23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1200 ppm not 410ppm.
    24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
    25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2 till 2030?
    26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
    27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 590ppm in 2100 which is exactly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
    28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
    29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
    30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
    31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
    32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
    33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
    34) Why does the extreme range of the climate models increase as the number of runs increases on the same simulation?
    35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
    36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
    37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
    38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
    39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
    40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
    41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
    42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warming than today. Why?
    43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
    44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
    45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
    46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
    47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
    48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
    49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
    50) Why do alarmists still insist that skeptics are getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from either fossil fuel companies nor governments for climate research?
    51) If the Bloomberg carbon clock based on the Mauna Loa data, in the fall and winter increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
    52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
    53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature?
    54) Why does the IPCC still say that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 100 years when over 80 studies have concluded it is more like 5 years?
    55) Why do all global climate alarmists say that corals are dying due to bleaching when Dr. Peter Ridd (who has published over 100 papers) has proven that coral bleaching is a defensive mechanism by corals in relation to temperature change in the water.
    56) Why does the IPCC still release temperature and sea level data from NOAA and NASA when Tony Heller has proved that those agencies have faked data and made improper adjustments to the actual raw numbers ?
    57) How does the IPCC explain that Professor Miskolczi showed that despite a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the period 1948 to 2008, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere was found to be unchanged from its theoretical value of 1.87
    58) Why has the Global Historical Climate Network temperature data set for ~ 1000 temperature stations in the United States shown no warming over the entire 124 year period when you just take the daily maximum and average it out for the 365 days of the year?
    59) Why has the global average downward infrared radiation to the surface shown no increase ever since the CERES satellite started collecting data in the year 2000?
    60) How would Antarctica ever melt if almost all of the land mass never even comes close to 0 C even in summer? Same for Greenland.
    61) Why did one alarmist put 7 bullet holes in Dr. John Christy’s office window?
    62) Why does a NOAA graph that charts CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus by year increase (since CO2 increases every year) show absolutely no relation to outgoing longwave radiation?
    63) Why does the central England temperature dataset from the mid 1600s to today show only a .25 C increase in 350 years?

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “Until you can get the science correct, models will always be garbage.”

      Please read more carefully. The point is to create a test whose results might have broad acceptance. What you (or I) believe the test will show is irrelevant.

      It is quite a remarkable reading FAIL to not see this, the key (and only) point of the post.

  11. Pingback: Panicking about climate change? See the rest of the story. – Climate Collections

  12. Pingback: Secrets about the 1.5°C world temperature limit | Watts Up With That?

  13. Pingback: Lessons from the failure of the climate change crusade | Watts Up With That?

  14. Pingback: The noble corruption of climate science - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  15. Pingback: The Extinction Rise up’s hysteria vs. local weather science – Daily News

  16. Pingback: Paying attention to local weather doomsters makes our scenario worse – All My Daily News

  17. Pingback: Enlisting peer-reviewed science within the weather campaign – Daily News

  18. Pingback: Climate activists attack climate science – Ubuntu News

  19. Pingback: Confessions d'un climatologue - Parc d'attraction - tous savoir

  20. Pingback: Why climate skeptics will lose. How they can win. – SPORT NEWS

  21. Pingback: Klimawissen­schaft ist gestorben. Die Auswir­kungen werden erheblich sein. - Leserbriefe

  22. Pingback: Klimawissen­schaft ist gestorben. Die Auswir­kungen werden erheblich sein. - BAYERN online

  23. Pingback: A demo showing our broken climate policy debate – Weather Brat Weather around the world plus

  24. Pingback: A demo showing our broken climate policy debate – Moment Reporter

  25. Pingback: Confessions d'un climatologue : Confessions d'un climatologue – Formation Site internet

  26. Pingback: Bemerkungen zum Stichwort „professionelle Prognostik könnte die Klimawandel-Debatte aus der Sackgasse führen“ – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: