One hundred percent of Climate Models Overpredict Warming

#2 — second time picked up by citizen free press. The top news site on the planet and in the tippy top for views.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a very well known climatologist and global doom skeptic (not a climate change skeptic to my knowledge) posted this article on October 20th. It got little notice but the title here should have some influence on thinking humans. There are two key points you should know. First, Dr. Spencer was one of the main people involved in satellite temperature measurement and is currently the team leader for the top/only satellite-based microwave global temperature radiometers used by NASA. There is a rumor that he turned down the opportunity to be an astronaut, which I can’t believe because life is for living but whatever. There is no possibility that I can do his credentials justice so go to the link. Satellite temperature trends typically run lower than surface temperature trends for a variety of valid reasons. The point I’m making is that the surface temperature trends (blue bar on the left) are warming MORE than any other measurement. And by MORE, I mean a tiny, barely measurable bit more.

The blue bar shows MEASURED warming. The endless RED bars show PREDICTED warming.

How is it possible that EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL predicts higher warming than observation. Climate science is one of the most gratuitously funded fields in the history of science. They get satellites, flights, conferences, an entire MASSIVE division of the United Nations, buildings, university departments, supercomputers, ridiculous paychecks, insane monetary awards, international recognition, television commercials…hugs from hot girls… on and on……

This is all money from government, taken from taxpayers and given to the brightest minds on the planet.


They literally, screwed the pooch. To be clear, Dr. Spencer is not the problem.

They have tweaked every measurement to make the OBSERVATIONS as hot as possible. Well, to be fair, they did miss the single best way to calculate temperature trends ever created in the history of climate science — posted right here on my blog. But they don’t want to copy from a lousy aeronautical engineer climate skeptic (admittedly who copied from an actual genius to make it work). They won’t touch an obvious regression method with more ACCURATE results than they have personally produced, even though it creates slightly HIGHER warming.




If your weather model predicted hurricanes weakening and driving straight to the arctic circle every single time, would you???

A. Correct the observations?

B. Fix the model?


Of course you will receive the expected paycheck immediately.

Or maybe they will.

83 thoughts on “One hundred percent of Climate Models Overpredict Warming

    1. Because EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL IS WRONG! That needs to be screamed from the roof tops. And, as the article points out, there’s billions of dollars of incentives, paid for by taxpayers, being doled out for bad information knowing that it’s bad information but agreeing with the false narrative, and good information is being censored. Dr. Spencer had his YouTube channel deleted for simply posting ACCURATE satellite temps, but since ACCURATE temps did not match the false narrative, they censored him. When you live in a world that rejects reality, and puts fantasy in its place, and then demands that you agree with the fantasy or face painful consequences, it becomes one’s duty to SCREAM that the fantasy is a lie. That being said, if my incentive was that cute girl, I’d say whatever they told me to say. 😁

  1. The press and the global warming crowd deliberately suppress the fact that ANTARCTICA has had record cold, snow and ice accumulation for decades. Even the last few years, ANTARCTICA cold, snow and ice have hit record numbers.

    The number of catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes has dwindled the last couple of decades.

    The oceans have not risen appreciably other than the normal waxing and waning of ice melt and evaporation cycles. If you try to google it, the first few pages will be pro global warming but when you drill down to the more reputable “scientific” sites it says no global warming. Also droughts, cold snaps, and weather extremes are the rule all throughout recorded history. There are records clear back to the 1400’s verifying this fact. One has to dig for this data because the political and globalists agenda has big-tech, the leftist media, et al working at sequestering real facts as the “Brown Shirts” did for Hitler. Most folks don’t even go past the first page and these hyena Globalists at google know this.

    Lastly, look up the sun-spot cycle which is an eleven year cycle. The weather patterns on earth are affected profoundly by this cycle.

    They try to explain it away with all kinds of mental gymnastics but it doesn’t pass the smell test. Funny one never hears of this, but then again suppression of reality by ideologues is commonplace.

    The so-called doomed Great Barrier Reef is thriving and growing.

  2. Jeff –

    > There is no possibility that I can do his credentials justice so go to the link.

    Yet another appeal to authority from you.

    Now you’ve told me that only lefties are credentialists. Given that you regularly hate on lefties so much (you know, shit-stained morons and all that), I guess that makes you a self-hating leftist.

    Why do you hate yourself, Jeff?

      1. Jeff –

        Follow the logic.

        (1) You’ve said lefties are characterized by appeal to authority.

        (2) You’ve said lefties (as distinguished from righties) are shit-stained morons

        (3) You appealed his authority.

        (4) You must be a leftist.

        (5) You must hate yourself.

        Doubling down on your appeal to authority changes none of that.

          1. such a mean thing to write.

            I’ll give you a bit of true emotion, I don’t understand how people can’t actually try to understand.

          2. Jeff –

            I’m pointing out your illogic. By the logic you’ve laid out, you hate yourself and think yourself to be a shit-stained moron.

            I have no actual reason to think you hate yourself, so I’m trying to get you to understand how your logic is flawed.

            Specifically, your reverse engineering about people who have different ideological orientation than yourself.

            The associations between ideological viewpoint and reasoning ability has been studied quite a bit. None of available evidence, at least that I know of, comes anywhere close to supporting your contentions about “lefties.”

            On the other hand, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest flaws in your reasoning. Evidence about confirmation bias, or motivated reasoning, of the fundamental attribution error, or many other forms of cognitive biases – that don’t show the kind of patterns across ideological divides that you insist, with absolute certainty, exist.

            But they do suggest why someone as strongly identified with a particular ideological orientation as you are , and who’s as obviously triggered about his ideological orientation as you are, would wrongly identify the kinds of patterns you think you’ve identified.

            You have zero validated evidence to support your constant arguments. All you have is anecdotes, filtered through your ideological biases, with zero attempt to even control for your own biases.

            It’s weak analysis yet you stick to it like white on rice. Why? It’s an interesting question.

    1. Lefties ARE morons. Cant even tell you what a womsn is. Think a cotton mask prevents a virus.
      Want to curtail free speech.
      Etc etc etc.

      1. Jeff –

        I commented on aspects of your post – your appeal to Spencer’s authority.

        You responded to my comment on that aspect of your post, and I responded to your response.

        And anonymous didn’t actually respond on the topic of your post.

        Yet you chastise me.

        Logic, once again, bites you in the ass.

        1. And if you don’t want me to comment on your appeals to authority, don’t include appeals authority in your posts or comments.

  3. And just ’cause you’ll throw some gorilla dust around to obscure your illogic.

    Appealing to authority can be fallacious.

    It just makes sense to consider someone’s authority when evaluating the probabilities they’re correct about something.

    Someone’s authority isn’t dispositive as to the viability of their opinions. That’s where appeal to authority becomes fallacious.

    You have yet to show any actual evidence that lefties engage in fallacious appeal to authority any more than righties, yet you argue over and over that there’s some kind of uniform law that lefties are dopes ’cause they appeal to authority, where as righties don’t appeal to authority (let alone fallaciously).

    This has been explained to you over and over yet, you continue to (1) appeal to authority over andover, (2) have zero, I mean zero, evidence to show some kind of disproportionate appealing to authority across the ideological divide, (3) constantly characterize lefties by virtue of them appealing to authority and, (4) constantly hate on lefties.

    None of that is even remotely arguable.

    1. Sorry for you. Dr S is a well founded mind.

      I’ve read his papers, his blog and his emails for decades.

      Dude’s got it right. If you think he’s not there, say what is wrong.

      good luck chickenbrain.

          1. Sorry –

            This belongs here:

            Jeff –

            > you could — at a minimum —- try to be conversant in the subject you are trolling.

            I commented on aspects of your post – your appeal to Spencer’s authority.

            You responded to my comment on that aspect of your post, and I responded to your response.

            And anonymous didn’t actually respond on the topic of your post.

            Yet you chastise me.

            Logic, once again, bites you in the ass.

    1. Anonymous doesn’t want to discuss Jeff’s appeals to authority, he only wants to discuss my comments on Jeff’s appeals to authority.

  4. I don’t bother with climate blogs anymore but on a whim I checked out your blog today. Still at it after so many years. You are the energizer bunny!
    Yesterday a friend asked me to explain climate alarmism and here is part of my answer.
    “Climate Alarmism” has been around for at least one hundred years. In the 1970s we were told that an “Ice Age” was imminent but the issue was ignored by governments until 1988 when James Hansen made a presentation predicting “Catastrophic Warming” resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Policies aimed at “Mitigating Carbon” were developed that have caused trillions of dollars to be spent on “Renewable” energy sources.
    According to satellite data (University of Alabama, Huntsville) the average global temperature rose by 0.27 oC over the next ten years in line with Hansen’s prediction. This trend stopped in 1998 even though CO2 concentrations are rising faster than ever. Over the last 24 years the average temperature rise was 0.00 oC.
    Do you agree or disagree?

    1. I cannot disagree. There are statistics which we all must look at very closely to prove your comment. But warming did happen. Such a lame reply by me.

  5. The issue is that weather models have been wrong throughout history. Most people use them for power and to get money. The actual location of weather temp indicators on the surface is that they are not spread out to all countries both rural and urban. In many cases the past rural are now concrete and urban due to growth of people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s