January 14, 2026
Climate Models Wrong
This from James Doogue
All Of The 39 Climate Models Used By Scientists Have Predicted Greater Warming 1979-2025 Compared To Actual Temperature Observations.
This includes climate scientists who want to keep their funding and grants coming, as well as the media who know that disaster scenarios get more viewers and readers compared to story lines which have no dramatic scenarios.
Dr Roy Spencer shows in his post at the URL below, that all 39 climate models run up to 3 times the warming rate of actual temperature observations 1979-2025.
Looking at the graphs shown below, which are taken from the linked post by Dr Spencer we can see:
1. All climate models run hotter than the actual temperature, right up to 300% of actual observations.
2. If we average all 39 climate models, we can see they collectively show a warming rate of double the actual observations.
Dr Spencer writes:
‘I find it ironic that climate models are claimed to be based upon fundamental "physical principles”. If that were true, then all models would have the same climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs [green house gases].
But they don’t.’
Dr Spencer further states:
‘Climate models range over a factor of three in climate sensitivity, a disparity that has remained for over 30 years of the climate modeling enterprise.’
He goes on to write:
‘Much of global warming alarmism arises from scientific publications biased toward (1) the models that produce the most warming, and (2) the excessive GHG increases ("SSP scenarios") they assume for the most dire climate change projections. Those scenarios are now known to be excessive compared to observed rates of global GHG emissions….’
So why do climate scientists continue to use climate models they know are not producing correct results? I believe it's because:
1. They want to keep their jobs. Convincing the government and benefactors that there's an emergency is more likely to keep their grants and funding flowing.
3. They jumped on the catastrophic global warming gravy train a long time ago. They don't want to admit they were wrong all these years.
Note: 1979 is used as the starting time on the graphs because that's the first year satellite temperature observations became available.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
04:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Dr. Spencer is definitely knowledgeable about all this. But there are two things I'd like to see him address that he hasn't.
First, from many things I've read, we are very haphazard about our "climate measuring," in that we are very careless about collecting lots of our data from places where temperatures are contaminated by buildings, pavements and other things that artificially affect them. I would think that real honest-to-God scientists would be very finicky about making sure their measurements were taken from places where there as few as possible factors that could create "noise" to contaminate their data; but it is obvious that they aren't.
Another thing is that it seems to me that we are dealing with timeframes that are, in the long run, too short to matter a great deal. When you consider that something like the Medieval Warm period lasted around four hundred or more years, you need to take into account that it was significant to the people who lived during it -- very significant indeed -- but was it really significant if you are going to take measurements from some point in time during the middle of it and start saying "Wow, the world is warming, we'd better tell Al Gore?" For that, you'd want to know temperatures before the start and after the end and see how they stack up.
First, from many things I've read, we are very haphazard about our "climate measuring," in that we are very careless about collecting lots of our data from places where temperatures are contaminated by buildings, pavements and other things that artificially affect them. I would think that real honest-to-God scientists would be very finicky about making sure their measurements were taken from places where there as few as possible factors that could create "noise" to contaminate their data; but it is obvious that they aren't.
Another thing is that it seems to me that we are dealing with timeframes that are, in the long run, too short to matter a great deal. When you consider that something like the Medieval Warm period lasted around four hundred or more years, you need to take into account that it was significant to the people who lived during it -- very significant indeed -- but was it really significant if you are going to take measurements from some point in time during the middle of it and start saying "Wow, the world is warming, we'd better tell Al Gore?" For that, you'd want to know temperatures before the start and after the end and see how they stack up.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 14, 2026 07:05 PM (Kg0VH)
2
Excellent points both Dana.
On the first, Dr. Spencer is aware of the problems with temperature data; he's quite chummy with AnthonyWatts, who did the survey on the surface stations to begin with. But remember Spencer runs the UAH satellite division and his data comes primarily from satellite surveillance rather than the surface stations most warmists rely on so heavily. The satellite data is far superior because it is not dependent on it's siting and whatnot.
Watts survey can be found at www.surfacestations.org and it's a hoot to look at the photos provided; stations wedged between two huge air conditioning compressors, cited next to steaming wastewater treatment plants, on blacktops in parking lots, etc.
I would add Dr. Spencer wrote a paper a while back where he concluded it is just this sort of temperature bias in the data that accounts for ALL modern time climate warming we've observed - even the satellite data, because it is waste heat being observed from industrial facilities and from blacktops and deforestation rather than from co2. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. always argued this was the case (he was monomaniacal on the subject) and I had some long conversation with Pielks when he had his website. He was professor emeritus at UC Boulder.
Your second point is also spot on. A single point in time tells us nothing, nor do even a couple of decades. It's the long-term trends you have to look at. For instance if we were to start our temperature graph with the Little Ice Age we'd see an enormous spike in temperatures - if we start after the Dalton Minimum we would see a far gentler increase. In no way would we understand it if we didn't know we were coming out of a cold period in an interglacial.
On the first, Dr. Spencer is aware of the problems with temperature data; he's quite chummy with AnthonyWatts, who did the survey on the surface stations to begin with. But remember Spencer runs the UAH satellite division and his data comes primarily from satellite surveillance rather than the surface stations most warmists rely on so heavily. The satellite data is far superior because it is not dependent on it's siting and whatnot.
Watts survey can be found at www.surfacestations.org and it's a hoot to look at the photos provided; stations wedged between two huge air conditioning compressors, cited next to steaming wastewater treatment plants, on blacktops in parking lots, etc.
I would add Dr. Spencer wrote a paper a while back where he concluded it is just this sort of temperature bias in the data that accounts for ALL modern time climate warming we've observed - even the satellite data, because it is waste heat being observed from industrial facilities and from blacktops and deforestation rather than from co2. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. always argued this was the case (he was monomaniacal on the subject) and I had some long conversation with Pielks when he had his website. He was professor emeritus at UC Boulder.
Your second point is also spot on. A single point in time tells us nothing, nor do even a couple of decades. It's the long-term trends you have to look at. For instance if we were to start our temperature graph with the Little Ice Age we'd see an enormous spike in temperatures - if we start after the Dalton Minimum we would see a far gentler increase. In no way would we understand it if we didn't know we were coming out of a cold period in an interglacial.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 15, 2026 08:40 AM (umJ+Y)
30kb generated in CPU 0.0263, elapsed 0.7437 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.737 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.737 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
