Failed Climate Models

NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ”magic number” that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ”It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” An Impact Lasting Centuries If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

Dr. Hansen, director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, testifed before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Continue reading the main story He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

He made temperature forecasts for three emissions scenarios.  Scenario A was increasing emission growth rates. Scenario B was decreasing emission growth rates. Scenario C was no emissions after the year 2000.

“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.”

Climate Change and American Policy: Key Documents, 1979-2015 – Google Books


So how did Hansen do? Global warming theory is based on warming the troposphere, which should warm faster than the surface. The graph below shows the five year mean of lower troposphere temperatures measured by UAH satellite.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The next graph overlays the satellite lower troposphere temperatures in red, on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts – at the same scale and normalized to the early 1980’s. As you can see, troposphere temperatures have followed zero emissions Scenario C – meaning there is no evidence humans have influenced the climate.

The other satellite data set is provided by climate alarmist Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems, and it also shows temperatures below the (yellow) range of climate models.

Remote Sensing Systems

Mears’ recent graphs have been altered upwards.  Two years ago, the discrepancy between models and measured temperatures was even larger.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

The next image overlays the 2017 graph on the 2019 graph.  You can see that Mears has moved everything up to the upper limit of his error blue bounds – but even so still shows that the climate models are failing.

Four years ago I predicted that Mears, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia,  would alter his data to match the fake surface temperature data sets.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.


That is exactly what happened, but even after data tampering – the models are failing.

Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really hot, dry summer in the United States.

He predicted increased heat and drought, and failed on both counts. The frequency of hot afternoons has plummeted in the US over the past century.

Hansen focused on Midwest heat and drought in his 1988 testimony, but no place has cooled faster than the Midwest.

The US is getting wetter, and Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really dry year.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Climate model forecasts have shown a 100% failure rate, yet mainstream climate science is based almost entirely around them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Failed Climate Models

  1. NoOil says:

    Thanks—great post. Great figures too.

    Do you know if there a source for US surface temps with ONLY the time of day correction?


    • tonyheller says:

      I will do a blog post on that soon

      • Menicholas says:

        Maybe one on the UHI adjustments, if they have ever been explicitly identified.
        IIRC, they botched UHI “corrections” too.
        And then there are the unexplained alterations.
        The graph showing the sum total of all the adjustments tells the real story, it seems to me, and all the rest is just the details of how they have done it, and keep doing it.
        If everyone in the country knew how to read and interpret a graph, that CO2 vs total adjustments graph should be enough to warrant prosecutions for malfeasance.

        • Jason Calley says:

          +1 Absolutely correct!

          • bb_Boomer1949 says:

            The Progressive Left Media Moguls will allways sweep evidence under the rug if it doesn’t jibe with their narratives and political agendas. They allways have their mask wearing thugs dressed in black to attack & beat their agenda into place.

  2. DM says:

    Tony, where do failed climate predictions rank among the top 5 weaknesses in the mann-made climate change concept? Scott Adams claims he requested your top 5.

    Everyone, Mr. Adams rates Tony the MOST PERSUASIVE climate skeptic. See: Begin watching at 9:30.

    Congratulations, Tony. I eagerly look forward to the forthcoming discussion between you, Mr. Adams and other participants. My $$$ is on you, even if you idle one brain lobe just to keep it fair:-)

    • Menicholas says:

      Top 5 list.
      The most inexplicable, least explained, and base of the whole house of cards is the notion that warming planet is a deadly threat, rather than the hugely beneficial stroke of good fortune it has long been known to be for life and human endeavors.

    • Menicholas says:

      Next might be proving that CO2 is the control knob of the atmosphere and other factors are very small by comparison.
      To do this, one must have reasons for previous warming and cooling cycles such as LIA, MWP, End of LIA, etc.

    • Menicholas says:

      There are lots more, the problem is narrowing the list and condensing it to 5 short sentences.
      But even the premise is flawed: CAGW is an extraordinary claim.
      Trying to dream up 5 things that would convince anyone it is true is not scientific.
      It is not even a proper hypothesis or theory even.
      It is so nebulous and all-encompassing they have to call what they defend “The Science”, as if science was a set of beliefs, rather than a rational process for elucidating objective reality.

      Still, the challenge has to be accepted and a list compiled.
      Although now that I think about it, did Adams say who should compile the list, warmistas or skeptics?
      Warmistas have already moved the goalposts on what they say would convince them, such as ten years with no warming.
      They will make no list.

  3. GW Smith says:

    Excellent evidence and analysis, Tony! And I love the deplorable new blog title.
    Keep up the good fight.

  4. GeologyJim says:

    Ironic that the other headline on the NYTimes says “Immigration law is failing to halt flow from Mexico” and the text says “immigrants are increasingly arriving in family groups” and staying longer.

    Another 30-year failure and nearly as damaging to America as the global warming hoax.

    How does it benefit the United States to import illiterate, low-skill, uneducated, and sickly (or disease-carrying) people who have no traditions of individual liberty, private property, rule of law, limited government, or democratic rule by the people and their representatives??

    Finish the damned wall.

    • arn says:

      This should not benefit the united states but ruin them.

      Research the cloward piven strategy to bancrupt the USA with massive payments for illegals .

      • GeologyJim says:

        Arn –

        I know all about Cloward-Piven and Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, etc. Scary shi*, without a doubt.

        What bothers me is that more people are not asking my simple question: “How does it benefit America …?”, and are not outraged by government indifference to the answer. Both Rs and Ds – shi*heads!

        Anyone not concerned about our borders should be required to remove their door locks, tear down their fences, leave their car keys in the ignition overnight on the street, and post all their passwords and account numbers.

        That ought to fix the problem.

        • Jason Calley says:

          I had a very polite and reasoned discussion about this subject with my sister-in-law. I pretty much share your opinion, while she disagreed strongly. She eventually won the argument by suddenly breaking down in tears, at which point everyone agreed that I had “argued too hard!” and must therefore be wrong.

  5. steve case says:

    I just watched the Scot Adams You Tube. He’s never going to get his debate. All you have to do is call up the debate with Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. Gavin Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt refused to be on stage with Dr. Spencer. The bunker mentality seems to 100%

    • Menicholas says:

      Completely agree.
      The warmistas will never agree to anything that would prove once and for all they are wrong.
      That is why they will not debate it, why they exclude other views from MSM media, why they invent words equivalent to heretic to banish unbelievers…
      A definitive series of debates?
      They know better.

  6. David Reich says:

    Tony – Once again, brilliant analysis that utterly destroys any evidence, or logic and argument that the other side can offer which is why they resort to one off anecdotes and ad hominem.

  7. Mohatdebos says:

    I can’t recall where, but I saw a study from Dartmouth that stated the Midwest was in a “global warming doughnut hole.” They had to stick global warming in the title, but what they observed is that the Midwest was cooling in the summer as reported by Tony. They had no explanation as to why.

    • skeptic says:

      A similar thing has happened in the US south. The regional meteorologists talk about how the Southeast’s cooler, wetter summers are an “outlier” while other regions are getting hotter. I think basically they are seeing the truth without realizing (admitting) they are seeing the truth. They don’t compare notes to say: Oh, wait, your viewing area is cool too?

    • arn says:

      Probably a doughnut with 2 holes can fix the problem.

      co2 can do some really crazy stuff since it turned evil in 1983.

    • Menicholas says:

      There is no explanation possible for an entire continent having a different trend direction as the rest of the world over a period of 100+ years, of that I am certain.
      We have seen more than enough altered graphs to know the data for the world is fake.
      The Karlization of ocean temps fiasco is another of the ways they have manufactured long term warming.

      • Menicholas says:

        Or maybe there is.
        I have never gotten an answer though.
        For one thing they use fake data to determine the changes over time.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      “They had no explanation as to why.”

      It’s magic:
      “Believing that CO2 controls the climate is like believing in magic.”
      Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, MIT Professor Emeritus

  8. Jason Calley says:

    Slightly off topic, but E.M. Smith has posted a nice analysis of how cooler stations which were used to establish the climate base line, have been dropped in later temperature sets and replaced by readings from warmer sites. The result, (as expected) is to “cool the past and warm the present.”

  9. AndyDC says:

    Of course, they would say that if you are trying to save the planet you have the right to exaggerate, embellish, obfuscate, cheat, lie, plunder, rape, murder and sleep with your grandma.

  10. Psalmon says:

    Wow, any sin is excused as long as the climate gods are paid:

    Climate Change is hell bent on justifiable genocide.

  11. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, I see Scott Adams challenged people to produce their persuasive arguments to either support or refute your position as a skeptic. Here is my post to defend the skeptic’s position. Please pass it on to Scott.

    Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments

  12. B13Martin says:

    Hansen’s scenario C graph compared with real world observations surely suggests that CO2 has a minimal effect on climate ?

  13. Keith says:

    I agree with Geology Jim above: it is ironic that this newspaper cutting from 31 years ago also highlights immigration policy is not stopping the flow of people crossing your border illegally.

    • rah says:

      Ronald Reagan had signed an immigration amnesty bill in 1986 and had said this would be the only time. His support for the bill was contingent on assurances from Congress that the border would be secured. Congress did not secure the border and after he retired Reagan said signing that bill and trusting Congress to do what they promised was his biggest regret from his two terms as POTUS.

  14. Petr Beckmann would be proud of Tony. Just as Warmunism is the new National Socialism, so everyone who converts energy to make abundant, reliable electricity is the equivalent of what individualism, Jews or Satan were to the old National Socialism.

  15. Carroll Watson says:

    Climate change is the result of the milankovitch cycle. We can’t stop the warming trend any more than we can stop the glaciers from melting, which they have done since the last ice age.

  16. ? says:

    I hear that the model has not accurately predicted reality based on the set of numbers that the author has rallied the article around, but from a random outsiders view, it seems interesting that there is no mention at all here of the fact that these same numbers seem to point to a significant rise in global avg temperature over the charted period ~ half a degree or so in <40 years.

    A model trying to factor in every impact on global climate is obviously a massive and extremely ambitious undertaking. Why do we care if it's moved a little less slowly over a tiny 40 yr period than the model predicted, it still seems to be pretty obviously moving in that general direction…

    Just my two cents.

  17. Gator says:

    … seem to point to a significant rise in global avg temperature over the charted period ~ half a degree or so in <40 years.

    Anyone who believes they can measure global temperatures to within half a degree is insane and/or ignorant.

    Anyone who believes that destroying data is a good idea is insane and/or ignorant.

    Anyone who believes that we should be surprised to see rising temperatures as we exit the coldest phase in last 9000 years is insane and/or ignorant.

    Anyone who believes that cherrypicking 1979 as a start date is insane and/or ignorant.

    You may want to keep your two cents.

  18. Pete says:

    the last couple years of UAH satellite seem to show a sharp increase.

    is that genuine? or is it being doctored to match climate model projections now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.