Climate Models Are Non-scientific Junk

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections

Patrick Frank

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA, United States

The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

Full Paper is HERE.

Pat Frank makes the scientific argument that “climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures.

H/T to Watts Up With That


Posted in Analysis, Climate Change, History | 4 Comments

Mother Natures Cooling

Something for our global warmer to think about:


Redline at far right is the current warming.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Powerline Has the Answer:

This paper by John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the Alabama State Climatologist, is highly interesting. Christy describes work that he and Dick McNider have done to check the accuracy of the climate models that are the source of frenzy over global warming. His technical analysis is clear and comprehensible, but for now I will merely quote the conclusion of that part of the paper. Note that warming that is caused by additional CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) occurs in the atmosphere, not at the Earth’s surface:

The warming trend we found suggests we are having a relatively minor impact on global temperatures. From the IPCC, we know what the forcing was over that 37.5 years – how many extra greenhouse gas molecules there were and what forcing they would represent. We also know about the effect of aerosols. Taking all this data together, we can calculate what I call – and we were the first to use this term – the ‘tropospheric transient climate response’. In other words: how much temperature actually changes due to extra greenhouse gas forcing. The calculation includes a major assumption, namely that there are no natural variations left in the temperature data, and in particular that there are no long-term natural variations. It’s a huge assumption, but it allows us to move on.

Our result is that the transient climate response2 – the short-term warming – in the troposphere is 1.1◦C at the point in time when carbon dioxide levels double. This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.31◦C, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.

Another approach involves a method that Christy and Ross McKitrick used. The climate models predict a “hot spot” at about 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the tropics. This “hot spot” has been called the “signature” of man-made global warming, and early alarmists said that we watch for it over time. That is what Christy and McKitrick have done:

Figure 7 shows the model projections in pink and different observational datasets in shades of blue. You can also easily see the difference in warming rates: the models are warming too fast. The exception is the Russian model, which has much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and therefore gives projections for the end of the century that are far from alarming. The rest of them are already falsified, and their predictions for 2100 can’t be trusted. If an engineer built an aeroplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models.

Click to enlarge:

A model is a theory, a hypothesis. A model that is falsified by observation is a wrong hypothesis. That really is all there is to it.

H/T Powerline

Posted in Climate Change | 1 Comment

Declining Temperatures

We just wrapped up summer without any long term periods of temperatures over 100 degrees. Yes, we had some 3-4 day periods.  Now it looks like September is going to be cooler than average. So, the question is how much cooling have we had?

One method is to calculate the Growing Degree Days.  What are the growing degree days?

Growing degree days (GDD) are a measure of heat accumulation used by horticulturists, gardeners, and farmers to predict plant and animal development rates such as the date that a flower will bloom, an insect will emerge from dormancy, or a crop will reach maturity. 

In the absence of extreme conditions such as unseasonal drought or disease, plants grow in a cumulative stepwise manner which is strongly influenced by the ambient temperature. In other words, GDD values provide a best case outlook as to plants’ pace to maturity. (wikipedia)

The Ice Age Farmer has developed an interactive method for calculating the GDD for every zip code in the US, comparing the difference from last year (2018).  The link is HERE.

GDD has decreased in Nevada City, CA to 78.44% of previous value (-21.56% drop) in 95959.

GDD has decreased in Grass Valley, CA to 81.16% of previous value (-18.84% drop) in 95945.

The greatest impact is in the grain, soybean, and corn growing belt in the Northern Hemisphere.  Here is a quick look at some Iowa Counties:

Screen Shot 2019-09-04 at 7.49.25 PM

Two California grape-growing counties:

Screen Shot 2019-09-04 at 7.53.16 PM

A long term reduction in GDD could result in crop failures and the expansion of global hunger. In this video, the Ice Age Farmer discusses the impact of early fall frosts.

Posted in Climate, Solar, Weather | 1 Comment

Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics


We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America

David Wojick

Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions.

The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal.

Google’s algorithmic definition of “authoritative” makes liberals the voice of authority. Bigger is better, and the liberals have the most and biggest news outlets. The algorithms are very complex, but the basic idea is that the more other websites link to you, the greater your authority.

It is like saying a newspaper with more subscribers is more trustworthy than one with fewer subscribers. This actually makes no sense, but that is how it works with the news and in other domains. Popularity is not authority, but the algorithm is designed to see it that way.

This explains why the first page of search results for breaking news almost always consists of links to liberal outlets. There is absolutely no balance with conservative news sources. Given that roughly half of Americans are conservatives, Google’s liberal news bias is truly reprehensible.

In the realm of public policies affecting our energy, economy, jobs, national security, living standards and other critical issues, the suppression of alternative or skeptical voices, evidence and perspectives becomes positively dangerous for our nation and world

The full article is HERE

Posted in Analysis, Climate, Climate Change

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

Full text HERE.


Posted in Climate Change | 3 Comments

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005

By James Taylor

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.

Temperature readings from 2005 (far left) to the present (far right) show absolutely no warming.

Climate activists frequently visit or mention particular regions, states, or places in the United States and claim warming impacts are evident, accelerating, and unmistakable. Yet how can that be when there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005?

Unfortunately, when politicians and climate activists claim they can see the impacts of climate change in a particular place, the media rarely question them on it and tend to accept the claims at face value. But the objective temperature data show no recent warming has occurred.

There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery.

If anything, the raw temperature readings should be adjusted downward today relative to past temperatures (or past temperatures adjusted upward in comparison to present temperatures) rather than the other way around. If raw temperature readings are the same today as they were 80 years ago, when there were fewer artificial factors spuriously raising temperature readings, then U.S. temperatures today may actually be cooler than they were in the early 20th century.

The lack of warming in the United States during the past 14 years is not too different from satellite-measured global trends. Globally, satellite instruments report temperatures have risen merely 0.15 degrees Celsius since 2005, which is less than half the pace predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models.

Climate crisis advocates attempt to dismiss the minor satellite-measured warming by utilizing ground temperature stations around the globe, which tend to have even more corrupting biases and problems than the old U.S. stations. Of course, they adjust those readings, as well. Perhaps the time has come for American officials to direct some of the billions of dollars spent each year on climate-research and climate-change programs to building and maintaining a global Climate Reference Network.

Either way, it is becoming increasingly difficult for American politicians and climate activists to say they can see the effects of warming temperatures in the United States. For at least the past 14 years, there have been no such warming temperatures.

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.orgis director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

The CRN data is available HERE for all interested citizens scientist to do their own plots. I looked at some of the data in making THESE plots of California July Max Temperatures.

Posted in Analysis, Climate, Climate Change, NOAA, Weather | 1 Comment

Alaska Winter Storm Warning

Remember, Last month was the hottest July ever recorded in Alaska?

Alaska Winter Storm Warning
National Weather Service Fairbanks AK
Aug 20 2019

Northeastern Brooks Range above 2000 feet-Including Anaktuvuk Pass, Atigun Pass, Galbraith Lake, Sagwon, and Franklin Bluffs


Heavy wet snow expected. Plan on difficult travel conditions. Total snow accumulations of 4 to 6 inches expected.

Snow will develop this morning, then become heavy this afternoon through late tonight. Snow will taper off Wednesday morning.

Significant reductions in visibility at times. Below 2000 feet, only 1 to 2 inches of snow expected.

I guess that August will not be the hottest month ever in Alaska.

Posted in Climate, Weather | 3 Comments

Hottest Month in California? (Updated)



Melrose Colorado Climate Reference Network Station

We have heard it on the progressive news, July was the hottest month on record according to NOAA. In the August issue of Comstock’ Magazine, an author declares July 2017 the hottest month on record. All this hottest ever raised some question, what was the hottest month in California? Previous analysis had indicated maximum summer temperatures were declining details HERE.

One of the issues is how was the hottest month measured; there are several options. Option one is the existing network of weather stations. Option two is satellites, and option three is the Climate Reference Network (CRN).  The Surface Stations project found over 90% of long term stations had siting issues that would produce a warm bias of >= 1C. UHI was a significant factor.

The CRN was established in 2004 to counter the urban heat island influence that was distorting temperatures of the existing networks of weather stations. The hottest temperature reported in the news is the product of the current system, not satellites or the CRN.

What does the CRN have to say about the hottest month? The CRN network has 143 stations in the United States, seven of them in California, all located in remote areas well away for urban influences.

  • Redding
  • Bodega Bay
  • Merced
  • Santa Barbara
  • Yosemite
  • Fallbrook
  • Stovepipe Wells

Example of remote locations

Screen Shot 2019-08-17 at 9.42.40 AM

Redding CRN


Screen Shot 2019-08-17 at 9.39.38 AM

Bodega Bay CRN

Following plots are the Maximum July temperatures at California CRN stations:

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 4.11.12 PM

2017 Hottest Month

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 4.25.23 PM

2015 the Hottest Month

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 7.45.45 PM

2006 the Hottest Month

Looking at Merced over a longer period these were some of the max July temperatures:    1906 – 40.18, 1908 – 38.6, 1931 – 39.6, 1933 – 38.5, 1967 -38.1, 1988 – 38.4.

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 4.27.34 PM

2018 the Hottest Month

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 7.40.10 PM

2017 the Hottest Month

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 7.47.22 PM

2018 the Hottest Month

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 4.15.32 PM

2018 the Hottest Month

As you can see from the graphics the CRN stations did not have the hottest July in 2019.  The hottest July was scattered all across the period from 2004 to 2019. When was the hottest CA CRN maximum:

Screen Shot 2019-08-17 at 4.26.36 PM

As you can see the CRN Hottest Months are all over the state and different times of the year.  And, when we look at the satellite temperature we can see that July was not the warmest month.  According to Dr. Roy Spencer, “July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years.”  Details HERE.

So, when you here the lamestream press touting the warmest or hottest month of the year, you might want to be cautious, as the progressive press maybe just advancing an agenda and not reporting the facts.


Posted in California, Climate, Climate Change, Weather | 3 Comments

July 2019 – Hottest July Ever?

News Brief by Kip Hansen

featured_image_hottest_JulyThe press is again awash with the latest hysterical news that July 2019 was the hottest July ever!

NOAA Data Confirms July Was Hottest Month Ever Recorded

by Henry Fountain  appeared in the NY Times’ barely credible feature Climate Fwd:. The piece was prompted by a NOAA Press release:

July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet

NOAA has spent billions of tax payers dollars to send up satellites to monitor the weather and thus climate of the Earth.  It pays two different scientific groups, UAH and RSS to produce global temperature data sets of the Earth’s atmosphere, but routinely ignores them when is needs to push Climate Catastrophism.

Those who choose to read a full, scientific explanation as to why July 2019 was NOT the hottest ever should refer back to Dr. Roy Spencer’s piece on this site published on 2 August, July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record.

For those who are visual learners, I offer graphs of the two satellite based global temperature records that NOAA ignores when making “hottest ever” declarations, first the graphs from Remote Sensing Systems:



It is interesting to note how different the visual impression is between the most recent data and the longer term data.  In the top image of “recent” data, the trend line from the full dataset is included — it is not the trend of the recent data.  Nonetheless, it is obvious that the data is functionally flat (or even downtrending if one wishes to start at the 2016 peak).

And as a reminder for those who may have forgotten the changes RSS made to it calculations in 2016, from Climate4you:


And from The National Space Science & Technology Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, the data set usually referred to as UAH,  two visualizations, same data:



troposphereJust so we know what we are talking about, the Lower Troposphere is the part of the atmosphere in which most of us live.   This little image, from UCAR, helps a bit.  Earth’s tallest mountains are at almost 30,000 feet, just under the 10 km top of the troposphere.  The tops of Tropical Thunderstorms can reach as high as 12.5 km.  Down in the lower troposphere, we have everyday weather events, ground level temperatures, the winds that stir the trees and other weather and climate phenomena experienced by most humans.  Those of your who climb or hike the high peaks of the Sierras in California, as I have,  have gone up out the top of the LowerTroposphere, the same with the highest peaks of the Rocky Mountains.


Read More HERE.

Posted in Climate, Weather