Category Archives: warmer prediction fails

Illegitimate Use of Forecasts —Part 3 Spreading Fear

The catastrophic global warmers, often known as the alarmists, have created several forecasts of how much carbon dioxide (CO2) will reside in the atmosphere to the year 2100.  The different forecasts range from massive amounts to lower than today’s 420 ppm.  As discussed in my previous blog, “Climate Warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years”- Part 2 Former Numbers were implausible.  the scientific community is split by those that believe the massive amounts of CO2 are unlikely to ever exist and those using the massive amount to terrify youths (and gullible) adults. The mainstream media is primary the conveyer of these scare tactics.

A recent paper published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled “Catastrophic climate risks should be neither understated nor overstated” has this to say:

Climate catastrophism may be contributing to the youth mental health crisis. In a recent international youth survey, 45% reported thoughts of climate change negatively affecting their daily lives and functioning, and 40% reported being hesitant to have children (10).

In summary, a wide range of climate scenarios should be explored, but, with implausible catastrophic scenarios already a major focus of scientific research, calls for a greater emphasis in this direction risk crowding out a needed focus on more plausible futures.

And from The Colorado Springs Gazette article, titled “Boulder scientists warn of ‘climate change catastrophism,’”

A 2020 survey by the American Psychological Association supports their concern. “Nearly half of those age 18-34 (47%) say the stress they feel about climate change affects their daily lives,” said Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, the Psychological Association’s chief executive officer.

Just to magnify the illegitimate use of forecasts to spread these despicable ideas of the world to come to an end soon is shown in the following chart.

Click on chart to enlarge. Chart courtesy of PNSA

The box on the right portrays the CO2 in the atmosphere forecasts made by groups within the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Y axis charts the CO2 emissions in the outgoing years where the top line is the massive CO2 prediction that will produce very high global warming temperature forecasts. The line just below is the most probable forecast which is a mix of renewables and fossil fuels. The others are fantasy IMHO.

The box on the left’s Y axis show the percent of forecasts made using the various CO2 emissions paths.  The X axis is the forecasts during the IPCC Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014 and the IPCC AR 6 in 2022. The bars show the use of the different CO2 forecasts to make their predictions.   It is apparent that the Alarmists felt that they need to do more frightening by the fact that more predictions using the massive CO2 atmosphere prediction than they did in 2014.  The forecast using the line I said was the mix of renewables and fossil fuel was nearly non-existent.  The massive CO2 was used more than any of the remaining lines that essentially forecasting fossil fuel use going to zero. 


“Climate Warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years”- Part 2 Former Numbers were implausible.

Judith Curry is an eminent scientist and a skeptic. Most of the discussion in this posting, comes from her blog Climate, ETC., titled: “The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be”.

Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.

Summary:  The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5* Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought.  Here are some prominent articles:

  At the heart of this good news is abandonment of RCP8.5 from UNFCCC policy making. The hero of science behind this abandonment is Justin Ritchie, a recent Ph.D. graduate (whose work has been cited.

The COP26 and now the COP27 have quietly dropped RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) from their considerations, focusing on the envelope between RCP4.5 and RCP2.6.  The grand poohbahs of the IPCC apparently didn’t see this coming (or preferred to keep spinning the alarm), since they instructed climate modelers for CMIP6 to continue a focus on SSP5-8.5, and climate researchers continue to focus on this scenario in their impacts publications.  The IPCC AR6 prominently featured SSP5-8.5, although WGI did make this lukewarm statement

The second so-called scientific advance is lower values of climate sensitivity.  The so-called advance is associated with the IPCC AR6 decision NOT to include values derived from climate models (which have dominated previous IPCC reports). They implicitly acknowledge that climate models are running too hot and that you can pretty much get whatever value of climate sensitivity that you want from a climate model (this has been blindingly obvious to me and many others for over a decade).  The IPCC AR6 lowered the upper likely bound of ECS to 4.0oC (from 4.5oC previously); this further acts to reduce the amount of projected warming.  The IPCC AR6 also raised the lower likely bound of ECS to 2.5oC (from 1.5oC).  Raising the lower bound of ECS is on very shaky ground, as per the recent publication by Nic Lewis 

The COP27 is working from a value of expected warming of 2.5oC by 2100.  This is arguably still too high for several reasons.  IPCC expert judgment dismissed values of climate sensitivity that are on the lower end (that should not have been dismissed as per Nic Lewis’ paper). Further, the IPCC projections do not adequately account for scenarios of future natural climate variability.  See these recent posts:

In addition to an insufficient number of solar and volcanic scenarios, the climate models ignore most solar indirect effects, and the climate model treatment of multidecadal and longer internal variability associated with ocean circulations are inadequate.  While in principle these factors could go either way in terms of warmer vs cooler, there are several reasons to think these natural factors are skewed towards cooler during the remainder of the 21st century:

  • Baseline volcanic activity since 1850 has been unusually low
  • Most solar researchers expect some sort of solar minimum in the mid to late 21st century
  • Solar indirect effects are inadequately treated by climate models, which would act to amplify solar cooling
  • A shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is expected in the next decade, which influences not only global temperatures but also Greenland mass balance and Arctic sea ice.

Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2oC and even 1.5oC.  Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of 1850-1900; 1.1oC warming has already occurred.

*AR stands for Assessment Report. These are based upon the content in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) full reports, assembled by working groups.   AR6 is the most recent report. The reputation of the ARs is in dispute. The full report, the 6th, is condensed to an AR6.  The dispute is that many nonscientific personnel, such as delegates from industry, NGOs, etc. can force change that make the AR inconsistent with the full report.


Biden Wants to Pay Climate Reparations. I Hope His Handlers Say He Really Did Not Mean It.

From Politico’s bog: “New U.S. message on climate change: Make China pay.”  Is our President out of his mind— wait, wait, I guess that is already answered.  He says the US will pay reparations if China does.  

First of all, why would he think the US taxpayer should pay reparations. Why not ask the underdeveloped nations to pay reparations for our medical discoveries, our thousands of inventions that have made their life easier, our pitching in to save starving people that routinely occur in Africa, etc.

Moreover, reparations are hard to get right. China and India, combined, are emitting more CO2 than the rest of the world. Every nation in the world has been using some level of fossil fuel. Would we get to reduce our reparations payments for that?

Secondly, China will not do reparations. And thank God for that because if they did, Biden then would have us hoisted by his own petard.

And the third reason is that there is no crisis.  It is an invention by the alarmists and the Great Reset group. Is the world warming?  Yes, because the UAH satellite global temperature measurements tell me that.  

For at least the last million years, the globe cycles, roughly, every 100,000 years between cold and warm. Does that without any SUVs on the road, by the way.

But I do not believe the alarmist’s computer forecasts of future temperatures. Those forecasts have always exceeded the actual global temperatures. The alarmists recognize this. That is why they changed the narrative from “global warming” to “climate change”. But still, they use those faulty forecasts.

And how do they know that we are really, really going to be sorry if, since the year 1890 until now the global temperature will have increased more than 1.5C. Their ability to make accurate predictions has been non-existent. Why should we believe this one? 

So, the answer is too back off global catastrophe predictions and focus on doing adaptation when and if necessary.  In the meantime, the Earth will continue to green because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.


Scientists Predict East Coast Beaches Will Be Gone By 2020

Oh yes, this prediction was made in 1995.  East Coast beaches are still there.  How can it be that learned alarmist scientists could be wrong?

 Alarmist have made a vast number of predictions of doom over the years.  None of which have lived up to its billing. This just one of them and they are still making them.

Hat/tip to Climate Depot.


Global Warming Temperature Predictions are Biased and Wrong.

The forecast global temperatures are the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory.  The alarmists use temperature as the goal post when they tell us that the global temperature since 1890 must not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.  They say if the temperature exceeds that number, it could mean Armageddon. Surely you have heard them tell us that we have about 10 more years to live if we don’t act now.  And telling our young people learning in schools that their life span is going to be very short.

So shouldn’t everyone be versed in how the forecasts of global temperatures are derived by the alarmists.

The alarmists have a bunch of computers with various settings that proport to be able to capture the vast number of variables that produce the Earth’s temperature.  In fact, almost none of them provide a comparable forecast into the future. When plotted out the projections by the many computers looks like bed of spaghetti.

All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers.  The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period.  Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. 

As aside observation, can you imagine what each line would look like if not mixed in with all the others.  Can you imagine how much confidence you would have for a computer that predicted temperatures that would rise and drop so precipitously over very short times.  Real temperatures don’t do that.

In science, it is said that if you have a theory and you make predictions from it and it does not match actual results, your theory is WRONG, So the alarmist’s temperature forecasts are wrong and should NOT be used to make public policy.

I have worked at this topic a number of times. Pretty much the same narrative.  Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know 3 Biased Computers is a posting that shows how the computer programmers can make the temperature forecast hotter. 


The chart was made by Dr. John Christy.  On many occasions he has given testimony before Congress.   

Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know- Part 2 -Current Temperatures Are Not Alarming

Recent global temperatures are said to be all time records.  Without any doubt, they say, a degree more will cause severe damage and perhaps be existential.  That is just another salvo of “we are all going to die” misinformation.   Unfortunately there seems to be no member of the media willing to publish a list of the many times we have been told we only have X number of years left before it is too late. The media people are too lazy to do so, or they are politically motivated to keep the scam alive.  Part 1 Secrets that Global Warming Alarmist Don’t Want You To Know Shows the inaccuracy of the Climate models.

Are global temperatures rising?

Not significantly.  And recently they are falling.

Look at the new satellite temperature measurement chart and notice that the March 2021 anomaly is similar to those in 2014-2015 time frame.  March anomaly dropped 0.2C.   And this is after two El Ninos that really boosted the temperature anomalies.  Will April and following months continue a cooling phase?  We can’t be sure, but odds are that it will.  Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD (

These satellite measurements are not an outliner.  And they are consistent with weather balloon temperature readings.  Chart Courtsey of Dr.Roy Spencer

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that focuses on the conditions of the oceans, major waterways, and the atmosphere.

The following NOAA chart shows that the combined global land and ocean temperature has not been rising for the last 5 years, in fact it shows a slight decline.  During this period, atmospheric CO2 has been rising.   They confirm the cooling trend.

Then there is the global warming hiatus.   From 1998 until 2013 there was almost no increase in global temperatures. 

See the NOAA chart below

This caused a lot of agony among the alarmists. Fifteen years, rising atmospheric CO2, four El Ninos with hardly any rise in temperature. The 4 El Ninos raised the temperature and then fell when a La Nina occurred.   NOAA charts from  Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (

According to Wikipedia:

“It is believed that El Niño has occurred for thousands of years”  and  “There is no consensus whether climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker.” 

So, the observed rise in global temperature following an El Nino-La Nina is as likely to be caused by natural causes as by man-made causes. And the trend in the period of the hiatus was only +0.09/Decade.  At that rate, after 100 years, the global temperature rise would be less than 1C— hardly worth all the alarm.

Even at the +0.14c /decade rise of the satellite observed temperatures since 1979, it would take 70 years to raise it 1C.

The warmest ever and the most CO2 ever are claimed, seemingly, monthly by the alarmists.  You are to believe that the current period is the” perfect” climate and any change is perilous.

The alarmists want all the scientific work establishing previous climate condition shoved down the memory hole, never to be seen again.   The globe has seen higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and higher temperatures than those being experienced today.  The chart below illustrates this.

Berner RA, Kothavala Z (2001)GEOCARBlll: CO2 over Phanerozoic time.

And we know that the globe has also been much colder.

So now you know that the global temperature is not rising, in fact for the last 5 years the temperature has been falling.  Further, you know that the Alarmists forecasts of rapidly increasing global warming are not happening.   Their computer programs are biased to predict increasingly warming temperatures in order to scare people into going along with their bogus science.  It is also clear that the rise in global temperatures might be just natural changes.  Do not discount natural changes.  What do you think began melting the glaciers that covered much of North America some 12 to 15 thousand years ago?  It was not CO2 from SUV exhaust pipes.   

I am going to use Dr. Roy Spencer’s comment in one of his recent blogs.  It goes like this:

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.

Why does it matter?

It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.

Go have your kids read this.


Alamists Have the Media on Their Side.

I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years.  I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body.  That followed by setting up a climate change website.  Alas, I gotten older.  My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings.  And my level of frustration is peaking.

Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging.  That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature.  Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.  

I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.

But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand.  Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain.  Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.

The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation.  Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists.  Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism.  Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them.  Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd.  Some may actually believe the alarmists rants.  Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam.  Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.  

The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!

It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way.  One is a decline in the living standards and the economy.  Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.

As former President Obama said, 

 Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket – YouTube

The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop.  The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century.  It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened.  They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.  

I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future.   If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.


Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists

The man-made global warming eco-alarmists are composed of a cabal of scientists and bureaucrats that use scare tactics to frighten the public into supporting them.  Their objective is to destroy capitalism and replace it with Marxism.  This is fact, not opinion. Their leadership have repeatedly said that their movement is not about environmentalism. To accomplish their objective, for years they have been making predictions designed to frighten the general populace.  The literature is filled with predictions of the apocalypse that have never happened.  One of their most recent one is that the world is doomed in something like 12 years if we do not empower them to do the things they say need to be done.  To these eco-alarmists, the cost of their plans is not an issue.

Why am I highlighting Shellenberger as he is not the only one that has challenged them? First, Shellenberger is a certified environmentalist. He was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment”. He has testified before Congress as an expert and he was invited to be an expert reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next Assessment Report.  A summary of his background can be found by clicking here.

Secondly, despite what you may have read, skeptics are not the recipients of large sums of money.  The eco-alarmists are recipients almost all the money spent on global warming.  Anyone that does not toe the line, endangers the alarmist’s incomes.  There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice their jobs by openly speaking out. Shellenberger insists that he believes in the man-made theory of global warming, but he cannot sit by and let the alarmist poison the scientific dialog. That is unacceptable.

I think that he represents many scientists that do not agree with the alarmists but are afraid to speak their mind.  Perhaps Shellenberger’s example will encourage others to follow his lead.   A Skeptic, on the other hand, might not be able to instill the needed courage.

I have purchased Shellenberger’s book. It is powerful.  I recommend it.  He has developed an outline of his book and the following are excerpts:

Continue reading

Can Global Warming Be Used To Bring Down Capitalism –Part 3 Failed Predictions of the Apocalypse

The previous two posting show that the real purpose of the leaders is to take down Capitalism using man-made global warming as the cover.  They concluded that global warming probably would not likely be dramatic enough if they just reported their scientific findings.  So, let’s see what a spokesperson of this movement decided would have to be done:

“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.”

“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”

Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996

Schneider knows that to be honest will not work.  He is obviously endorsing the scary scenarios.    And it worked.

Along the way, some of the scientists challenged Schneider’s plan.  For example, emeritus professor Daniel Botkin related this story:

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”

” Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?’ one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Wall St Journal 17 Oct 2007

 Obviously, they disregarded Botkin’s opinion.   But those scientists have left a body of exaggerated predictions that demonstrate how poorly their technique has been. Yet, however poorly their predictions have been, the media has fulfilled Schneider fondest wish without thinking twice.  For example, they not only do not care how many bad predictions Al Gore has made, and often they find the most alarming part of his prediction and exaggerate it even more.  There is a problem with the reporters.  Do you remember what Ben Rhodes said about the reporters that covered his press releases promoting the then President Obama’s pact with Iran regarding Iran’s plan to make nuclear weapons?: Rhodes braggingly said that he could get them to write anything he wanted because:

 “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Ok, so what about these predictions?  You are going to have to work a little to see them.  The work will be to click on links to these predictions.  There are many lists of failed prediction available, but alas, if I included them all, this would not be a posting, it might be more like a tome.

Continue reading

Most Revealing Chart Part 2–Failed Warmer Predictions


The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements.  These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.   

The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media.  It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.

There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong.   I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.

The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May.  Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.

An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:

·        Warming rate predictions

·        Temperature predictions

·        Winter predictions

·        Snow predictions

·        Precipitation predictions

·        Extreme weather predictions

·        Wildfire predictions

·        Rotation of the Earth predictions

·        Arctic sea predictions

·        Polar bear predictions

·        Glacier predictions

·        Sea level predictions

·        Sinking nation predictions

·        Climate refugee predictions

·        Climate change predictions

–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—

·        Greener planet

·        Increase in forest biomass

·        Carbon sinks increase

·        Slowdown in warming


All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting

“Some Failed Climate Prediction”.