Why do we need climate models that make wrong climate predictions ?

Short  answer: 

We don't need any more 

wrong climate predictions.

The existing climate

models are a waste

of money -- usually 

taxpayers' money.

And our mass media 

should be ashamed

of themselves for evading

the subject of failed 

climate model predictions:

Long  answer:

There's no need to refute 

the so-called climate models

-- they refute themselves, 

by grossly over-predicting 

global warming !

What are officially called 

“General Circulation Models”, 

are really elaborate versions 

of the opinions of the people 

who programmed them.

Personal opinions,

made very complex 

with math and data.

None of those 

personal opinions, 

which are different 

for each model, 

add up to 

a real model 

of the climate 

change process 

on this planet.

A real model 
would make

right climate 
predictions,
not wrong 
predictions !

There's one Russian model

that seems to make decent

predictions, apparently by 

predicting future warming 

from adding CO2 to the air

will be similar to the past

global warming while 

CO2 was being added

to the air 

( no one can be certain 

if CO2 caused any

of the warming in the past 

-- but it's a reasonable 

assumption that increasing 

CO2 caused some warming ).

I have to assume Russians

had carefully considered

the past 100+ years of adding

CO2 to the air, and the past

100+ years of mild, intermittent 

global warming, when they 

were constructing their 

"more of the same"

climate model !

I'm not saying the Russians

know exactly what causes climate

change, and no one else does.

I am saying the Russians

present a model that appears

to be in the ballpark with 

its predictions.

Every other nation

seems perfectly happy

to make the same wrong 

forecasts year after year,

for over 30 years -- 

that should embarrass

real scientists.

Excluding the Russian model,

all the many other climate 

models in the world,

on average, predict triple the

global warming that actually

happened in the past,

( based on UAH weather 

satellite data starting in 1979 ).

We're talking about an actual 

average of +0.1 degrees C.

warming per decade, versus

+0.3 degrees C. warming

per decade, based on the

average predictions of the

non-Russian climate models. 

The models look even worse 

if you start the analysis in 1940.

CO2 levels have been increasing

since 1940, so there is no logical

reason to start the analysis in 1979.

The temperature data before 1979

are only non-global surface data,

which includes lots of estimates

for areas with no thermometers.

The NASA-GISS compilation 

( used for the chart on 

this blog's home page ),

shows the global average

temperature in 1979 

was about the same 

as the temperature in 1940

( how often have you

seen that fact in the 

mass media ? ).

Starting from 1940, 

the total global warming 

through 2018 was about

+0.5 degrees C. 

( UAH satellite

data from 1979 ) 

which is an average 

of only +0.065 degrees C.

per decade.

That's less than one quarter 

of the global warming per decade

predicted for the future !

That's an 
"it's different this time"

forecast, that's very likely 

to be wrong, just like every 
other long term climate forecast !

I prefer no predictions -- 

predictions of the future

climate have been 

consistently wrong.

I would not object to

a "more of the same"

prediction, like the 

Russian climate model.

That's a low risk prediction.

So, if I was forced 

to make a climate

prediction, that's 

what I'd say, 

although I'd call it 

the "null hypothesis", 

to sound scientific !

Null hypothesis 

is a very confusing

scientific term 

that I learned 

in the 1980s, 

when doing 

audio component

double blind tests.

It could even confuse

some audio engineers,

so I prefer saying

"more of the same".

After making 

wrong predictions,

honest people

would go back 

to the scientific

"drawing board" 

and try again.

But not the 

climate change

scaremongers.

Unfortunately, 

only wrong climate 

predictions 

are possible, 

or a lucky guess.

Because the physics 

of climate change 

is not known with 

any precision, 

so it is impossible

to construct a real 

climate model, that

makes reasonably 

accurate predictions.

 … however 

just enough 

is known to play 

"computer games", 

and make consistently 

wrong predictions,

that are stated with 

great confidence.

The climate modelers 

( computer gamers, actually ) 

merely assume 

the CO2 level 

is most important 

for determining the 

future global average 

temperature, 

and all natural causes 

of climate change 

just add up to “noise”.

Then they try to get 

the public’s attention 

by inventing a water vapor 

positive feedback theory 

that allegedly triples 

the alleged warming 

effect caused by CO2 

alone.

The near global measurements 

of the global warming rate

since 1979 ( UAH compilation ) 

would have to be tripled 

to match the average 

climate model prediction 

of global warming 

( excluding the Russian 

model, that seems to predict 

the past rate of warming 

will continue ).

Anyone with common sense 

would reject the water vapor 

positive feedback theory, 

because without that alleged 

“global warming tripler”, 

the average climate model 

would seem to make 

a reasonable prediction !

But the leftists in charge of the 

“coming global warming crisis 

boogeyman” DO NOT like to 

change their predictions.

They love the old 1970’s-era 

CO2 – temperature relationship 

highlighted in the 

1979 Charney Report 

( +1.5 to +4.5 degrees C. 

global warming per 

+100% CO2 increase ).

And they have stuck 

with that "formula" 

- FOR 40 YEARS SO FAR - 

and never mind 

the always wrong 

climate predictions 

— the mainstream media 

never reports them,

so few people know.

Every year we hear 

a “new” prediction 

of a coming climate 

change crisis, and 

every year the logical

people among us wonder 

why it never arrives !

Of course the climate 

computer games 

have to be wrong, because 

not enough is known about 

climate change physics 

to construct a real 

climate model.

The computer games 

make wrong predictions 

— in real science 

wrong predictions falsify

the climate theories 

of the modelers.

But in climate alarmist 

junk science, nothing 

can be falsified !

WHY  DO  WE  NEED  

CLIMATE  MODELS 

WHEN  WE  HAVE

SO  MUCH  EXPERIENCE 

WITH  GLOBAL  WARMING ?

We have over 300 years of 

actual experience with 

intermittent global warming 

( since the late 1600s ).

We have over 100 years 

of actual experience with 

adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

We have decent near-global

temperature averages since 1979.

We have decent global average 

CO2 measurements since 1958.

Why not assume the past

mild, intermittent global 

warming trend will continue, 

and then move on to solving 

real problems in the world ?

I know that such a prediction 

is really boring, and most

climate "scientists" would 

lose their government jobs

if mild, harmless global

warming was in our future.

But it is not as boring as 

the RIGHT PREDICTION.

The right prediction 

is NO PREDICTION.

NO ONE KNOWS 

whether the global average 

temperature will be warmer, 

or colder, in 100 years

 … and we don’t even know 

if the Holocene inter-glacial 

( the current warm period 

between ice ages, that we 

live in ) will still be in progress !

What we do know is 

the global warming 

so far has been 

harmless, at worst, 

and beneficial, at best 

( greening the planet and 

supporting better growth 

of C3 plants used for food 

by people and animals ).

Why would anyone 

in their right mind 

want the 300+ years

of mild global warming 

to stop ?

The climate history of our 

planet strongly suggests 

that when a global 

warming trend stops,

a global cooling trend

will begin.

Most people would not 

like global cooling, 

with the exception 

of ski bums.

People living in the 

late 1600s hated the

unusually cold climate

back then.