The predictions of seventy-three climate models are compared to real data and not one comes even close to reality.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The predictions of seventy-three climate models are compared to real data and not one comes even close to reality.

Remember: computer modeling is not science research. It does not tell us anything about the actual climate. It is instead theoretical work useful for trying to understand what the data actual is telling us.

Computer modeling, however, is totally useless if it doesn’t successfully mimic that actual data. Since all of these climate models fail to do this, they very clearly show that they do not understand the climate itself, and are not valid theories to explain its processes. If the scientists who created them were honest about these results, they would immediately go back to the drawing board and rewrite these models.

I unfortunately have serious doubts they will do this.



  • JGL

    But what about climate change? What are we going to do?

  • Computer modeling has been a large part of my professional career in energy analysis. You can get a reasonable simulacrum of a structure using ‘canned’ components and climate date, but you have to collect data in the field. Ideally you’d like 12 months, but budgetary constraints usually allow for shorter time spans. Then, and here’s the important part, you have to calibrate the model using the field data. Generally this is done by tweaking the structure and HVAC system components until the model output is a reasonable facsimile of real-world data. Then, and only then, can you recommend modifications to clients with a reasonable degree of validity.

    The calibration segment of the process is the part that is glaringly missing from ‘climate science’. It seems that people are writing simulations, and ignoring the data. Pretty much none of the predictions made by the hockey team since 1987 have come to pass. In any other field, this kind of success rate would invite professional ostracization. It’s a textbook example of politicians and bureaucrats being baffled by BS.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Roy is one of the most diligent and conscientious members of the climate science community, and has been for two decades. It’s also to his credit that despite the ridicule and ostracism he has experienced, he persists in presenting his findings in a clear, calm, civilized manner and is always ready to reconsider his conclusions and accept other perspectives. Would that the rest of the community followed his example.

  • jwing

    When completing my MS in Environmental Engineering, I was working on a water quality modelling program and I joked to my professor that we were just “curve fitting” the data to our expectations using coefficients. The fact is you can make data fit just about any curve given enough coefficients.

    Well, needless to say, my prof got in my face at my suggestion that our sophisticated mathematical modelling was “curve fitting.” I never forgot that incident as my intoduction into never really questioning academia.

  • D. K. Williams

    A book caught my eye at a closeout store yesterday. It was by Algore and purported to explain climate science to kids. I hid it to protect innocent children from this specious propagandist.

  • You should have burned it. Then you would have been a real ‘environmentalist’.

  • I think you’ve pointed out the difference between ethical work and politicized work. In my field we make the model fit the data; in ‘climate science’, the data is forced into the model.

  • tb

    With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

    Attributed to von Neumann

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *