# Climate Models: Inaccurate?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 8, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141 "2017-05-08T17:57:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/21 "2017-05-09T06:46:12Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#):
>
> I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that climate change has given us more failed predictions than any other alleged scientific theory, ever.
I challenged you a couple of threads ago to provide those failed predictions (among other things you clearly think you have), but you never did. Instead you gave a weak excuse, assumed my motive, and left the thread. Maybe this time, you’ll actually provide those failed predictions?
> [@](#):
>
> The only one that’s even close is Darwinian evolution, which has managed to get roughly 90% of biology wrong.
Similarly, let’s see where this came from. Show your work, please.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/22 "2017-05-09T07:13:41Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#):
>
> I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that climate change has given us more failed predictions than any other alleged scientific theory, ever. The only one that’s even close is Darwinian evolution, which has managed to get roughly 90% of biology wrong.
>
> Isn’t it interesting that these two failed hypoth . . . err . . . “theories” . . . are the two so fiercely defended from critical thought?
>
> I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the two “theories” which collapse under the weight of skepticism are the same two “theories” which liberals demand we show no skepticism for.
Admit it. You’re writing a cookbook.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/23 "2017-05-09T08:42:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Admit it. You’re writing a cookbook.
Now _that’s_ a thread winner right there. 😃
---
### Author:  [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/24 "2017-05-09T10:14:34Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#):
>
> I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that climate change has given us more failed predictions than any other alleged scientific theory, ever. The only one that’s even close is Darwinian evolution, which has managed to get roughly 90% of biology wrong.
And your evidence for this is what? Or is this just a supposed truism?
---
### Author:  [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/25 "2017-05-09T10:23:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Admit it. You’re writing a cookbook.
If I were, it would contain as much valid science as the average climate change alarmist research paper.
That is, none at all.
My cookbook, and the average climate change alarmist research paper. both contain no valid science, whatsoever.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/26 "2017-05-09T10:41:02Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#):
>
> If I were, it would contain as much valid science as the average climate change alarmist research paper.
>
> That is, none at all.
>
> My cookbook, and the average climate change alarmist research paper. both contain no valid science, whatsoever.
> [@](#):
>
> I challenged you a couple of threads ago to provide those failed predictions (among other things you clearly think you have), but you never did. Instead you gave a weak excuse, assumed my motive, and left the thread. Maybe this time, you’ll actually provide those failed predictions?
This is great debates. When you make a claim here, you’re expected to back it up. Now would you kindly either demonstrate your assertion, or admit you cannot and retract it?
---
### Author:  [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/27 "2017-05-09T11:31:52Z")
> [@CheapBastid](#):
>
> A dear friend is a hardcore Climate Change Denier and forwarded me a link to [this wattsupwiththat.com link](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/03/lindzen-soon-and-spencer-debunked/).
> [@](#):
>
> First they claim that climate models are accurate. This has been disproven by Dr. John Christy…
No model is perfect. If it was, it would be reality, not a model.
I’ll also grant that modern climate models are much better than the earlier models, but I found this 7 minute video compelling: [Climate: What did We Know and When Did We Know it?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox5hbkg34Ow) Scientists discuss specific predictions based on the early climate models from the 70s/80s and how things turned out.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/28 "2017-05-09T12:28:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> IANA-climate-scientist, but that article seemed to concede the central point - that the models are inaccurate - while taking issue with the charts used to present that information. Did I misunderstand something?
Did you look at the last set of plots in that article? When shown correctly, the data is within the range of predictions, though just barely. Which means the data is consistent with predictions.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/29 "2017-05-09T12:33:20Z")
I’ve already provided a cite debunking one of the two main claims in the OP’s link. The other is the “Holocene conundrum,” and from what I could tell, it seems like unexplained part of reconstructed data that climate change deniers pounce on. [This page](https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/the-holocene-conundrum/) has some info (though not exactly a debunking).
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/30 "2017-05-09T12:48:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Two groups on scientists with knowledge of the subject may be 95% in agreement. But there’s still debate over the other 5%.
>
> A “skeptic” will take this situation and run with it. He’ll argue that the first group of scientists say all the scientists in the second group are wrong. And the second group of scientists say all the scientists in the first group are wrong. So he’s free to believe all the scientists in both groups are wrong. And that means he can decide to disbelieve everything they say.
And the news services will take one body from the 95% and one from the 5% and present them on a point-counterpoint type panel show as equals. What could be fairer than that?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/31 "2017-05-09T13:48:02Z")
> [@scr4](#):
>
> Did you look at the last set of plots in that article? When shown correctly, the data is within the range of predictions, though just barely. Which means the data is consistent with predictions.
Yes, I looked at them, and don’t find it a compelling argument. If we were discussing the dangers global warming presented, and I had taken just the very lowest model (which turned out to be the most accurate) and said, “see, it won’t be too bad, this one model predicts a pause”, I’m confident that I’d get a retort along the lines of “sure, but you can’t ignore the other 99% of models that predict it will be worse”. Well, can you? I don’t think so, at least not if you still want to lay claim to the word “consensus” and be taken seriously by people like me.
---
### Author:  [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/32 "2017-05-09T14:03:17Z")
As they say 95% of climate models agree that the observations are wrong. [95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong - Roy Spencer, PhD.](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/33 "2017-05-09T14:08:56Z")
> [@drewder](#):
>
> As they say 95% of climate models agree that the observations are wrong. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)
>
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That’s just the same Spencer/Christy distortion that is the main argument in OP’s link.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/34 "2017-05-09T14:12:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Yes, I looked at them, and don’t find it a compelling argument. If we were discussing the dangers global warming presented, and I had taken just the very lowest model (which turned out to be the most accurate) and said, “see, it won’t be too bad, this one model predicts a pause”, I’m confident that I’d get a retort along the lines of “sure, but you can’t ignore the other 99% of models that predict it will be worse”.
The bottom line is not the very lowest model, it’s the lower bound of the 95-percentile range - i.e. the 2-sigma range around the mean.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/35 "2017-05-09T14:27:23Z")
> [@drewder](#):
>
> As they say 95% of climate models agree that the observations are wrong. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)
>
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
What I have seen is that they are still much more accurate than what deniers are letting us know.
> **[Climate models are even more accurate than you thought](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought.html)**
>
> Global climate models aren’t given nearly enough credit for their accurate global temperature change projections. As the 2014 IPCC report showed, observed global surface temperature changes have been within the range of climate model simulations.
And recent readings show that after 3 years of increased heat the observations are matching the models more.
> **[Second hottest February on record - is another El Niño on the way already?](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/03/second-hottest-february-on-record-is.html)**
>
> Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories.
Thing that one has to take into account was something that researchers had let us know for decades and it ignored usually in popular media, actual observations of the temperature are bound to be a bit chaotic in the short range (with escalator steps going up that look flat for years but they are going up nevertheless.
One thing to notice is also one item that deniers never explain properly: why is that the cold years in those steps that the deniers use to mislead others into thinking that "global warming has stopped", the La Nina years, are getting warmer.
> **[Climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Annual_Global_Temperature_Anomalies_1950-2012.svg)**
>
> In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices add to greenhouse gases. These gases Cl...
And: Really? Roy Spencer? [Climate misinformation by source: Roy Spencer](https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm)
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/36 "2017-05-09T14:51:35Z")
> [@scr4](#):
>
> The bottom line is not the very lowest model, it’s the lower bound of the 95-percentile range - i.e. the 2-sigma range around the mean.
Thanks for the correction, but I don’t think it significantly changes the argument though. Do you?
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/37 "2017-05-09T14:53:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Thanks for the correction, but I don’t think it significantly changes the argument though. Do you?
Yes. If the data is within 2 sigma of a model’s prediction, I would consider that to be an accurate model. Especially since there are natural forcings that cannot be predicted in advance.
---
### Author:  [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/38 "2017-05-09T17:38:18Z")
The problem with advocates is that they are advocates. They believe in the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of all else, including the truth. One of the more important things to them is to convert the non-believers to their side. Therefore they will gladly falsify their data, exaggerate their claims and the effects of their cause, and dismiss and excuse anything to the contrary.
**This is often true of advocates on both sides of the political aisle.** Every few months there is an example of this that reaches the news in one form or another. The most recent that pops into my mind is the U of Virginia Rape article in Rolling Stone. Proven to be totally false.
Climate change advocates is not immune to this. They had their share of falsification of data claims. They have for years been exaggerating the claims they make on the effects to occur, and they dismiss and excuse anything that does not fit their narrative.
Keep that in mind when you view any climate models.
---
### Author:  [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/39 "2017-05-09T17:46:43Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#):
>
> Very appropriate username/post there. 😁
Some people take things on faith, I take them on doubt. 😃
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/40 "2017-05-09T17:54:03Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> The problem with advocates is that they are advocates.
But most scientists are not advocates for a specific scientific theory or result. Keep _that_ in mind when reviewing science papers.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141.md?page=3)