4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate


Y = mX + b

One of the most basic statistical techniques used in science is the linear regression. The linear regression defines the relationship between the independent variable (cause) and the dependent variable (effect). The mathematical relationship is  Y = mX + b, where Y is the dependent variable, m is the slope of the relationship, X is the independent variable and b is the Y-Axis intercept. There is also an error component, but for the sake of simplicity, we will stick with just Y = mX + b.

Chart #1: The Independent Variable X

kc-monthly-0600 (1)

In the IPCC models and the anthropogenic global warming theory, CO2 is by far the most significant greenhouse gas and responsible for the majority of warming since the start of the industrial age. The “Hockeystick” comically demonstrates a very stable climate over 900 of the past 1,000 years and then a sharp spike in temperatures over the last 100 years.

Here is an actual formula used in one of the IPCC models, demonstrating that CO2 is really the only factor in the models of any significance. Also, note the “linear extrapolation” comment at the bottom of the graphic.


The important point being that CO2 is a linear independent variable. While it has annual cycles which vari by about 5 to 8 ppm from peak to trough, the overall “trend” is nearly a straight line with a slope of about 3 ppm/yr.

Chart #2: The Results of the IPCC Models Demonstrate a Linear Relationship


What happens when you plug a linear independent variable/X (CO2) in the formula Y = mX + b? You get a linear dependent variable/Y (Temperature estimate). That is exactly what the IPCC models do. The black line is the temperature estimates of 73 IPCC models. None, I repeat, None with a capital N came close to modeling actual observed temperatures, and all demonstrate a positive highly linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Chart #3: The Dependent Variable Y


What do you do if you define a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature, and 100% of your models fail? Do you admit your theory is flawed and go back and try to find a better explanation for the warming? Hell no!!!, what you do is “adjust” the dependent variable data to become more linear so the model works. The above data demonstrates how the GISS data has been “adjusted” over time to make temperatures more linear. As you can see from this chart, the “linearization” of the temperature is almost complete.


Current temperature charts are wildly different from the raw and historical data, and the following graphic highlighting the “adjustments” demonstrates an almost complete bias towards steepening and straightening of the data. That would never happen if one was correcting for random errors in data. These “adjustments” demonstrate a clear bias. More importantly, the “adjustments” tie very closely to the CO2. With an R-Squared of 0.98, you will never find greater and more convincing evidence of scientific fraud.


Chart #4: CO2 and Temperature Aren’t Linearly Related

Why can I claim the “adjustments” are clear evidence of scientific fraud? Easy, CO2 doesn’t cause atmospheric warming, the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is what causes the warming. While CO2 may be a linear variable, the absorption of energy by CO2 is logarithmic. The underlying physics of the CO2 molecule and the greenhouse gas effect simply aren’t captured in the IPCC models. The IPCC model is Temperature = m(CO2) +b, the actual model is Temperature = mLog(CO2) + b. Those models give extremely different results. The Temperature = mLog(CO2) +b model would make CO2 basically irrelevant to the variation in temperature. The result of that model would be very similar to what the satellite and long-term CO2 and temperature records show, that being that temperature variations aren’t highly correlated with CO2.


In Conclusion:

I am not a climate scientist, and because I’m not a climate scientist I should not be able to make predictions that are far more accurate than the climate “experts” and “scientists.” Clearly, if this “science” is worthy enough to boast that title, bloggers like me should have no chance what so ever of proving the “experts” wrong. From my explanation above there is 0.00% chance that the IPCC models will ever produce results that match the “unadjusted” satellite and balloon data. The only way the IPCC models will ever work is if they continue to “adjust” the NOAA/GISS/HadCRU data to make it more linear and steep. If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.


Please like, share, subscribe and comment.


26 thoughts on “4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate”

  1. Y = mx + b. Y is a function of X. Does time make climate? No. Therefore the trends shown have no meaning. That is, y = f(X) functions in statistical trend analysis only works on dependent variables. So, the only valid graph would be X = CO2 and Y = temperature data set. Graph that. The relationship is pure noise. This settles the relationship. Times series essentially means the author has no clue what is making Y behave as it does. Just as the price of silver has strong linear trends for intervals of time that can change at any point to any other trend, climate and time does the same thing. Trends of independent variables are not predictive as their relationship can appear to correlate for short intervals only, and outside factors will change their relationship unpredictably. Similarly, overlaying a CO2 time series and temperature time series resolves and predicts nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The entire argument behind the AGW, IPCC and the trillion of dollars wasted is that as CO2 has increased OVER TIME, the time period being the INDUSTRIAL ERA, temperatures have increased. Show me any CO2 and Temperature chart that doesn’t include time as the X axis. That is why they are always referring to the HOTTEST YEAR RECORDED HISTORY. History is a period of time. Also, they are making claims of the climate 100 years in the future. The only way they do that is by creating a forecast, which requires extrapolating a time series analysis.


      1. Two points – both of which seem to have eluded the “climate scientists”.

        First, correlation does not infer causation. Every kid learning real science for the first time has that hammered into them.

        Second, Mother Nature abhors straight lines but is very fond of cycles.

        SOP for “climate scientists” is to cherry-pick a suitable portion of a clearly cyclic function, regress it to Armageddon and run round hooting and screeching about the sky falling in (and that more money is required for research, obviously).

        As to the ‘Hottest Year etc. etc. etc.’ drivel, another thing I was taught very early in my career was the theory of errors, and stating that the statistical artefacts of millions – billions even – of disparate readings from varied types of instruments of dubious accuracy by observers of varied skill and diligence can be compared to 0.001 deg C precision is utterly moronic.

        While I’m on the subject of accuracy/precision of measuring equipment, how many “climate scientists” are aware of matters concerning the instruments used for acquiring sea surface temperatures.

        Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the ships’ engineers at their convenience.

        There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments – close to the inlet point on the hull or smack up against the engine – or the time of day the reading is taken.

        The instruments themselves are of standard industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.

        It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided. To concatenate series of such readings with buoy series is in no way scientific. “Hide the decline”, anyone?

        But hey, this is “climate science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?


        Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the comment. I don’t have a code, but the CO2 model would simply use log(CO2) instead of CO2. In reality, the global temperatures are driven by countless other variables, not just CO2. Another way to do it would be to use W/M^2 instead of CO2 or even log(CO2) because it is the energy trapped that matters, not the level of CO2.


  2. Thanks for this excellent post. Is my impression wrong? It seems to me that skeptics — I consider myself to be one — don’t provide much on this important point (saturated CO2 energy absorption). And generally, I find it hard to discover useful unbiased explanations in the internet. So, I’m not very versed at all in the matter. Therefore, I feel helpless in the face of arguments suggesting that absorption should increase with the increase of CO2 (molecules) in the atmosphere. I don’t understand the underlying physics — hence I’m unable to confirm or refute the claim. I would be thankful if anyone could help with the question and/or provide me useful links and references so I’ll be able to study the issue more closely and improve my judgement.


    1. Georg, take a look at many of the other posts on this blog. There are many posts that break the science don’t into easy to digest pieces. The earliest posts are a step by step process to understanding and debunking the CAGW.


      1. Thanks a lot for you hint. I have discovered your blog only recently and liked all of the posts that I managed to read (perhaps 10 or so). I’m looking forward to studying the posts that you recommend for my purposes.


  3. In reply to CatWeazle666:

    The shipboard temperature intake readings are typically taken from the log sheets, which are typically taken every two hours, round the clock. But yes, you’re right that the temperature readings aren’t controlled for depth of intake, nor for the location the readings were taken from in the intake piping, nor for the amount of heat added by the ship’s equipment. It should also be stated that the gauges were analog, with 2 F demarcations, so it’s not exactly the most accurate method for recording fractions of degrees. It was mainly for trend analysis to determine when heat exchangers were getting fouled. It was never intended to be used in climate analysis.

    That NOAA ‘adjusted’ the much more accurate buoy temperature data to match the ship intake temperature data, rather than throwing out the ship intake data and only using the buoy data (in an attempt at influencing Obama, who was attending the Paris Climate Accord… forcing the NOAA to rush out their deeply-flawed and now-debunked Karl ‘pause-buster’ paper), exposes the fraud… which is why Dr. John Bates, a distinguished NOAA scientist, stepped forward as a whistleblower, and why NOAA attempted to block any disclosure of information which would expose those responsible for the fraud.

    As it is, the NOAA has accomplished exactly one thing… they’ve given people a legitimate reason to distrust government and government-funded ‘science’.

    Given that the sun is slipping into a quiescent phase which has historically caused cooling, and given that history shows during periods of cooling food production drops, people go hungry, people get desperate, and governments topple (often violently)… that doesn’t bode well for those democrats pushing this scam.

    I, for one, look forward to the day when the democrats are yet again exposed as the humanity hating troglodytes that they historically have been, currently are and likely always will be. The scales are falling from many eyes.

    When enough people die because they were told to prepare for a warming world when in reality it was rapidly cooling; when people realize that their taxes are higher, their services are cut and their economies are imploding because of the trillions of dollars wasted on this boondoggle to enrich a select few, there’ll likely be more than a few of these scammers dangling. And I’ll be among those joyfully bringing more rope and tying the nooses.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. One only needs to look at the French Revolution to see your analysis in action. Worse, the communist revolutions manufactured starvation without natural causes. Their Revolutions had the same impact of the Little Ice age. Just look at Zimbabwi and N Korea today.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s