Climate Models Have Problems

The narrative is predictable: a single unusual event is simulated, extrapolated, and then turned into a headline-worthy forecast of future doom

The overestimation is because a large part of the disaster saga can be found in the way the story is told. The climate narrative is built on a concept called modeling. Climate modeling is typically based on math involving sophisticated equations that necessitate assumptions and limitations and include measured and approximated input quantities.

Models typically lack adequate 3D space resolution to capture small but potentially critical aspects of the atmosphere. Within a large volume of air, constant changes occur with temperature, moisture, wind, pressure and energy. Lack of complete information and knowledge of the chemistry and physics of the air leads to serious uncertainties about future conditions. This is true for small scale air pollution modeling and even more so for global climate modeling. The atmosphere is inherently complex, as is its modeling, and the increase in time and distance affects forecast accuracy. ⁽¹⁾

Every few months, a new study emerges claiming to have finally cracked the code on why the Maldives—or Kiribati, Tuvalu, or whichever island chain is the fashionable climate casualty of the moment—are supposedly on the verge of disappearing under rising seas. They never do, of course, but the fact rarely stops the press releases. ⁽²⁾

The narrative is predictable: a single unusual event is simulated, extrapolated, and then turned into a headline-worthy forecast of future doom. What goes largely unmentioned is the inconvenient fact that the peer reviewed literature overwhelmingly shows that reef islands—including those in the Maldives—have been stable or growing for decades, and that the natural geomorphic processes often make them more resilient in the face of rising seas, not less.

This is a case of poor modeling

This is a case of poor modeling. Models that exclude island adaptation cannot validly predict their future vulnerability A key sentence in an alarmist report stated, “The model did not factor in natural or anthropogenic adjustments over the next quarter of a century.” This is a polite way of saying: We built a model that assumes the islands will not change at all, then used that assumption to claim that they won’t be able to change enough to keep up with rising seas. This is like modeling the future of forests but disallowing tree growth. ⁽²⁾A recent study has shed light on a previously overlooked but common atmospheric phenomenon: the transition zone (TZ) where clouds and aerosols blend together, making it difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. These conditions in the sky are more prevalent than previously thought and could be a key to reducing uncertainty in future climate projections. “Our findings show that the atmosphere is far less black and white than climate models assume,” said the lead researcher. “Our work calls for questioning how we represent these suspended particles in climate models to achieve more accurate predictions, especially regarding their radiative effects.” ⁽³⁾

Clouds and aerosols (tiny suspended particles in the air) are critical players in regulating Earth’s temperature, but they remain one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models. Traditionally, scientists have classified atmospheric layers as either cloud or aerosol. However, this new research confirms that the real atmosphere is not so binary, often featuring a gradual transition filled with features like wispy cloud fragments or hydrated aerosols that defy simple classification. ⁽⁴⁾

Because the current state of the art general circulation models cannot simulate the trends and variances in global precipitation over the last 84 years (1940-2023), their usefulness should be reconsidered. ⁽⁵⁾

Hydrological processes, ocean circulation water vapor, and clouds, are key component of climate, easily overshadowing the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by a factor of 2,100. ⁽⁶⁾

The effect that cloud-cover variability has on surface temperature is so uncertain and our cloud-effect measurement capacities are so primitive, even NASA has had to admit that ‘today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy’ to even begin to attribute current or future temperature changes to increases in atmospheric CO2.

The results are not encouraging. The best computer models we have cannot accurately simulate what occurs in the real world.

When the models are tuned to assess what happens at a continental scale, their performance plunges from poor to worse. These modeling failures cast doubt on whether the models are worth using at all. ⁽⁵⁾

Climate models are worthless for policymaking because they aren’t verified by actual measurements, don’t account for urban heat island effects, and cannot incorporate the vast scale and complexity of atmospheric, planetary and galactic forces that determine Earth’s climate. ⁽⁷⁾

Summary:

Warming over the past 50 years or so has been overestimated by most computer models when compared to temperature observations by thermometer. ⁽⁸⁾

When the true story of the great turn of the millennium climate science fraud comes to be written by future historians, the central role of the ‘business as usual’ model scenario, much featured in recent IPCC reports, will be obvious to all. This ‘pathway’ has polluted climate model predictions for years with its wild and improbable claims of carbon dioxide emissions and soaring temperatures. A huge number of science papers incorporating the pathway are published by obvious net zero activists and their ‘scientists say’ climate psychosis—inducing fairytales are sped on their way by blinkered journalists in the mainstream press. Yet, the model has been ‘falsified’, most knew it was fake, historians are likely to conclude the net zero addiction was too strong for it to be given up. ⁽⁹⁾

Models are not capable of determining the equilibrium climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They tend to ‘run hot,’ or overstate surface warming. They also overstate warming of the tropical troposphere, and their simulation of the stratospheric cooling is inconsistent. Current model simulations still deviate from real world observations. ⁽¹⁰⁾

References:

1. Anthony J. Sadar, “A scary climate story fashioned by menacing modeling,” cornwallalliance.com, November 13, 2025
2. Anthony Watts, “Modeling manufactures vulnerability: why the Maldives refuse to sink despite the headlines,” wattsupwiththat.com, November 24, 2025
3. Jaun Ruiz De Morales et al, “Global assessment of the cloud-aerosol transition zone using CALIPSO,” Advances in Atmospheric Science, 43, 321, February 2026
4. “New satellite study reveals a widespread transition zone in the sky, challenging climate models,” eurekalart.org, November 17, 2025
5. Kenneth Richard, “New study: today’s climate models do not agree with reality and thus their usefulness is doubtful,” notrickszone.com, February 11, 2025
6. Demetris Koutsoyiannis, “Rethinking climate, climate change, and their relationship with water,” Water, 13(6), 849, 2021
7. Paul Driessen, “Climate and energy fantasy and tyranny,” energycentral.com, January 28, 2024
8. Roy Spencer, “Climate models exaggerate effects of global warming,” daily signal.com, February 9. 2024
9. Chris Morrison, “The great climate science swindle goes on—extreme scenarios have polluted climate model prediction for years,” climatedepot.com, June 13, 20210
10. David Legates, “Just how good were the early climate models?”, cornwallalliance.org, November 27, 2025