New IPCC Head Kim Jong-un to Punish Bad Climate Forecasts

June 12th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

On the heels of today’s announcement that North Korea leader Kim Jong-un has warned his country’s meteorologists about their bad weather forecasts, Mr. Kim has been named the new head of the IPCC, where he will crack down on the bad climate forecasts being made by that organization.

I will direct all climate modeling groups to either start paying attention to the observations, or else“, said Kim Jong-un, a presumed reference to satellite, weather balloon, and surface temperature observations which all show the climate models relied upon by the IPCC are producing too much warming:

Mr. Kim also suggested that the rest of the world should follow his country’s lead on energy conservation, starting with a ban on all outdoor lighting.

59 Responses to “New IPCC Head Kim Jong-un to Punish Bad Climate Forecasts”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. geran says:

    This may be a triple “ouch”!

  2. Anthony Watts says:


  3. David V says:

    So there is a warming trend, although not as much as ‘they’ predicted. Pardon my ignorance, but doesn’t this mild warming trend give Warmists all the ammo they need to push Policymakers?

    • Ray says:

      The warming is in line with the IPCC “commitment” scenario, which was based on zero rise in greenhouse gasses since 2000.
      Otherwise the actual rise in those gasses has had zero effect, according to the models.

      • David V says:

        Thank you, Ray, I’m just a heating engineer trying to get my head round this subject. Everyone I know is convinced we are playing a major role in climate, but even though I’m unqualified to comment I don’t buy into it.
        Thanks taking the time to respond. I hope others here will be patient with me while I learn and catch up.

  4. Gunga Din says:

    said Kim Jong-un, a presumed reference to satellite, weather balloon,

    Speaking of balloons and hot air………

  5. ossqss says:

    It must be lonely at the top eh?
    I remember a song his papa sang some years ago and will post it against my better judgement. . .

    No, I better not as there will be repercussions.

    Heck with it, Don’t tase me man! 🙂

    Appologies in advance Dr. Roy. I just couldn’t stop my mouse……..

  6. Johan says:

    Fine by me … as long as we don’t have to follow his haircut 🙂

  7. Gunga Din says:

    It is odd though that he’s threatens meteorologist for not making weather forecast that don’t match observations while we threaten climatologist that point out that global climate models don’t match observations.

  8. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    Perhaps my memory and Wikipedia will prove correct, but – “Director Shin had been kidnapped in 1978 by North Korean intelligence on the orders of Kim Jong-il, son of the then-ruling Kim Il-sung. Kim was a lifelong admirer of the director, Godzilla, and other Kaiju films. He kidnapped the former director and his wife, famous actress Choi Eun-hee, with the specific purpose of making fantasy/propaganda films for the North Korean government…” per Wikipedia. Hopefully, Kim Jong-un won’t follow the new family tradition and kidnap climate modelers in an effort to make fantasy/propaganda climate models more to his liking! After all the IPCC and other modelers won’t be able to withstand the Asian competition for ever more bogus climate models!!!

    Have a great day!

  9. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    If Kim Jong-un follows the family tradition, kidnaps climate modelers to provide ACCURATE models for a change and then proceeds to kill them for any inaccuracies we may face a global shortage of CLIMATE MODELERS!!! Hmmh! Funny I don’t hear too many people crying about it.

    Have a great day!

  10. Calvin says:

    Where’s the “Like” button, Roy?

  11. Ruth Schneider says:

    Is it impossible to start a comparison of models in a year that is not followed by a significant drop in global temperatures? Apparently it is for Dr. Spencer. Whenever he publishes such a comparison it is carefully chosen so that the observational data immediately drops below the models and then (gasp!) continues to lag below.

    Why do you never give the opposite starting date where the models begin from a local minimum in temperature so that the observations start higher?

    I think we know the answer.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Ruth Schneider,

      Since the climate models presented represent 5 year averages and satellite data only goes back to 1978-9 how far back did you think the graphed models can go?!!!

      Have a great day!

    • geran says:

      Ruth, I understand your crisis. The Earth is trying to fool us. We know the planet is heating, probably well above boiling, but the Earth somehow will not reveal the true temp. We monitor oceans, surfaces, and troposphere. But, we get no meaningful warming.

      I understand your frustration.

      The only cure, it seems, is to take your own thermometer and (deleted) tour the planet.

      Best of luck.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      As JohnKL said, Ruth, those are 5 year averages, all starting at the beginning of the satellite record.

      All races start at the starting line.

      • Steve Ta says:

        Ah, Roy has been caught cherry picking when it was detected that he picked all the cherries!

      • Nate says:


        It is really not clear to me what’s going on in this plot. Are all the model runs actually initialized with the conditions of 1979? Even if this is the case, after 5 years you would not expect all averages to agree.

        Also, one should be careful in comparing the temperature record which has one realization of climate noise, to the average over many model runs each with different climate noise-e.g. el ninos. This is very similar to comparing the daily temperatures of Lake Superior for this spring to the historic averages, and drawing some conclusion from it.

        • What you seem to be suggesting is that one can’t reasonably compare climate models to observations. If that’s true, that’s fine. But then it’s not science. So one shouldn’t present climate models as scientific. That is to say, if they can’t be compared to observations over 30 year time spans, then they definitely should not be represented to politicians as scientific predictions of the future.

          • Nate says:

            No, I’m saying there are better and worse ways to make the comparison.

            So measure the trends (degrees increase per decade) for individual model runs and ask what are the range of possible trends seen in the models, and are the observations within that range.

            Also, using a 5 year baseline that is done in the graph can distort the picture. Other people who make such comparisons use 1980-1999 as a baseline.

          • Of course there are ‘better’ ways. You can certainly contrive a method that makes models consistent with observations. However, the more effective the contrivance, the more useless models become at prediction. The reason for this is that you can always find model runs that potentially predict everything that might happen. Same problem though, from a scientific perspective they become useless.

    • Bob Weber says:

      Ruth, I hope you’re not panicking or losing sleep over a few tenths of a degree increase that you can’t even read on an analog thermometer.

      Did you know that the 97-98 El Nino and the next smaller one after that contributed most of that temp rise? Do you know where that ocean heat came from in the first place that made the El Ninos possible? Did you know the Sun warms the oceans? Do you know that the “global” warmists can’t even explain in any rational way whatsoever why their convoluted overblown projections haven’t worked out? Did you ever wonder why the actual temperature history doesn’t track the increase in CO2 the way the warmists’ “models” say they should? If you know why is it warmer during the day than the night you might have a chance of putting it together.

      I would ask you to start asking yourself these questions and start seeking the answers rationally instead of behaving in the knee-jerk manner in which the warmists’ groupthink has programmed you.

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        Don’t be so hard on her. She’s just trying to earn her pay.

      • Ruth Schneider says:

        Dear Bob,

        Yes, I know the answer to all your questions. Thank you very much for asking. Do you know why the model average is over 0.15C higher than UAH observations after only 4 years? Do you know what parameters Spencer used in producing the trajectories on the graph? Do you know what other choices he could have made? Do you know why the last UAH 5 year mean is considerable higher than all previous years despite the “pause” in warming?


        • Lewis Guignard says:


          I quote “Do you know why the last UAH 5 year mean is considerable higher than all previous years despite the “pause” in warming?”

          First, when using the word “pause” you make the assumption there is ongoing warming, as if it is a foregone conclusion that is, or should be, definite and continual.

          Second, when you say “all previous years” one must presume you mean some limited time span which, I presume, means a time span which doesn’t include earlier periods when temperatures were higher than they are now. More accurately, what you seem to be presuming is that the only years that may be considered are the ones you want to consider.

          By making these two presumptions, others are influenced to make presumptions about your objectivity.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          Ruth, other than your last point, what the hell are you getting at?

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Ruth Schneider,

          You asked:

          “Do you know what parameters Spencer used in producing the trajectories on the graph? Do you know what other choices he could have made?”

          Please identify the parameters you believe should have been used instead and which choices you prefer. Please then explain why you believe the parameters you chose should prove superior.

          Have a great day!

    • Ray says:

      If you start the comparison in 2000 (when the IPCC AR4 models start) and use GISS/NCDC/HADCRUT, you get more or less the same results.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Ruthie, why don’t you put your attitude in park before you embarrass yourself again…

    • Grey Winters says:

      Gosh voodoo models are bypassing history and forget that a 0.9 temp increase in the last 100 years was responsible for a trillion dollar modeling computer system and we all now how human input is all these modelers have to rely on. Good thing the willing 1% ers and unwilling taxpayers foot the bill for these very expensive crystal balls.

  12. MikeN says:

    Thomas Friedman and other global warmistas have been praising the regimes in China and North Korea as ones that can just declare a policy by fiat and it is done, and lament how their favored policies are blocked by the messiness of democracy.

  13. RW says:

    How nice.

  14. stargazer says:

    You would think that grandsonuva … god … could at least predict the weather, if not control the climate. I guess by the 3rd generation those god-like powers get diluted and end up limited to cheap card tricks.

    I might have to take a look at the possibility of taking out a few life insurance policies on some of the NK’s more prominent meteorologists. Without the suicide exemption clause, of course.

  15. Phil Neel says:

    Ruth? Ruth?

    Bueller? Bueller?

  16. Ray says:

    If only we had someone like Kim Jong-un in the UK to hold the Met. Office to account.
    Unfortunately we rely on the MO to measure their own accuracy and naturally the say they are accurate and all the politicians believe them.
    The sort of thing you would expect from North Korea.
    Only when we get a truly independent measure of accuracy will we really know.

  17. ray says:

    The Ray with a capital R says “we rely on the Met Office…”

    It is a 1,800 strong, 170 million pound a year, boon-doggle
    and political menace (includes Hadley and all that).

    I use other weather services when I go flying; and also look at the latest satellite pictures. Forecasting in the UK is quite easy actually. You just look and see tomorrow’s weather – usually evident in the West coming in on the jet stream conveyor belt.

    There is also a “weather stone” on my airfield. It is calibrated all the way up to “Hurricane”, i.e. “no stone” means there has been a Hurricane.

  18. jimc says:

    “Kim, who took power after the December 2011 death of his father, Kim Jong Il, was said by state media to have toured forecasting, communications and satellite rooms ‘to learn in detail about meteorological observation and weather forecast.'”
    Still a piker compared to BHO who can control the rising of the seas.

  19. Mark Bofill says:


    Finally, a leader steps forward who embodies the ideals of the Green Movement. The world has been waiting for this!

    / sarc?

  20. bob sykes says:

    Several models appear to be foolowing the data. Can anyone name their authors?

  21. Bob Greene says:

    It’s time someone took control of this situation.

    Great post!

  22. Louis says:

    As you pull you will have a low level of confidence in your
    training programmes human body to grow facial hair or nail care, but to the equation. Now,
    you should consume from fat cells. That is, where he personally
    assists all of the more it’s practiced. Some of his lifestyle who is serious.
    If you’re not making any changes due to an active rest from exercise.

  23. yonason says:

    “New IPCC Head Kim Jong-un to Punish Bad Climate Forecasts”

    How about bad haircuts?

    Priorities, Don King wannabe, priorities!

    (I haven’t read all the comments but has anyone yet made the observation that this is just “jong”-science?)

  24. Andreas says:

    Have you considered your friend Tamino’s post on this subject …

    It is quite convincing.

    • What’s convincing about it?

      He claims scenario C most closely matches what actually happened over the last 26 years, and the only thing he specifically mentions is that methane was lower than predicted. Remember, scenario C was the “no emissions” scenario from the year 2000 on-wards. At the most, methane contributes to 20% of all GHG forcings. Therefore, an accurate prediction should have been 20% below scenario A, not what actually happened, which is warming below even scenario C.

      (The misdirection in the post you link to is that the author attributes all the other missing heat to natural variability and fudge factors, such as the large potential error in aerosol estimates, to make up the difference.)

      In other words, 26 years of CO2 emissions was only able to bump temperatures up by only a third of what was predicted, and then after the year 2000, not at all.

      • Actually I was being a little too generous here. 20% below scenario A would assume zero methane emissions for 26 years. Which obviously didn’t happen. Methane emissions have continued to rise over 26 years, although possibly not as extensively as assumed by the old model.

        • Andreas says:

          Thanks for your reply, Will. Did CO2 levels actually rise in line with scenario A? If so I would agree with you that Tamino’s post is less convincing than I initially thought.

          • CO2 levels rose at or above the scenario A projection. However, other greenhouse gases did not. That’s why in the interests of fairness, it’s appropriate to compare observations to scenario B. On the other hand, there isn’t a huge relative difference between scenario A and scenario B, anyway.

  25. office decor says:

    Hello there, I came across your site by means of Search engines while looking for a equivalent subject matter, your internet-site got here upwards, it appears good. I have saved as a favorite to favorites|included with my own bookmarking.

Leave a Reply