Gavin Schmidt asks at RealClimate: “How should one make graphics that appropriately compare models and observations?” and goes on to reconstruct John Christy’s updated comparison between climate models and satellite temperature measurements. The reconstruction was cited here by Simon in response to Gary Kerkin’s reference to Christy’s graph ( – h/t Richard Cumming, Gary Kerkin and Simon for references).
There’s been a lot of blather about Christy’s telling graph and heavy criticism here from Schmidt — but the graph survives. In taking all the trouble to point out where Christy is wrong, even going so far as to provide an alternative graph, Schmidt amazingly fails to alter the impression gained from looking at it. Even in his reconstruction the model forecasts still soar way above the observations.
So Christy’s graph is true. What else does it need to say to sentence the models to fatal error and irrelevance? Are our policy makers listening?
Though he alters the baseline and other things, the graphic clearly reveals that since about 1998 most climate models have continued an excursion far above the actual surface temperatures. This failure for nearly 20 years to track actual temperatures reveals serious faults with the models and strongly suggests the greenhouse hypothesis itself is in deep trouble.
The continued refusal of those in charge of the models to announce that there’s a problem, to talk about it or explain what they’re doing to fix it, illustrates the steadfastly illusory nature of the alarm the models — and only the models — underpin. When the models are proven wrong like this yet tales of alarm don’t stop, we can be sure that the alarm is not rooted in reality.
Here’s Christy’s updated graph, as he presented it to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology on 2 Feb 2016.
Gavin Schmidt’s confirmation of the essence of Christy’s criticism of the models signals deep problems with Schmidt’s continued (stubborn?) reliance on the models. Christy’s presentation goes on:
The information in this figure provides clear evidence that the models have a strong tendency to over-warm the atmosphere relative to actual observations. On average the models warm the global atmosphere at a rate 2.5 times that of the real world. This is not a short-term, specially-selected episode, but represents the past 37 years, over a third of a century. This is also the period with the highest concentration of greenhouse gases and thus the period in which the response should be of largest magnitude.
Richard Cumming has several times recently said (on different grounds) that “we are witnessing the abject failure of the anthropogenic global warming theory.” I can only agree with him.