More Inconvenient Truths: When Models do not Match Observations

The interesting graphic above was taken from this article. Full sourcing for this and other fascinating graphics (including one posted here yesterday) is given at the above link.

Other fascinating graphs illustrating discrepancies between temperature trends in models vs. observations are given here (see figures at bottom).

What does it mean when models do not correlate well with observations?

We are therefore faced with two alternatives.

1. The models are correct and account for all relevant forcings. If so, then we must conclude that the observational data sets -- MSU, NNR and Radiosondes -- are all incorrect.

2. The models do not fully capture the multitudinous climate effects (including various feedbacks) of an increase in greenhouse gases. Since the observed surface temperature trends (ST) agree with the models, then they too must be questioned.

It seems improbable that results from satellites (MSU), NCAR/NCEP reanalysis (NNR), and Radiosondes, which agree with each other, would all be wrong. Therefore, it seems more likely that both the models and observed surface trends are problematic. Their apparent agreement may be a coincidence or perhaps reflect a “tuning” of the models to the surface temperature trends.

Source

Climate scientists will attempt to reconcile models with observations, as they should. Climate grifters, on the other hand, will deny any differences whatsoever. Their livelihood is at stake. Climate grifters must maintain a pretense of invincibility--something reputable scientists generally avoid like the plague. The grifters must claim that all debate is over, since they can only lose ground in an objective examination of the issues.