Bob Tisdale’s latest analysis of the models versus reality across the global oceans is as clear as can be. The IPCC’s much vaunted and relied upon CMIP5 climate models do NOT represent the world in which we live. Not even close. Here is his summary conclusion, for all the graphs, explanations, and numerical details see the original post from his blog below…
We live on an ocean-covered planet. One might have thought that one of the climate modelers’ first priorities would have been to simulate the processes that cause sea surface temperatures to vary on annual, decadal and multidecadal bases. Sadly, the modelers elected another route…they chose to create models of a planet that bear no relationship to the one where we live, no relationship at all.
Climate model simulations of sea surface temperatures are far from reality. That is, they’re modeling a virtual planet—a science-fiction planet—with no similarities to Earth. More specifically, as shown in this series of posts, the climate models used by the IPCC do not simulate (1) the actual warming and cooling rates of the ocean surfaces, or (2) the spatial patterns of those trends, or (3) the absolute temperatures. It would be nice if climate modeling agencies might try to simulate the surface temperatures of this planet, not some fairytale one. That way, their models might have some value. Right now, they don’t serve any purpose…other than to illustrate how poorly they simulate Earth’s climate.
This post will serve as part 2 of the 2015 update of the model-data comparisons of satellite-era sea surface temperatures. The 2014 update is here. This, the second part, contains time-series graphs. But the data and model outputs are being presented in absolute, not anomaly, form.
The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not simulating climate as it exists on Earth. That reality of climate models will likely come as a surprise to many climate laypersons.
View original post 3,040 more words