Dr John Christy shows climate models are wrong

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard Feynman

Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) features comments about testimony of Dr. John Christy in the Feb 6, 2016 issue of “The Week That Was.”

In his written testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on February 2, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville submitted the results of 102 IPCC CIMP-5 Climate Model runs for the Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature. (Surface to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). (CIMP-5 is the latest version global climate models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC))

Christy tested the results of these model runs against temperature observations by four different datasets of weather balloon measurements with one type of instruments and by satellites with another type of instruments as calculated by 3 different entities. Christy shows a 0.98 correlation between the types of observational datasets, which is very high for such types of measurements. Not only is there significant disparity between the average of model runs and observations; but also, since 1995 the disparity is increasing significantly. The models greatly overestimate the warming of the bulk atmosphere.

Applying Feynman’s rule, the models are wrong!

By this empirical testing, the certainty expressed by the IPCC that human emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily responsible for late 20th century warming is wrong. EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases, chiefly CO2, endanger public health and welfare is wrong. And the justification for the US Administration’s power plan is wrong.

Christy’s testimony undermines the foundation the government’s energy and environmental policy, including international efforts.

In his February 2 testimony, Christy addresses four criticisms of satellite measurements, the first three of which are brought up in the video. The first is that satellites do not measure temperatures. Christy counters that they actually measure microwave radiation from oxygen, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen. This is similar to modern doctors using ear probes measuring emitted radiation to measure a patient’s temperature – a great improvement to various types of older thermometers.

The second criticism is orbital decay, which was pointed out by RSS about 20 years ago and corrected.

The third criticism is east-west drift (diurnal drift) of the satellites. This influences measurements of the lower troposphere, but not the middle troposphere, the data used in the hypothesis testing. Further, the error was corrected about 10 years ago.

A fourth criticism not brought up in the video, but discussed by Christy, is that some scientists have expressed that the satellite data hides the power and validity of the models. To prevent misinterpretation, Christy adjusts the data to the same starting point similar to a foot race starting at the same starting line. The starting point is1979 when satellite data became available rather than an artificially contrived one. No one has produced evidence Christy’s adjustments are in error. Adjusting for errors in hypotheses when they are revealed is how science works to improve hypotheses. Improving hypotheses is one of the purposes of hypothesis testing.

Read Christy’s entire written testimony here.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Why scientists disagree about global warming – book review

For a larger picture, see the “Climate in Perspective” page.

Advertisements