The fact that all the models proved wrong means the guy that wrote that didn't examine the evidence.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=models&max-results=20&by-date=true The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50562/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+18+May+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate. It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice. However, this convergence is difficult to justify given the significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic. . On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and youll > likely hear some variation of the following: Thats all based on models, > and you can make a model say anything you want. Often, they'll suggest the > models don't even have a solid foundation of data to work withgarbage in, > garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us > (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into > a climate model to judge what comes out? > > Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of > various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public > policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing > vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of > politics. > > Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to > the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence > before making up ones mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of > climate models, its climate scientistsand they are confident that, just > as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools." > > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-sc > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366905 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
