New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are“. Ah yes, when I look for compelling climate science, I always turn to the civil engineers at Hydrological Sciences Journal. Just like Anthony Watts. Hey, it’s peer-reviewed! The author’s conclusion? Computer models suck.

So is anyone claiming that global climate models are perfect? Is anyone claiming that they are useful on a local or regional scale? Nope and nope.

Were the models really never compared against the past record? Of course they were! It’s how they were frickin’ developed.

So, what’s better? Still waiting for a credible devastating analysis of “the consensus”.

P.S. I’m just eyeballing things here, but don’t the paper’s temperature charts show an upward trend?

Various temperature time series spatially integrated over the USA. Figure 12 from Anagnostopoulos et. al., 2010.

2 thoughts on “New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are

  1. The complete paper may be found here by direct link.

    The usual Anthony drone zombie jeer squad was out in force, making the usual predictable nonsense comments. Many it seems were habitually sticking both feet firmly in their mouths RSVP/Steve Goddard style, from basic ignorance of real science!

    Say Ben, keep up the good work :)

    I know this is bit off topic, have you seen the new developing explosive foxgate email scandal over at Climate Progress yet found here:-

    [Yes, I see the Foxgate story developing. Also at Ars Technica. So there is a ‘team’ in this debate, huh? – Ben]

  2. This is a paper about the use of global circulation models as a basis for hydrological projections. Note the precipitation results. Also, the local(!) results. And that the graphs above are for the continental US. And yet the skeptics would conclude that it shows that the GCM’s aren’t successful as GCM’s.

    “The uncertainty or unpredictability becomes greater when moving from climate variables, such as temperature… to hydrologic variables, such as rainfall and runoff, and from the coarse spatial scale of climate models to the finer spatial scale of hydrological models.”
    “…Hydrological statistics though, has been based on the implicit assumption of a stable climate.”

    Koutsoyiznnis (2003)

    “Simply put, the current suite of climate models were not developed to provide the level of accuracy required for adaptation-type analysis. They were designed to provide a broad assessment of the response of the global climate system to greenhouse gas (GHG) forcings…To expect more from these models is simply unrealistic at this time, as they do not perform well as weather prediction models.”

    “…Hydrologists… have entered the scientific debate in force because the GCM’s are being advocated for purposes they were not designed for, i.e., watershed variability and infrastructure design. They are now examining whether these models are suitable. …They are not climate sceptics, but are sceptical of the claims of some climatologists and hydroclimatologists that these models are well suited for water management applications.”

    Hydrological Sciences Journal editorial (excerpt text) quoted at R. Pielke Sr’s Climate Science, Oct 22, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s