“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?
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:-http://climateprogress.org/
[Yes, I see the Foxgate story developing. Also at Ars Technica. So there is a ‘team’ in this debate, huh? – Ben]
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.
Hydrological Sciences Journal editorial (excerpt text) quoted at R. Pielke Sr’s Climate Science, Oct 22, 2010.