Are the Models Failing?

Maybe they will someday. The more we disrupt the system, the harder it will be to predict. But for now, they are nowhere near as off-track as some would have you believe. Dana Nuccitelli explains.

Comments:

  1. The McIntyre argument seems to have become the straw to clutch at, though Richard Betts looks to have provided all the response needed. At the very least McIntyre's response to him appears to show the issues are rather more arcane than would at first appear.

    I did enjoy this sentence in Judith Curry's 'contribution': "Lets take a closer look to see why all this is so confusing."

  2. Damn, now I have to actually go and read beyond that sentence.

    Is it really the case there is nothing in the AR5 report to say that models don't fully capture the variation in surface temperatures on a decadal scale? Or do they?

    A lot also seems to depend on what it was we were supposed to have actually thought about the models in the first place.

  3. "Climate Madness"

    -- by Horatio Algeranon

    Are the models mad?
    Or are the humans?
    More than a tad
    Like Alfred Neumans

    Yes, it's actually "Neuman", but Horatio has a Class E poetic license (though some would undoubtedly dispute the "Class E" part, if not the entire thing).

    Meanwhile, back at the Ponderocea Ranch, the sea horses are stampeding.

  4. I asked Judy what she thought about Richard Betts' comment:

    > No, not beyond the response that SM gave and also the issues raised over here

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/#comment-392036

    The Auditor's response to Richard Betts reminded me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

    I submitted that video to Richard Betts:

    https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/385584483824828416

  5. You expect me to take this seriously? Really? My current reading comes in handy here:

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/closing-the-government-to-save-face/

    Disrespecting real science has real costs, and giving that disrespect rope is contributing to the problem.

    I'm out.

  6. I asked if it was really the case there is nothing in the AR5 report to say that models don’t fully capture the variation in surface temperatures on a decadal scale and having looked at the final 'Approved' version of the SPM it is quite clear that there is: There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).

    Curry implies the new wording is not honest. It seems more honest than the previous wording, which she seems to prefer: Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.

  7. Pingback: Another Week in the Ecological Crisis, October 6, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.