Laying the boot into climate models.

The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”

Par Frank observes: “In essence, they found that climate models have no predictive value.”

Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al via Climate Audit.

UPDATE: Welcome to all our visitors from Climate Audit. Pull up a chair, grab a brew, and relax.

4 Responses to “Laying the boot into climate models.”

  1. Angus Dei Says:

    This is what I have been saying ALL ALONG! Those stupid models are just computer simulations – a bunch of crap some code monkeys came up with – and climo-tards have actually bought into them, thinking they can predict the nearly infinite intricacies of the world’s weather making apparatus.

    Utter fools, as I’ve known since the beginning.

  2. Ash Says:

    Of course the models are stupid. The clowns at the Bureau of Meteorology can’t even predict Melbourne’s weather* for tomorrow accurately, so how can they get it right for the next 100 years?!

    *Though in their defence, we do have various weather depending on the time of day.

  3. Dminor Says:

    Climate Audit’s a credible site, along with Watts Up With That?

    Personally, I think Andrew Bolt’s labouring the “no warming in 10 years” line. It is inaccurate and ambiguous; it does not disprove the theory of AGW. What it does is highlight the inaccuracy of IPCC projections and suggest we all pause to re-examine the data, because global warming theory simply does not support any significant cooling in the face of escalating CO2 emissions. Whether or not what we’ve seen with temperatures over the last 18 months is significant or not is open for debate. Currently, global temperatures are sitting around the zero anomaly level, meaning that without supposed AGW, we’d be in quite a cool phase, say -0.7 degrees C, but nothing amazing. It’ll get interesting if we drop further, another half a degree perhaps – then the AGW zealots will be defending a process seemingly protecting us from dangerous cooling! Could it happen? Why, yes. Will it happen? Ask Angus – he’s closer to God than I am.

    A crucial part of this debate is the calculated global sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. Gore et al trumpet a calculation first presented over a century ago, estimating a 5-6 degree C rise. Skeptics derive a figure of about 1 degree C. And that worries me, not because it’s dangerous in itself, but it could mean our CO2 will push temps up another third of a degree, which will be enough to fuel climate change hysteria for a generation. So we have to hope the PDO phase shift kicks in now and holds. We have to hope TSI falls, to demonstrate the overriding natural factors in this silly debacle. And most sadly, we have to hope for a cooling that will actually increase morbidity and mortality in many vulnerable parts of the world, in order to avert an even greater increase in all parts due to sustained economic depression.

    Thanks Al Gore, thanks Tim Flannery (who openly calls for fascist, Orwellian state police to enforce his rules if we don’t go along willingly) – you’re turning what should be a century of brilliant scientific advancement into a Dark Age.

  4. Izzy Says:

    now in my rss reader :)))

Well, SAY something...

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

%d bloggers like this: