Other than that, they work great: Only a few climate models were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years. This is the finding of a doctoral thesis from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Other than that, they work great: Only a few climate models were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years. This is the finding of a doctoral thesis from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
The climate models can’t hindcast and they obviously can’t forecast either. They failed to forecast the pause (perhaps end?) in global warming that has lasted 15 years and counting. It was recognition of this inconvenient flaw that forced the warmists to shift their prattle from “global warming” (which wasn’t happening) to “climate change” (which is always happening with the earth either warming or cooling).
“They failed to forecast the pause”
It appears to me that they did forecast the pause since they scrambled around looking for new names for “global warming”.
What they didn’t do is admit the pause was here.
Seeing how earth is moving into a photon belt (an area that is an energy vacuum) in its 26000 year cycle. And our solar systems asteroid belt is deemed to have an inner ring in orbital decay and flying lose towards us, you’d think that if science wanted to concern itself with science to avert doomsday scenarios, they would be developing ways to survive these catastrophic events rather than peeing their diapers over some bad weather.
No can do,Occam. Studying and finding solutions for REAL problems don’t get you grants,and don’t get politico leeches re-elected by LIV’s. Sad really.
This is somewhat frustrating as an article. Only one model that works is enough. Was there an unambiguous best model? If so, how well did it perform?
Tinghai Ou’s Web page at Gothenburg hasn’t been updated since 2010. Understandable as he was presumptively finishing his Ph.D. thesis but rather frustrating.
“Settled science.”
[horse laugh]
To reference an example every scientist quack trots out for why his crackpot theory is legitimate “science”:
“Mr. Galileo, we had a vote. The science is settled.”
Garbage In Gospel out.
What precision could we expect from models that ignore the simple fact, its a water world.
Weather is water dominated.
Computer models can’t handle clouds? Chaos, or most other aspects of reality.
Wrong at 3 days, stunningly accurate at 100 years?
Our amazingly stable climate is regulated by the thermal inertia of water, thro all its phases.
Climatology is rubbish, the soothsayers got better results from bats entrails.
In my last comment where I typed “scientist” I meant “scientistic”, that is an attitude or belief resulting from “scientism”, a religious belief system clothed in the language of science.
No, if they, as you say, “scrambled around”, then they were surprised by it and hastened to amend the Pravda of their position so as to maintain position.
It doesn’t matter what kind of model it is, climate or any other. If it’s not verified against actual conditions then the model is false.
Models are not evidence of anything, ever. They are only illustrations or demonstrations of what we think to be true.
Thank you.
One can honestly say the effects of the weather are disastrously felt because of things like deforestation, poor dam construction and out-and-out pollution on the part of the Chinese. Where is the model to graph how a natural occurrence will affect people in relation to how badly the landscape has been scarred or how bad the civil planning is? Eco-activists don’t point out how people react or can prepare for nature, something we have no control over.