A new paper by Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al has been published, which demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value. The full paper entitled, 'On the Credibility of Climate Predictions' is published in the Journal of Hydrological Sciences, and is available for free download. 18 years of climate model predictions for temperature and precipitation at 8 locations worldwide were evaluated.
The Abstract states:
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. 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.
Hat tip to Climate Audit
Spasiba tavarishch
вагонка ждем
I must protest at the vilification of the Flat Earth Society. It is well known that the earth is a flat disc. Over the past hundred years or so, the edges have curled upwards, under the weight of motor cars, power stations etc. in the middle.
This curling has trapped CO2, which used to spill over the edge. There is growing evidence that this dish shape also traps extra heat from the sun, which orbits around the earth's rim.
Thousands of scientists support this consensus view, it is opposed only by a handful of denialists. All cars should be parked around the perimeter of the disc, so straightening it out again. We have a mathematical model which proves this would work.
We demand immediate government action, and the signing of a Motor Protocol. A press release will follow.
You said "Regarding Mr. Pachauri's words: you misinterpret them when you declare that they stifle discussion."
I posted this comment by Pachauri "There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point." The first point is the comparison of doubters to Flat earthers. The last point is that there is no room for doubt. This is a pre-emptive polemic to stifle and marginalize a position. You are incorrect that I misinterpreted the nature of the statement, by no less, the head of the IPCC.
You said "I assume that by temperature trends" you mean the fact that temperatures today are lower than they were in 1998. If my assumption be correct, I must remind you that weather is not climate." The first part, yes, I agree that the fall especially the last 2 years, but does extend to 1998. The second part, I must remind you of what I posted. "I agree that is why if the temperature trends continue it will falsify the projections first, and secondly falsify, or severely reduce the k for the feedbacks." "And SO, take your pick, if the temperatures continue, the IPCC's predictions have been falsified, and how much CO2 effects the temperature has been falsified and therfore the science; or the ability to detect the signal has been falsified by either it is in the pipeline is too long for the signal to be detected, or by the CO2-CO2xH2O relationship, falsifiying IPCC's claims. Either way hypothesis falsified."
The point is that I specifically stated "name your "climate" assumption...30, 20, 40, 50 years, does not matter 80% of the warming that is described by "in the pipeline" has been explained."
This is what makes the current temperature decline interesting, it is approaching the regime of climate as this point states.
You asked "Do you not believe firmly that your point of view is correct? And does that mean that you are stifling discussion?" What does it matter to the discussion what I firmly believe? The next statement is a logical non-sequitor using the "And". I did not say that you were stifling. I pointed out that my use of Pachauri was in reply to your incorrect assertation when you posted "the conspiracy theory stuff you include..." I doubt that correctly quoting the head of the IPCC is about a conspiracy, it is his statement of the IPCC position "There is not room for doubt."