James Griffiths (02:20:19) :

In the face of even their own evidence, there still seems to be a fundamental belief that aggregating any number of clearly flawed models with no skill will magically produce an average with real predictive power.

Dogbert has this same idea, in a different context: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2liwwvn&s=4

Hehe, nice!

A man goes to the next village to get himself a wife. He meets many young girls but one of them, who smiles very sweetly and only says “yes” and “no” appeals to him, and the marriage is arranged.

He takes the sweet girl to his home and they have a lovely honeymoon, the wife is a good cook too, the only thing is, she keeps saying only “yes”, “no”, and smiling sweetly.
After a while this gets on his nerves, and he tries to get some other reactions from her, tries to make her angry by doing irrational and sometimes cruel things.

Once he brought back a piece of marble pretending it was cheese, asked her to bring it to the table, and made a big show of anger when she did not. Still, she trembled sweetly and did not get angry or say more than “yes”.
Once he bought her a tight pair of shoes and forced her to wear them, still no reaction from her.
Once he hid behind the door and jumped at her scaring her out of her wits, but not out of the “yes” or “no”.

He decided on drastic measures. He pretended he dropped dead, not responding to anything she tried to do with him, just lay there dead. After a while she was convinced he was dead. She started a dirge crying and crying:

Oh, deal huthband, what thall I lemember filst?
The malble cheethe, the tight thoes, or the BAH behind the dool?

She had a speech impediment and had been told not to speak because she would lose the bridegroom.

The dirge is what comes to my mind when I think of the skill of GCM models”
What shall I remember first?
The lack of error propagation? the spaghetti graphs? the insolent use of linearity in a chaotic system?The manipulated data?

So as not to leave the story hanging, the man resurrected himself, hugged his wife, and asked her to please speak up, and he did not care about the lisp! A happy ending, which I do not foresee for the GCMs.

We could include some periods that were totally made up readings but readings within a sensible range.

Haven’t they already done that one?

DaveE

There is only one fact that needs to be known about ensemble climate models, and it needs no discussion: i.e.

Average wrong is still wrong.

Richard

I agree with you. I’ve posted a lot about the made-up Aerosols (and volcano) plugs that are used to make the hindcasts work.

This is GISS Aerosols forcing from 1880 to 2003. Take these numbers and multiply by 0.32 to change the forcing to temperature impact. Total direct and indirect temp impact from Aerosols in GISS models is -0.6C. Obviously, these forcings are manufactured in Hansen’s laboratory.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/855/modelaerosolsforcingp.png

The latest study on sulfate aerosols is that they combine with black carbon and soot to produce warming in the atmosphere rather than cooling. This matches better with the temperature experience of China, south Asia, southern California and the northern hemisphere for example.

Yes. Say you want to make a low distortion audio sine wave directly from an oscillator. We have ways of doing that (a Wein bridge with a light bulb in the feed back circuit) that is not too bad. After the oscillator settles we can without to much difficulty get a wave with distortion 60db (.1%) down. Going to 80 db without other tricks (filters) is tough. And even filters are rough because they can introduce distortion. And even then there are limits due to the intrinsic noise of resistors and amplifiers. A PERFECT sine wave is impossible to generate.

I live in the northern Illinois area and today we had a day where the temperature did not get above 63F. This seems rather unusual for July.

Now compare this to climate where all the equations are NOT known to a high degree of precision and in fact ALL the equations are not even known.

To predict the future with such (#$@*&!!) is not possible. In fact with so many still unknown significant factors (Svensmark) it is useless. And we are just now getting a handle on cosmic rays and clouds. And there are likely still unknown unknowns.

“Keep in mind that Dr. Spencer has said that the 30 years of Satellite data are not sufficient to disprove the models at this point. Spencer has stated that 50 years might be a minimum but that 100 years of data might be required to sort out natural fluctuations vs human induced temperature changes.”
______________

I disagree.

We can say from satellite data that there has been no global warming since 1979, and we can also say from pre-satellite data that there has been no global warming since 1940, and perhaps even ~0.3C of cooling. And now we have experienced further global cooling for the past decade or so.

Yet the models continue to predict catastrophic warming.

I can confidently conclude that there is adequate data to demonstrate that the models are invalid.

“The models seem reasonably accurate when they are hindcasting – running the models against the known temperature record.”

Absolutely false Bill.

I have posted here recently that, in order to hindcast, the models use fabricated (false) aerosol data to reproduce the cooling from ~1945-1975. Actual measurements as described by Doug Hoyt et al show no such aerosol trends.

My guess is that some of the months in 2009 would be the coldest months in the last 100 years.