Given the high profile story today about the 49 NASA astronauts, engineers, and scientists who wrote a scathing letter to NASA director Charles Bolden, Jr. saying Jim Hansen and NASA GISS are exemplifying the “wrong stuff”, I thought I’d share this poster contributed by WUWT reader NickFromNYC:
NASA has achieved bringing man to and back from the Moon by applying rigorous scientific / engineering / operational processes, as well as related top level standards that have been designed for that purpose. These processes and standards of course include models’ engineering, verification and validation.
As ridiculous as it may appear, none of the GISS climate modelers has ever applied any of these processes and standards. And as a matter of fact, none of these nice climate models has ever been formally validated. Climate models are only “inter-validated” but inter-validation is definitely not the state of the art for models’ validation, especially for such complex models. A rigorous model’s validation process requires a confrontation between model’s outputs (for various runs with different sets of inputs / border conditions) and tests’ data (obtained with same inputs / border conditions).
Actually the very inconvenient truth is that none of the climate models would be able to pass any V&V process since their outputs are daily rebutted by observed climate data :
(a) None of these models is able to reproduce the observed cooling trends over [1880 – 1910] and [1940 – 1970] periods
(b) None of these models is able to reproduce the observed warming trend of 0.15°C/decade over [1910 – 1930] period, that is actually equivalent to the one observed over recent [1970 – 1998] period.
Models only reproduce a warming trend of 0.06°C/decade that is almost 3 times lower than observed one.
(c) None of these models has been able to forecast the pause observed since 1998 neither the slight cooling observed since 2002: all of them have predicted a warming of 0.25°C minimum over the past 15 years.
It is actually unbelievable that NASA could have authorized and even supported such a poor scientific process that indeed constitutes a fraud with respect to its own processes and standards. By letting GISS fraudulent scientists publishing their unsubstantiated results and furiously advocating their (unproven) AGW dogma, NASA has put its own reputation at risk of public ridicule and distrust.
Luther Wu says:
““There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..”
–Wm. Shakespeare- Hamlet: Act1, Scene 5”
That’s only Quartos true. The Folio is our.
Hansen /physics
Just my little contribution to Luther’s “/” debate herein.
/humour
noaaprogrammer said on April 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm:
Which one? John Glenn the NASA astronaut, or John Glenn the Democrat politician?
Taphonomic says:
April 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“…”
__________
LOL
the earth started out HOT… It cooled
It has gone through many warming and cooling phases since then.
The last MAJOR warming phase was the one that melted the glaciers, that here in New England, extended out 300 miles into the Atlantic. The same glaciers that gave us all these rounded boulders and rocks.
When THAT warming occurred, man had not even tamed fire (If man was here at all) Who do ‘they’ blame THAT one on?
Steve says:
April 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm
the earth started out HOT… It cooled
It has gone through many warming and cooling phases since then.
The last MAJOR warming phase was the one that melted the glaciers, that here in New England, extended out 300 miles into the Atlantic. The same glaciers that gave us all these rounded boulders and rocks.
When THAT warming occurred, man had not even tamed fire (If man was here at all) Who do ‘they’ blame THAT one on?
___________________________________
Milankovitch
@ur momisugly Goldie “What is it precisely that defines a climate scientist as such?”
one of the 97% of course 😉
If you do not bow down to the AGW priests (Gore, Hansen et al), you are not considered a climate scientist.
(never did understand why that 97% wasn’t 100%……….. puzzled)
Seems NASA is really in the Slayer-camp. LOL!
http://climaterealists.com/?id=9309
Looks like Fox has gotten ahold of this story:
http://nation.foxnews.com/nasa/2012/04/10/global-warming-rebellion-rocks-nasa
Gail Combs says:
April 11, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“Milankovitch”
Even Wikipedia, however, allows that there are at several “problems” with the Milankovitch Cycle theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
read down.
[SNIP: You can post a comment when you learn some manners. -REP]