Pielke Sr. takes apart Michael Mann’s recent interview on climate models with Scientific American.
Prof. Roger Pielke writes,
Mike [Mann] does not properly distinguish between the types of modeling. When airplanes or cars are built, the engineers are testing their models using real world airplanes and cars, as well as with wind tunnel evaluations. They can ground-truth their models.
With respect to atmospheric modeling, numerical modeling prediction of the weather for the coming days is ground-truthing, as the forecasts can be compared with real-world observations just a few days later.
With multi-decadal climate predictions, they can only realistically be tested from past climate conditions, unless we wait for the coming decades to pass. Even in the hindcast mode, however, the global climate models (whether downscaled to regions or not) have failed to predict changes in the statistics of regional climate. I invite any climate scientist to present evidence on my weblog (as an unedited guest post] that refutes this conclusion.
Read Pielke Sr.’s, “Comment On The Scientific American Interview By David Biello Titled “Michael Mann Defends Climate Computer Models.”
Dont forget they are aiding a Globalist Agenda,–an agenda that doesn’t CARE how accurate the pronouncement is, simply throw the BS out there and see what sticks,imo.
Pielke is correct. Multi-decadol model never suffers the slings and arrows of daily defeat, and if the longer term monthly to yearly models are any indication, they simply react to what is happening and are incapable of seeing a change. If one watches the US enso models, bad would be kind to describe them and is the reason you see noaa doing things like declaring la ninas over in May when anyone that has any knowledge of cold pdo cold enso events know they last on average 21 months. And of course NASA and NCEP models back in may showed no return of the nina ( the JMA blows our models away constantly, btw)
The problem with climatologists is simple They think they know without doing….in other words, they dont verify an idea for decades, so there is no sting of defeat to correct them. In operational meteorology, in the private sector, you get fired if you are not correct enough for the client to see merit, and you quickly see how bad shorter and monthly models are. That someone can assume the error will “wash out” is laughable.. and ignorant and shows the arrogance of people who never had to actually confront their errors