On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote:
This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery > numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive > graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, > that's where the problem seems to be. > Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with some specificity -- for example, "no climate model has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years" (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term climate change. I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate science. Eric
