Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause in warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might last until 2025. Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be? Of course, with hindsight, they suggest that there is an, until now, unknown Atlantic current effect which explains the pause.
How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct in their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track record? Are you confident that they now have all the correct variables under control? With the sort of error that has arisen, it is entirely possible that they have missed the boat completely and we might actually be heading into a cooling period. They do not merit a free pass like some seem to imply. Also, it does not take an advanced degree or the requirement that a skeptic be a climatologist to evaluate their work. Their model outputs are their contact to the public and decision makers and anyone can observe how poorly their predictions match the real world data. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> 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
