Climate Models are WORSE than random guesses!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,972
    Thanks Received:
    7,975
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,721
    In a paper published in the Journal of Forecasting the researchers found that computer models of climate change were significantly worse at prediction than random guesses.

    Veeeeryy interesting...if you care about science that is.




    The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.

    The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”……




    http://nikolaos.kourentzes.com/papers/Climate_Fildes_Kourentzes.pdf
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    Well, we prefer to call them "Scientific Wild Ass Guesses".
     
  3. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    You don't expect warmers to comment on this do you? Considering that everything the present as proof of AGW is the result of one or another of those piss poor models.
     
  4. Ariux
    Offline

    Ariux BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,727
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +184
    "Science" can be less accurate than random guesses when an agenda becomes involved.
     
  5. skookerasbil
    Online

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,217
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,221


    What Ive been saying for over ten years


    Go google any hurricane for the past 10 years and check out the track projection models = beyond laughable. A blindfolded dart thrower may well be as accurate.


    But the k00ks blindly buy this shit :blowup::blowup::blowup::blowup::blowup:
     

Share This Page