IPCC proj's accurate. McI, McK and Curry NOT

[Abraham3]

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

Data vs. Guts
Curry and Co. deferred to McIntyre and McKitrick's gut feelings about Figure 1.4, and both of their guts were wrong. Curry has also defaulted to her gut feeling on issues like global warming attribution, climate risk management, and climate science uncertainties. Despite her lack of expertise on these subjects, she is often interviewed about them by journalists seeking to "balance" their articles with a "skeptic" perspective.

Here at Skeptical Science, we don't ask our readers to rely on our gut feelings. We strive to base all of our blog posts and myth rebuttals on peer-reviewed research and/or empirical data analysis. Curry, McIntyre, and McKitrick have failed to do the same.

When there's a conflict between two sides where one is based on empirical data, and the other is based on "Curry and McIntyre say so," the correct answer should be clear. The global climate models used by the IPCC have done a good job projecting the global mean surface temperature change since 1990.

Unless I missed it, we are STILL waiting for some of that empirical evidence from Westwall, SSDD, Daveman, FlaCalTenn or anyone else to support their oft-repeated charge that the IPCC's projections were seriously flawed.

 

[daveman]

You lie like a rug, boy. I've already provided evidence. You probably were too chickenshit to look at it, though, even though you posted in the thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html

 

[Abraham3]

I can provide you numerous studies that show popular models all doing a bang-up job of reproducing the past. It is a standard practice in the development of a GCM. Your article is analogous to a report that a well known car is not actually able to go around a turn. It will be discounted out of hand because its basic premise is known to be factually incorrect.

AGW is real.

 

[daveman]

I can provide you numerous studies that show popular models all doing a bang-up job of reproducing the past. It is a standard practice in the development of a GCM. Your article is analogous to a report that a well known car is not actually able to go around a turn. It will be discounted out of hand because its basic premise is known to be factually incorrect.

Sooo...you claim the peer-reviewed, published studies are wrong...because you don't LIKE them.

AGW is real.

Yes, you've made your ignorance of the scientific method quite clear.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate Past is not a refereed, peer-reviewed journal. More of a crowd-sourced affair. It's not bad, as far as it goes, but it's not Nature or Science or PNAS.

The article's conclusions are not exactly damning. Apparently the ensemble was not fully coherent. Wait. Have you actually read the paper? Here, the full text is available. Why don't you pull some bits and pieces from here that you believe say these models failed to reproduce the past with sufficient accuracy.

http://www.clim-past.net/9/1089/2013/cp-9-1089-2013.pdf