And the
type of comparison they make in the paper you linked to is * not * comparing statistics
of the models with statistics
of the real
climate, but looking for *
actual correlations * between individual model realizations and the
actual climate — that's completely counter to the discussion we've just been having about chaos and probability.
Why isn't a TCR
type of simulation, but instead using
actual history and 200 year projected GHG levels in the atmosphere, that would produce results similar to a TCR simulation (at least for the AGW temp increase that would occur when the CO2 level is doubled) and would result in much less uncertainty than ECS (as assessed by
climate model dispersions), a more appropriate metric for a 300 year forecast, since it takes the
climate more than 1000 years to equilibrate to the hypothesized ECS value, and we have only uncertain methods to check the computed ECS value with
actual physical data?