Comparing to a set of model broadens the span of results and give an impression of agreement «within the error bars», but
actually none of the model (nor the average) seems to provide a really satisfactory fit.
Not exact matches
But we're
actually shocked to hear that
none of them are Sports Illustrated swimsuit
models, supermodels or Victoria Secret's
models, but hey, the day is young and there's lot
of casting still to come, right?
The answer to the latter question is easy:
none, since the concept
of feedbacks is just something used to try to make sense
of what a
model does, and does not
actually enter into the formulation
of the
model itself.
Actually you never answered to my question for the very good reason that
none of the climate
models has ever been formally validated.
But
actually none of the Climate
Models has ever been subjected to a real Verification & Validation process (for the very good reason that they would all have failed!).
If the only evidence we have for AGW are the
model projections and
none of them predicted what is
actually happening, how can anyone predict a resumption in warming in 10, 20 or 30 years.
One
of the main problem that, Girma and NIPCC forgot to point out, is that
none of the climate
models is able to reproduce this general pattern, which
actually formally invalidate all
of them!
* the break is not at the right date: there is no theoretical break around 1940 where the observations obviously seem to break, and there is no clear observed feature around 1963 (Agung explosion) where the
model break —
actually none of the volcanic eruptions shows a distinctive feature, as significative as in the
models.
For example, while all
of the global climate
models participating in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report show a decline in Arctic sea ice over the period
of available observations,
none of them match the severity
of the trends we
actually observe.