Not all that is performed in models is for the purpose of direct
comparison against observations.
Likewise, to properly represent internal variability, the full model ensemble spread must be used in
a comparison against the observations, as is well known from ensemble weather forecasting (e.g., Raftery et al., 2005).
Of those runs, how many would pass conventional regression statistical
comparisons against the observations is a very good question.
Likewise, to properly represent internal climate variability, the full model ensemble spread must be used in
a comparison against the observations (e.g., Box 9.2; Section 11.2.3.2; Raftery et al. (2005); Wilks (2006); Jolliffe and Stephenson (2011)-RRB-.
Not exact matches
This was established on the systematic
comparison between models» predictions with actual
observations obtained over almost one solar cycle (1998 — 2007) at four European ionospheric locations (Athens, Chilton, Juliusruh, and Rome) and on the
comparison of the models» performance
against two standard prediction strategies, the median - and the persistence - based predictions.
Arguing
against the model vs real world
comparison «Here Judith is (I think) referring to the mismatch between the ensemble mean (red) and the
observations (black) in that period... However, the
observations are well within the spread of the models and so could easily be within the range of the forced trend + simulated internal variability.»
In all, 73 climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project are plotted
against observations so that their respective 1979 - 2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models» results for
comparison to the
observations.»