Climate modeler Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS comments on the failure of models to
match real world observations.
Not exact matches
Within their paper, the pair details their development of a new algorithm that simulates the evaporation of water at the molecular scale that
matches theoretical, numerical, and
real -
world observations.
If
real -
world observations don't
match the models forecasting catastrophic species loss, why do you nonetheless side with models anyway?
Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the
real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes
match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.
Thus it is natural to look at the
real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes
match observations very well).
A simple comparison of
observations with projections based on
real world climate forcings shows a very close
match, especially if we take natural unforced variability into account as well (mainly ENSO).
Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the
real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes
match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.
Instead, we have a very good idea of what GHGs do to radiation, we have a reasonable idea of what aerosols and land use changes do, and we can look for fingerprints in the
real world observations that
match what we expect to have happened.
That could explain the resolute failure of
real world observations to
match model expectations and the failure to appear of the anticipated tropospheric «hot spot» that was expected as a marker for AGW.
For me that was as powerful as Richard Feyman's statement that no matter how beautiful a theory is, if the
real world does not
match the theory, then it is the theory that must go, not the
observations.
Since, without free parameters, and parameterizations calibrated (or fudged, if you like) to
match observed data (such as it is), models (the principle means of attribution) are unable to replicate
real world observations, then the statement above is obvious patent nonsense.
Firstly, on a factual matter, the OHC comparison which I published above...... was not intended to be a comparison with
real -
world observations, only a comparison with the GISS E ensemble mean result, which should correspond to the reported GISS E temperature profile which was simultaneously
matched.
So explain why the only experiment that matters (
real world observation) doesn't
match up to the computer climate models (and never has).