To: Eric who wrote (75679 ) 3/25/2017 1:28:35 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to Recent Research Shows Climate Models Are Mostly “Black Box” Fudging, Not Real Science P Gosselin on 24. March 2017 Climate models fail on the test stand By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz VahrenholtModel tests were preferably started in the middle of the Little Ice Age, around 1800, because the warming seemed to fit well with the rise in CO2 emissions. But if one goes back 1000 years, the model technology falls apart. That's why Michael Mann tried to get rid of the MWP. Didn't fit the models so claim it didn't happen. ] Fabius Maximus pointed out the obvious: The models have to be more strictly tested and calibrated before they can be approved for modeling the future.We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate & win: test the models! — with includes a long list of cites (with links) to the literature about this topic. This post shows that such a test is in accord with both the norms of science and the work of climate scientists. […] Models should be tested vs. out of sample observations to prevent “tuning” the model to match known data (even inadvertently), for the same reason that scientists run double-blind experiments). The future is the ideal out of sample data, since model designers cannot tune their models to it. Unfortunately…note in Journal of Climate , December 2005.The models from the first four IPCC assessment reports can be run with observations made after their design (from their future, our past) — a special kind of hindcast.” climate models are adjusted so that they nearly produce the desired result. This takes part mostly in clandestine rooms behind closed doors where there is little transparency Hourdin et al. 2016 described the problem in detail in an assessment paper. Judith Curry sums it up best:Climate model tuning , excerpts: “Arguably the most poorly documented aspect of climate models is how they are calibrated, or ‘tuned.’ I have raised a number of concerns in my Uncertainty Monster paper and also in previous blog posts.The existence of this paper highlights the failure of climate modeling groups to adequately document their tuning/calibration and to adequately confront the issues of introducing subjective bias into the models through the tuning process.” Every climate model manages to accurately reproduce the 20th century global warming, in spite of the fact that that the climate sensitivity to CO2 among these models varies by a factor of two. How is this accomplished? Climate Etc .Science, Paul Voosen described the necessity of ending all the secrecy and black boxes in order to allow some public transparency :Climate scientists open up their black boxes to scrutiny For years, climate scientists have tuned their parameterizations so that the model overall matches climate records. But fearing criticism by climate skeptics, they have largely kept quiet about how they tune their models, and by how much. That is now changing. By writing up tuning strategies and making them publicly available for the first time, groups hope to learn how to make their predictions more reliable—and more transparent.”- See more at: notrickszone.com
