Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no.
Yes.
I already explained how twice, so feel free to reread my last few posts.
I already explained why you are wrong twice, so feel free to reread my last few posts.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html
A journal totally and explicitly devoted to promotion of AGW nonscience...
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution.
Which is correct and honest.
Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations.
Which is false and dishonest, as it assumes
actual empirical observations are "only one realization" -- as if empirical observations are of no more scientific import than another model run.
We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
IOW, they took models that couldn't forecast, and at least made them hindcast.
Sorry, but that's not empirical science. It's just model tweaking.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html
Nature is totally in thrall to AGW screamers.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.
IOW, they have added a tweak to a model that couldn't forecast, and at least made it hindcast.
We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.
"Novel"? There's nothing novel about correcting an incorrect forecast by substituting actual observations for incorrect predictions ex post facto.
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling.
So when temperature rises, that's CO2, but when it stops rising despite continued exponential increase in CO2 concentration, that's natural variability...?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Assuming solar activity stays near multi-millennial highs...
So, the climate models are constantly being improved, to the point where they can even account for short term behaviour, such as a hiatus lasting about a decade.
At least when tweaked for hindcasting....
In fact, any objective analysis of the evidence seems to show that the climate models are generally correct.
They're obviously wildly wrong. No amount of tweaked hindcasting can make up for their uniform record of failed forecasting.