US: Government group endorses global warming models….
… which are worse than random numbers at explaining past data.
One cannot project future climate without some type of model for what it will be. In this case, the USGCRP examined a suite of nine climate models and selected two for the Assessment. One was the Canadian Climate Model, which forecast the most extreme warming for the 21st century of all models, and the other was from the Hadley Center at the U.K Met Office, which predicted the greatest changes in precipitation….
…we tested them on ten-year running means of annual temperature over the lower 48 states…
A model can’t do worse than explaining nothing, right?
Not these models! The differences between their predictions and the observed temperatures were significantly greater (by a factor of two) than what one would get just applying random numbers.
In other words, if you just drew the numbers from a hat you would be right more often than a ‘climate scientist’ using these ‘climate models’.
Surely there must be something even more scornful than quotation marks into which we can put these phrases!