A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish.

I do not place much stock in any of the models to accurately predict the future.

Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future.

We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion.

But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered. 

The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:



The highlighted portion is as good a repudiation of your intelligence as anything you could otherwise say. The climate models have predicted many things and gotten every single one wrong by stellar margins. They predicted continuous temperature rises and instead we have had near plateaued temperatures for near 20 years. They predicted massive melting of the poles and instead, they are now growing again. They predicted 6M rises in  sea level by 2020. So far it is be 0.1M.

They are not only dead wrong but have OVERSTATED climate change by truly massive proportions.  Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous and exposes you as an ideologue rather than a think of any kind.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:


Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog.

Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/
Quote:


Armchair denialists live in a strange world where they think that there is a great worldwide plot by scientists to defraud governments by telling them lies in order to obtain research funds. (I presume to find out the truth.)

Go figure.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:


Denizen lee is skating on thin ice.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:


John are your serious...!!!!

You don't think research institutions would jump aboard the gravy train that calls itself Anthropogenic Global Warming Science to replenish their funds and keep their jobs.

Just the bank of America handed out 50 million dollars.

If you seriously think institutions that need funding wouldn't put their hand out when all they have to say is yes human Co2 emissions are the cause, then you are a very naïve person indeed.

That's what leads to statement with suffixes 
"where only 38% sure".

Hey Sun_tzu the models are wrong, see the graph below....case closed.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:


Just pointing out the truth.

CO2 and temperature don't correlate never have in the past and probably never will in the future.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:54pm:



'After decades griping about the poor coding skills of scientists he knew, Wilson decided to see how widespread the problem was. In 2008, he and his colleagues conducted an online survey of almost 2,000 researchers, from students to senior academics, who were working with computers in a range of sciences. What he found was worse than he had anticipated1 (see 'Scientists and their software'). "There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are." '

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html

So the problem is not merely within Australia.