Crumbling Consensus: Global Climate Models Fail

Climate Science blog points us at an applied examination of the predictive ability and thus credibility of the climate models used by IPCC and others to establish the pseudo-religious case for runaway anthropogenic global warming, as published in the Hydrologic Sciences Journal. From the abstract:

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.

Having read through the report and their data, I'd say the use of the word "poorly" there is all too kind. From the conclusions:

At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality...The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible. Whether or not this conclusion extends to other locations requires expansion of the study, which we have planned. However, the poor GCM performance in all eight locations examined in this study allows little hope, if any. An argument that the poor performance applies merely to the point basis of our comparison, whereas aggregation at large spatial scales would show that GCM outputs are credible, is an unproved conjecture and, in our opinion, a false one.

Much much more about the fundamental flaws in both concept and application in the study. Some it should sound awful familiar, as I've been pointing out some of these truly BASIC flaws for years.

Much previous here, and some VERY tasty bad-model-snark slightly predating the release of this latest study here.