For information: [I have posted this elsewhere ] ------------------------------------
Apropos of climate studies: Here is Dr Roger Pielke Sr on a recent paper in the Journal of Climate. The paper used "high resolution weather prediction models". For "the eastern United States", these regional models "predicted" very much higher temperatures "for five future summers" than did the global model from which the regional models were derived.
Dr Pielke listed some "remarkably serious shortcomings of the model study". His final para reads:
"Equally disturbing (or it should be to anyone who values scientific credibility) is that a peer reviewed journal elected to publish this paper in this form in which untested predictions for decades into the future were presented, yet the global and regional model could not even skillfully simulate recent climate[emphasis added]. The publication of such clearly scientifically flawed research conclusions raises questions on whether the journal (in this case the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate) is engaging in advocacy rather than being a balanced arbitrator of peer reviewed papers. Publishing predictions which are not tested, is not science."
------------------------------------------
I highlight two points: 1. Senior scientists — not Dr Pielke alone — have serious reservations about using global climate models 2. Some climate studies at least have to be taken with a pinch of salt. But only knowledgeable scientists can detect these. All that lay inquirers can do is remain aware that there do exist well-based problems in climate studies.
