That is, the modellers in the IPCC stable do NOT have the latitude to mimic climate on their own terms – hence their lack of success.

http://www.oarval.org/Scafetta_thumb.png

And all Dan has to do is point to the success of his model over time (something the IPCC cannot come close to at present):-

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Verification%20Dan%20P.pdf

That should be a doddle for Dan given the HadCRUT3/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96.

The IPCC has a stable of models (an “ensemble”). All using the same IPCC RF methodology and forcing expressions. All using the same RCP scenarios. And ALL (except one in an update of 38) are on the wrong trajectory:-

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

Sure, Einstein pulled it off, but I rather suspect Einstein would not have wasted his time on this site…

BTW, Dick, the IPCC does not have any GCMs, as the IPCC does no research or modelling; it simply reports on the work of others.

Whose model beats the socks (and pants) off the IPCC GCMs.

So does Scafetta’s (“in a peer-reviewed climate journal” no less).

So does a ‘Monkey Mean’ polynomial projection.

Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased by 25.6% of the increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature trend is flat thru 2011 (slightly down if you include the part of 2012 that has been reported so far). How much wider will this separation between the rising carbon dioxide level and not rising temperature trend need to get for you and the rest of the ‘consensus’ to realize that you are egregiously wrong and have misled the rest of the world?

Humanity has wasted over 100 billion (with a B) dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it.

You are apparently unable to fathom that an engineer, using a desk top computer, some science and a little engineering, could figure out what the ‘consensus’ has failed to do. My equation calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with an accuracy of over 88%. When calibrated to measurements thru 1965 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2005 within 0.054°C. When calibrated thru 1995 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2011 within 0.002°C. The ‘consensus’ would be ecstatic to do anywhere near this well.

A graph of. the average global temperature prediction through 2037 is shown in the pdf made public 11/24/11. The land temperature will cool about twice as fast.

So we can add the Monkey Mean to the list of in-the-money predictions.

http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/SST_table.html

Given ENSO3.4 has just dipped back below the 0,5 El Nino threshold, about half the models are out-of-the-money and Tisdale asks:-

Hey, Where’d The El Niño Go?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-asks-hey-whered-the-el-nino-go/

Hansen and local pundit Gareth Renowden were predicting (hoping for) a strong El Nino to get warming back on track (and validate the IPCC models) so this development must be disconcerting for them.

As it is, a weak El Nino looks good for Scafetta and if conditions revert back to La Nina by the end of the year then Dan Pangburn might be worth a bet.

The answer to that will be resolved over time by monitoring the performance of models (e.g. IPCC CMIP5, Scafetta, Pangburn) against observations.

If one of the above (it will ONLY be one because they’re predicting different outcomes) is successful then Tom Harris will be wrong.

At present, only Scafetta is in-the-money with Pangburn close and the IPCC out of the race (on another course entirely) but time will tell.