IPCC Climate Models Are Flawed - The Methodology Violates 89 of the 140 Principles of ForecastIng

[T J]

How Accurate is the IPCC Climate Forecast?

A paper written by J. Scott Armstrong (J. Scott Armstrong is a professor at the prestigious Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the widely used textbook Forecasting
Principles) shows the recent

IPCC climate models are flawed because the methodology used

violates 89 of the 140 principles of forecasting, [Failing just one invalidates the Forecast]

72 of which significantly alter the outcome of a forecast.

In his paper “Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” released June 23, 2007, Professor Armstrong has made the claim referring to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report


“We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming.

Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."

The IPCC freely admits that they don’t understand 20% of the variables involved in climate.

According to Professor Armstrong

in order to formulate an accurate forecast, one must understand 100% of the forces at work. Anything less then 100% is nothing more then guessing.

This principle has been tested by Taylor et al (2007) Taylor et al did a study of climate models for New Zealand for a period from May 2002 to April 2007 versus the actual temperature and precipitation.

The climate models were accurate only 48% of the time.

That is hardly a good track record.
[Like a Meaningless Coin Flip]

Dr Jim Renwick, who served on the IPCC first working group for the Fourth Assessment Report and serves on the

World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting,

reviewed the findings and
noted that they were correct.​

He further went on to say, “Climate prediction is hard, half of the
variability in the climate system is not predictable, so

we don't expect
to do terrifically well.”
​

Given the new information and the admissions of the IPCC, how can anyone take their prediction seriously.

It appears to be a guess at best.
​