A Six-Word Memoir® is the story of your life—some part of it or all of it—told in exactly six words.

In classrooms and boardrooms, churches and synagogues, veteran's groups and across the dinner table, Six-Word Memoirs have become a powerful tool to catalyze conversation, spark imagination or simply break the ice.

Here on Six Words, we offer a simple platform to share the short, sharp story of your life, as well as provide daily prompts to share your six-word takes on the topics of our times.

More than half a million short stories have been shared here and on SmithTeens. Read more about six.

So give six a try—and make your words count.

X CLOSE

Six Word Memoirs
Social Buttons Facebook Twitter Tumblr Pinterest YouTube

SIX WORD » PLANET

Climate model predictions, throwing darts better!

by thepariah on June 14, 2012   |  FacebooktwitterTumblr


Then in 2008 and 2010, a team of hydrologists at the National Technical University of Athens published a pair of studies comparing long-term (100-year) temperature and precipitation trends in a total of 55 locations around the world to model projections. The models performed quite poorly at the annual level, which was not surprising. What was more surprising was that they also did poorly even when averaged up to the 30-year scale, which is typically assumed to be the level they work best at. They also did no better over larger and larger regional scales. The authors concluded that there is no basis for the claim that climate models are well-suited for long-term predictions over large regions.

A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative, consisting simply of using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.

The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”

To repeat, RANDOM projections of local or regional climate are better at actually predicting what is going to happen than the 'scientific' models used by the alarmists who keep screaming 'the sky is falling' only to be proven wrong time and again.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/

h/t sonofsoylentgreen wattsupwiththat tom nelson

COMMENTS

 
Six Word Memoirs Logo
Powered by Smith Magazine