Devastating Critique of Climate Modeling

This Website posting (hat-tip NRO's Iain Murray) from Dr. R.A. Pielke Sr., a bona-fide climate scientist and author of a book on climate modeling, is just devastating to Global Warming alarmists. 
'That the (UN's) IPCC states that this (climate modelling) is a "much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now" is clearly a ridiculous scientific claim.'
Although there is a fair bit of scientific jargon, let's count the ways it refutes the UN IPCC:

1. This direct rebuttal from a leading climate modeler is ipso-facto evidence belying claims of "scientific consensus".



2. It correctly notes that climate models must, by definition, be more complicated than weather models. Long term factors such as ocean currents, changes in vegetation, the global economy, etc, which have no bearing on short term weather must be accounted for in climate models.  The sets of mathematical relations are thus inherently more complex, requiring more equations to account for these extra parameters, leaving more room for error.



3. "Tunable components" refers to non-dimensional coefficients or correction factors that are adjusted (tuned) so that the predictions of the equations fit the real world data with high fidelity. This is done to improve the models' accuracy for further predictions.  Despite the fact that weather models may be tuned quite frequently with real-world data, they still cannot predict accurately beyond four or five days.  In contrast, many years or decades must pass before the predictions of "multi-decade climate models" can be compared with empirical data for the purposes of "tuning".

But I found some of the most devastating revelations in the comments from other climate scientists:
"....we've been modeling the climate with supercomputers for more than a decade, why is there no public "scorecard" comparing predictions to actual reality? I think if we are going to base massive changes to the economy on the predictions of these models, they should at least make public predictions, a decade out, each year. Then we should be able to compare them to the previous year's predictions and climate measurements."
Dr. Pielke replies that he has previously called for testable climate model predictions to be verified (or not) with careful measurement of heat accumulating over time in the oceans -- with a weblink to that page of his site recording this request -- but his call has apparently fallen on deaf ears at the IPCC and among the climate modelling community at large.    Perhaps this further comment referring to Dr. Pielke's proposed test of climate models sums up the situation best:
"Thats the metric alright. But the energy-deprivation-crusaders aren't going to be signing up for this. Because they've been on a years-long evidence-filibuster."
This Website posting (hat-tip NRO's Iain Murray) from Dr. R.A. Pielke Sr., a bona-fide climate scientist and author of a book on climate modeling, is just devastating to Global Warming alarmists. 
'That the (UN's) IPCC states that this (climate modelling) is a "much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now" is clearly a ridiculous scientific claim.'
Although there is a fair bit of scientific jargon, let's count the ways it refutes the UN IPCC:

1. This direct rebuttal from a leading climate modeler is ipso-facto evidence belying claims of "scientific consensus".



2. It correctly notes that climate models must, by definition, be more complicated than weather models. Long term factors such as ocean currents, changes in vegetation, the global economy, etc, which have no bearing on short term weather must be accounted for in climate models.  The sets of mathematical relations are thus inherently more complex, requiring more equations to account for these extra parameters, leaving more room for error.



3. "Tunable components" refers to non-dimensional coefficients or correction factors that are adjusted (tuned) so that the predictions of the equations fit the real world data with high fidelity. This is done to improve the models' accuracy for further predictions.  Despite the fact that weather models may be tuned quite frequently with real-world data, they still cannot predict accurately beyond four or five days.  In contrast, many years or decades must pass before the predictions of "multi-decade climate models" can be compared with empirical data for the purposes of "tuning".

But I found some of the most devastating revelations in the comments from other climate scientists:
"....we've been modeling the climate with supercomputers for more than a decade, why is there no public "scorecard" comparing predictions to actual reality? I think if we are going to base massive changes to the economy on the predictions of these models, they should at least make public predictions, a decade out, each year. Then we should be able to compare them to the previous year's predictions and climate measurements."
Dr. Pielke replies that he has previously called for testable climate model predictions to be verified (or not) with careful measurement of heat accumulating over time in the oceans -- with a weblink to that page of his site recording this request -- but his call has apparently fallen on deaf ears at the IPCC and among the climate modelling community at large.    Perhaps this further comment referring to Dr. Pielke's proposed test of climate models sums up the situation best:
"Thats the metric alright. But the energy-deprivation-crusaders aren't going to be signing up for this. Because they've been on a years-long evidence-filibuster."