08 Mar '17 15:10>
I created this thread because of humy and his assertion that climate models that predict the past are accurate. Here is a humy quote:
"Why "only future predictions"? The proof is that the best models have made all the necessary correct predictions in the past, moron."
The irony is that "predicting the past" is an oxymoron. Only a fool would endorse such non-predictions as accurate. After all, if it takes 20 failures to adjusting the input to where it finally matches up does anybody really think that should be considered a success?
A future prediction (real prediction) has to be right the first time. There is no trial and error until you stumble onto it. Who in their right mind would consider past predictions proof of climate model accuracy?
"Why "only future predictions"? The proof is that the best models have made all the necessary correct predictions in the past, moron."
The irony is that "predicting the past" is an oxymoron. Only a fool would endorse such non-predictions as accurate. After all, if it takes 20 failures to adjusting the input to where it finally matches up does anybody really think that should be considered a success?
A future prediction (real prediction) has to be right the first time. There is no trial and error until you stumble onto it. Who in their right mind would consider past predictions proof of climate model accuracy?