Open Access[Comment on “On award to Crichton”] On the validity climate models
Author(s) -
Phillips Thomas,
AchutaRao Krishna,
Bader David,
Covey Curtis,
Gleckler Peter,
Sperber Kenneth,
Taylor Karl
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
eos, transactions american geophysical union
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.316
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 2324-9250
pISSN - 0096-3941
DOI - 10.1029/2007eo100005
Subject(s) - benchmark (surveying) , climate model , cites , observational study , model validation , econometrics , climate change , psychology , climatology , meteorology , computer science , data science , mathematics , geography , statistics , geology , ecology , cartography , oceanography , biology
We object to contributor Kevin Corbett's assertions, in his article “On award to Crichton” (Eos, 87(43), 464, 2006), that “Too often now, models are taken as data and their results taken as fact, when the accuracy of the models in predicting even short‐term effects is poor and the fundamental validity for most climate models is opaque…” Corbett cites (among other references) our Eos article “Coupled climate model appraisal: A benchmark for future studies” [Phillips et al, 2006], implying that our findings support his remarks. In fact, our evaluation of model simulations relative to observational data leads us to very different conclusions.