"A model is a good model if it:
1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
Thus, Roger Pielke Sr., prominent climate scientist concludes the obvious:
"With respect to the multi-decadal global climate models, it is clear they fail these requirements to be a “good model”."
As just about every sentinent being has now come to realize, the global climate models are absolute failures as tools for climate prediction/forecasting. It doesn't matter if the models are used for short-term predictions, or for the long-term, 100 year scenario-forecasts, the climate models are designed to fail. And no matter how much faster computers become, or how much greater the granularity of information achieved, the climate models will always fail since they don't meet the fundamental 'Hawking' requirements to be "good" models - it's not in their genes, so-to-speak.
As a result of this failure design and failure in accurate results, policymakers should find the following, necessary strategic decision to be one of relative ease: Instead of continuing to pour scarce resources into these massive model failures, the billions of funding to support climate models should be re-allocated to more important endeavors throughout the scientific research world, including those climate research projects that are more worthy.
Additional climate model postings.