* *一些比较表明,历史模型不能很好预测观察到温度* *这张照片从[自然文章][1]是最清晰的分析,避免了各种陷阱可能当看着噪声时间序列数据:[![自然图表][2]][2]的选择由这些作者比较只是变暖在一段时间内的平均程度,而不是吵闹的时间序列。这似乎避免一些选择让时间序列比较模糊和争议。他们的结果似乎表明,大多数模型确实高估近年来气候变暖的实际数量。用他们的话说:>最近观察到全球变暖的显著低于气候模型模拟。作者更详细地讨论这样的统计数据(我强调):>的证据,因此,*表示目前的气候模型(运行时作为一个群体,规定CMIP5营力)不再现观察过去20年,全球变暖或放缓全球变暖在过去十五年*。这个解释支持零假设所观察到的统计检验和模型意味着趋势是相等的,假设:(1)模型相互交换(即“真理+错误”视图);或(2)模型相互交换和观察(见补充信息)。观测和模拟20年趋势p值之间的差异(补充信息),降至接近于零假设下1993 - 2012(1)和0.04假设(2)(图2)。这里我们注意,p值越小,越强对零假设的证据。在此基础上,1993 - 2012的罕见趋势不同的假设下(1)是显而易见的。 Under assumption (2), this implies that *such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years*, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012. In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal. The conclusion is that most models (or, perhaps, most results from the ensemble of models) predict more warming that has actually happened. Whether this is a significant problems for models will become more obvious in the next few years as observational data accumulates. NB It should be noted that this view is controversial though it originated from the mainstream climate science community not the climate skeptic community so should not be dismissed out of hand. [1]: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309 [2]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/VYfUt.jpg