Even though I spend a lot of free time reading up on various aspects of AGW and looking at a whole variety of internet resources (and trash dumps) ~ I’m constantly reminded of how many great resources I miss.  This gem is dated August 2010 put together by Barton Paul Levenson and I just found it today. 

And like a rock hound who’s just picked up a beautiful specimen I want to share. 

Are the Models Untestable?
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are “untestable” or “have no predictive ability.” In the words of “Mug Wump” on the amazon.com Science Discussion Forum “Global Warming is Nothing but a Hoax and a Scare Tactic:”
{...}

Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

  •  That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
  •  That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
  •  That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
  •  That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
 
  •  Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
  •  That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
  •  The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
  •  They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
 
  •  They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
  •  The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
  •  The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
  •  The expansion of the Hadley cells.
 
  •  The poleward movement of storm tracks.
  •  The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
  •  The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
  •  The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
  •  That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
{...}
References for Predictions and Confirming Observations . . .

And then it gets interesting because Barton Paul Levenson goes on to list the studies with full citations. 
A heck of a resource for some.

C’mon citizenschallenge, yesterday was the coldest 9th of June since 5 years. Those scientists in their ivory towers! Time they stand firmly on the ground, instead with their heads in the clouds.

(Driving away in a 1l to 5km SUV…)

GdB - 10 June 2012 12:15 AM

C’mon citizenschallenge, yesterday was the coldest 9th of June since 5 years. Those scientists in their ivory towers! Time they stand firmly on the ground, instead with their heads in the clouds.

(Driving away in a 1l to 5km SUV…)

holly sheit coldest in five years  
yippy, I didn’t want to see those glaciers melting away, anyways.

This is one of the major problems with people.  We see one event and immediately extrapolate it to answer an entire problem.  Saying June 9th was the coldest in five years seems to trying to show that all the other data is probably incorrect.  Sort of like someone saying, “I have $30.00 in my wallet, so we can figure that everyone has $30.00 in their wallets.”

Essentially every curve showing economic, health, weather, etc. events over time has peaks and dips.  The way to extract meaningful data is to measure the overall slope and size of the data, not pick one of the peaks or valleys that “proves” or “disproves” the general view.

Occam

Right, Occam. Like those idiots on Faux News during the"Snowmageddon” storm in Washington a couple of years ago. A friend of mine posted a picture on FB from them where they showed Al Gore’s book buried in over 20 inches of snow, because, you know, that proved that GW is a hoax. Geez.

true, true.

but let’s be fair, I’m pretty dang sure GdB was making a little joke there.

One of the BOINC modules that people can run does a comparison between historical weather data and current climate models.  The goal is to see if the predictions made by the models match what really happened.  Its of limited use, however, because for much of human history the weather data is sketchy at best.