Climate models are mathematical experiments. There are thousands of models that study hundreds of different aspects of climate. Since each run of each model is a separate experiment and we cannot wait 30 or 50 years each result, we can only evaluate models based on well they work in replicating conditions for which we do have data.
The concept is not complicated. For example, some models are developed using only data prior to 1900. We then run the experiment to see how well the model solutions for the years after 1900 reproduce the actual data values.
The study you reference (i.e., that you mindlessly and without understanding lifted from WUWT) is a coupled model with high and low resolution components developed specifically to study current cold season hydroclimate and the coupled responses to hypothetical forcing mechanisms.
Your statement >>A new model that falls in line with current snow conditions,<< proves that you have not read and do not understand the report. In fact, the low- and high-resolution solutions do not both fall in line with current conditions - nor do they always produce the same snowfall projections.
The fact that you are ignorant and uninformed is no big deal. The fact that you are ignorant and uninformed - and have the same Holier-than-arrogance as a lame-brained cult member - is a problem. Of course, it is your problem and not ours. You haven't been wearing your tinfoil hat the prescribed number of hours per day, have you?
=====
edit ---
So, I read a few of your answers. Some are quite reasonable and I may have unfairly lumped you in with the "Thinking Makes My Head Hurt" Clan. Nevertheless, you are wrong in your understanding of the role models play in climate science and in science, generally. AGW theory is not based on computer models of climate - although, combined with scientific theory and empirical data, such models do provide a strong case that CO2 is driving the recent warming trend.
======
James --
>>a new model that creates yet another theoretical paradox with AGW theory? <<
>>Does this make anyone else dizzy trying to keep up with this crap<<
You head will clear some if you remember: (1) No model creates a theoretical anything - it is just an experiment; in the case of global warming, it is a mathematical probabilistic experiment whose true outcome will not be known for decades; (2) all models are not intended or designed to do the same thing; (3) models neither prove nor disprove theories (and "proof" is not a scientific concept, anyway); and, (4) climate models provide supporting evidence for AGW theory, but AGW theory is not based on - and does not depend on - computer models. The models are just an indirect way to manipulate variables in order to better understand the big question by learning how the different parts work
>>the problem is that predictions and projections from these models have failed 100%<<
In a trivial sense, that is true. Since predictions are probabilistic, there is not - and can never be - a finite solution for the simple reason that it is not mathematically possible. If such a solution existed, there would be no reason to use models.
In reality, they have not failed 100% (although, for the same reason noted above, it is not mathematically possible to ever know whether something fails or succeeds 100% of the time). Models have successfully reproduced climate conditions over time periods where we have actual climate data and know what the outcome should be.
"Models" in science are not bad things. Newton's Law of Gravity is a model; the movement of the planets in our solar system is a model; the "atom" is a model; "cells" are models; and things like [y = 2(x) + 1] is a model (it is a model of a straight line with a slope = 2 and a y-intercept = 1).
When you went to school, at times there was a test with the answers on the last page. Cheaters would sneak a peek. Ha! Ha! Sounds about like the same thing.
Making models match results is how science works. That is how the figure out how much such factors as the Sun, aerosols and carbon dioxide effect temperature; by checking the models for which values for these parameters match what has actually happened.
So, now we have NOAA actually conceding that the ice caps aren't going to melt thus creating a new model that creates yet another theoretical paradox with AGW theory? Does this make anyone else dizzy trying to keep up with this crap?
"Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us"
Quoting directly from the abstract...
"At the regional scale, the high and low-resolution models sometimes diverge in the sign of projected snowfall changes; the high-resolution model exhibits future increases in a few select high altitude regions, notably the northwestern Himalaya region and small regions in the Andes and southwestern Yukon. Despite such local signals, there is an almost universal reduction in snowfall as a percent of total precipitation in both models. "
That's good, it's testable... no 'probably', 'might' or 'may'.
For Gringo...
It's better to look at what the paper says, not what the media says it says.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
Don't worry. They'll have a new model that contradicts this model out next month.
One cannot link to WUWT as a news source and expect to be taken serious here on YA, at least not by the 24/7 skeptics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/new-model-says-more-snow-at-poles-less-elsewhere-due-to-co2/
A new model that falls in line with current snow conditions, Hmm what is it now, are we going to have more snow, less snow, melting ice caps, or bigger ice caps, rising sea levels or falling sea levels.
Making models to match with results seem stupid to me, why don't we just go by results.
