Pierre L. Gosselin at NoTricksZone has posted an article about the Austrian weather service admitting, well at least in effect, there is a problem with models, at least the computer climate kind.
Staggering Concessions By Austria’s National Weather Service: “Natural Factors Substantial…Models Inadequate”!
By P Gosselin on 27. November 2013
A November 11, 2013 press release by Austria’s national weather service, the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), somehow got by me. And not surprisingly it was completely ignored by the German-language mainstream media. It’s titled: “Slower temperature increase: climate models under scrutiny“.
In the introduction the ZAMG writes:
If one compares the temperature development of the last 15 years to the simulations from the new climate model generation, then one sees a substantial deviation between reality and model: the so-called temperature hiatus.”
I wonder what the major would make of all this fuss today? He was proud of his country, teach others how to handle snow.
h/t to A C Osborn on Suggestions
And then a little later oldbrew adds “Is it any wonder?” plus a link to a June article by Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/16/what-are-climate-models-missing/
Post by Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I posted this video link in suggestions a few days ago. A press conference at the IPCC summit by a chapter lead author, Dr Jochem Marotzke, where he makes a full and frank admission that the models are at odds with the pause and are therefore wrong:
From 17:55 to 25:45 minutes.
I believe his admission goes even deeper than the ZAMG admission.
Obviously the ”temperature development ” needs adjustment to match up with the models. I’m sure there are those with such skills in the climate science fraternity.
Johnbuk says: November 28, 2013 at 3:28 pm
NCDC & GISS are trying very hard to do just that.
See this post
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/smoking-gun-that-ncdc-data-adjustments-are-incorrect/
A C Osborn yes I’m sorry I should have added the sarc tag!
Computational climate models’ failure to exhibit observed interhemispheric symmetry in reflected shortwave radiation is a much more serious issue, than deviation from climate projections for a few decades. It indicates directly some missing physics in theory underlying all models, not just implementation bugs, therefore it is not even correctable until a general theory of irreproducible quasy stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems emerges, backed by actual experiments performed on members of said class.
Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 2 (January 2013)
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00132.1
The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance
Aiko Voigt, Bjorn Stevens, Jürgen Bader and Thorsten Mauritsen
No pause or missing heat, which both imply something that has no proven existence.
More like false assumptions, dodgy data and biased guesswork catching up with the modellers.
The link given by Berényi Péter (November 28, 2013 at 4:32 pm) could be an important puzzle piece.
Tim,
“Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 2 (January 2013)
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00132.1
The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance
Aiko Voigt, Bjorn Stevens, Jürgen Bader and Thorsten Mauritsen”
This paper is looking at the same reflectability which would be the same since the system of rotation and tilting is the same….
BUT, it never has taken into consideration, the difference of landmass to ocean surface is far greater in the northern hemisphere of landmass. This WOULD mean more absorption of heat and dispersion is delaying of heat back while the southern hemisphere would have a great deal more reflection.
Still a few areas NOT looked into is Nitrogens heat difference at rest in the gases and it’s massive temperature difference heated and salinity.
“Burlutskii (Sonechkin and Burlutskiy, 2005) has shown that changes in the hemisphere-average surface pressure for two hemispheres are specularly symmetric. If air pressure increases in the Northern Hemisphere, it decreases in the Southern hemisphere by the same value (the coefficient of correlation is -0.94). He has shown that changes in the global surface pressure are in close correlation with changes in the amount of water vapor in the global atmosphere.The mass of the entire dry atmosphere is constant. Changes in the atmospheric mass are mainly due to changes in the amount of water vapor in it. Hence, the variations in the mean global value of the surface pressure are the reliable indicators of variations in the global value of water vapor in the atmosphere, the latter value significantly affects the temperature of the surface layer of the atmosphere.”