What was done
"Climate system models [were] evaluated," in the words of the authors, "by examining the extent to which they simulate key features of the leading mode of interannual climate variability: El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)," which they describe as "a dominant pattern of ocean-atmosphere variability with substantial global climate impact," based on "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) simulations of twentieth-century climate."

What was learned
Different models were found to do well in some respects, but not so well in many others. For example, Joseph and Nigam report that climate models "are still [our italics] unable [our italics] to simulate many [our italics] features of ENSO variability and [our italics] its circulation and [our italics] hydroclimate teleconnections." In fact, they say the models have only "begun [our italics] to make inroads [our italics] in simulating key [our italics] features of ENSO variability."

What it means
Quoting the two scientists who made the evaluations, this study suggests that "climate system models are not quite ready for making projections of regional-to-continental scale hydroclimate variability and change." Indeed, it makes us wonder if they are ready to make any valid projections about anything, seeing they have fared so poorly with respect to simulating the "key [our italics] features of the leading [our italics] mode of interannual climate variability," which is "a dominant [our italics] pattern of ocean-atmosphere variability with substantial [our italics] global [our italics] climate impact."

Yet climate alarmists continue to say the science is settled????? Nothing could be further from the truth, especially since they base their claims on climate models. As Joseph and Nigam conclude, "predicting regional climate variability/change remains an onerous burden [our italics] on models."

Clearly, as demonstrated here, today's top models just can't cut it ... even in hindsight.