Good to see that Kininmonth is still trying to make his voice heard above the noise. There have always been doubts about those models, but climate scientists just brush those doubts aside by claims that - after much pushing and poking of variables - they managed to get the models to emulate the past few decades of climate history. Never mind that they cannot point to any record of reliable forecasts - look at how the model performed against known climate history!

Surprised a new journal ran the article though.. in the current climate (pun intended) that instantly labels it..

Hardly all that surprising! After all, the fossil fuel industry rakes in over four trillion and rising a year; and easily able to afford very favorable paid comment!?
Even so Don and regardless, who cares (gives a rats) who is right or wrong, when simply doing nothing is not an option; and or, all we really need is a rational approach; and an, its the economy stupid, (first and always) paradigm!
What could possibly be wrong with industrial power prices halved by switching to cheaper than coal, thorium?
Which if rolled out attached to industry specific micro grids, could at least halve the current cost of, vastly more reliable and secure, localized industrial energy!
Forget the fact, that there's little or no carbon production included; it's entirely immaterial!
Simply put, this carbon free energy supply; and Aussie invented direct reduction, would enable lowest costing, [lowest carbon footprint in the world,] steel! Ditto aluminum!
Do you have a problem with that or a completely resuscitated local manufacturing base Don?
And what would be the problem with domestic power prices reduced by around 75%, with a conversion to locally produced carbon neutral biogas, driving individually located onsite ceramic fuel cells?
And what's the problem with endless free hot water!? [Apple has cottoned on!]
Perhaps it just because these vastly cheaper options deal out the largely foreign owned and controlled coal industry; (your bosom billionaire buddies?) and or, show the rest of the world, the better (coal free) way, that management always teaches, is a given!
Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door; ditto lowest costing energy!
Just set aside the fact that's it's also clean, and we'll make a completely lucid, debunking rationalist out of you yet Don?
Coal exports at basement bargain fire sale prices, have only become necessary, because we've completely failed to protect and grow our manufacturing base!
Which if properly resuscitated, rationally decentralized and largely based on regional recycling, will succor us (our Grandkids) when the mineral export industry is little more than a few dozen holes in the ground!
Rhrosty.

So a right wing think tank sets up a "science" journal and low and behold it's full of ring wing think tank talking points supporting their sponsors positions.

They should have just published it in creation science journal, they are taking a similar line I hear.

HA Ha scrap my last comment they more or less have they other article is a creationist paper. So Don are pushing intelligent design now as well, or does this just point to the quality of the paper about climate models, that the only place it can get published is in a journal like that. Gee i wonder what real scientist think of his paper?

http://inference-review.com/introduction

"The editors of Inference would prefer to remain anonymous."

Says it all really.

now that the prophets have been proven wrong we have the new mantra 'heat hiding in the ocean'. How long do with have to put up with the taxpayer funding this propaganda? No wonder 'science' is given a bad name.

Hold the press! Important new information is coming in!

Yes, sure.

From an author with a pedigree including claiming to be a climate scientist, since repudiated publicly by hs former employer, the ABM.

Who has pestered the world since retirement with one-sided arguments about climate science.

Whose last and only known peer reviewed article appeared 42 years back, on something unrelated to climate scientist.

With no new facts, only warmed over, previously refuted opinions.

Published in a magazine that didn't exist yesterday and probably won't tomorrow, with an intentionally anonymous editorial panel.

Sorry, Don, but in your previous life in academia, such a source would never be quoted or even held up as being credible.

Why do so now?

I'm sure Bill Kinimonth knows what he is talking about but it seems from Don's summary that Bill does little to address the commonest causes of attacks on climate science, namely, that the science emanates from these things called 'computer models' and those soulless computers simply cannot be trusted.

Computers are used in modelling because they have the capacity to solve multiple mathematical equations that cannot be solved by their extremely human generators. The poor old computer merely does what it's told to do - with great power.

According to Don's account, Bill sets about listing some of the uncertainties in those equations that reflect uncertainties in the understanding of climate science. Fair enough. Scientists have always conceded that they don't know everything about climate. What concerns me is that the ignorantigensia loves to focus its attack on 'computer models' themselves, as if they are the problem. It seems that in his paper Bill misses an opportunity to emphasise gaps in knowledge rather than deficiencies in 'computer models'. A subtle but significant difference.

Normally, I would not want to go poisoning the well, but seriously Don did you do any due diligence over this one?

It is the first time in my life I have seen what purports to be an academic journal that does not list its publisher, nor its editorial board. I am absolutely astonished.

I am more than a bit amused by the fact that the only two essays are on climate change denial and evolution denial. This is a religious journal, not an academic one.

Now to the article:

"Kininmonth was there when the UNFCCC was drafted, and knows about models, for they were part of his life." Kininmonth may have been there then, but he doesn't know about models of climate change.

"I argue that the relatively simple representation of the climate captured in computer models is inadequate for the purposes of prediction."

If you want to determine the temperature that will occur on 23 January 2058, yes they are completely inadequate. For broad predictive effects: by how much will the Earth warm over the next 50 years if no action is taken, they are nowhere near as problematical.

"the scale of energy exchange processes associated with evaporation, precipitation and cloud formation (the hydrological cycle) are constraints on climate response to anthropogenic forcing."

Oh dear William. Re-distributing heat within the system does not somehow magically make it go away.

Don Aitkin,

Thank you for this. Well written, clear and well explained, as usual.

What a pity about the deniers, eh? That is, the true deniers are those who have no rational argument and repeatedly ignore the relevant facts or simply ignore debating them and, instead, divert from debating what's relevant and important to restating for the umpteenth time their ideologically driven beliefs.

It's clear who the real deniers are, eh?

An interesting debate is continuing on Online Opinion here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0 about whether nuclear or renewables are best able to meet societies need for secure, reliable, cheap electricity now and into the far future, and whether renewables or nuclear are better able to make substantial cuts to global CO2 emissions. Ben Rose is a true believer in Renewables and is behind the WA Greens analysis of RE electricity for WA (He likes the BZE zero carbon Australia analyses). I reckon I am winning hands down. I suspect he may fold. I certainly hope he has the decency to admit he has learnt a lot and he will reconsider his support for renewable energy and his anti-nuclear activism

It seems the true deniers have gone quiet. It seems they don’t like the tables being turned on them.

The deniers deny what is relevant for policy analysis and would rather talk about anything but what’s relevant.

What I, a realist and pragmatist, wants to know is the information relevant for policy analysis. For example, I want to see Probability Density Functions (pdf) for the scenario without any policy and for each policy being advocated (e.g. global carbon pricing; and mandatory renewable energy targets):

1. when the next abrupt climate change is likely to happen
2. sign of change (to warmer or cooler)
3. rate of change
4. maximum amount of change
5. Damage costs
6. Mitigation costs and benefits
7. Probability the advocated policy will succeed in the real world

Are these six pdfs readily available and easily accessible in the new report or are they buried in BS?

Here’s some background to questions 6 and 7 so you can better understand the relevance for policy analysis.

‘Why carbon pricing will not succeed’, Part 1: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

‘Why the world will not agree to pricing carbon’
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii

As curmudgeon has so wisely pointed out, we are better informed by historical examples, than any computer modeling.
Rubbish in rubbish out!
The historical examples include a period around 90 million years ago, when all life was nearly exterminated.
This was caused by a rise in ambient temperatures, by 2C, (volcanic Co2) which in turn caused previously frozen permafrost to melt, adding millions of tons of methane to the atmosphere, which caused a further rise of 3C; or if you will, 5C in total!
And just 5C increase, enough to almost exterminate all life, plants first?
Few plants if any, tolerate extended inundation, or extended droughts, or very severe storms, extremely high winds, and or sudden freezing; due to increasing global convection, causing a downward mixing of subzero stratosphere!
We can't live without plants, which apart from supplying a large chunk of our oxygen, fed the herbivores, which in turn fed the omnivores, (us) and the carnivores!
If you believe in historical examples as evidence, then you need to visit today's Alaska. If only to witness the new unprecedented melting of the permafrost, and the release of millions of tons of methane, bubbling up from many millions of new lakes, created by new melt water!
Don't take my word for it, go look! Or failing that, some of the documentaries, that demonstrate exactly what I'm saying!
And then quote from historical evidence, if you can and still lay straight in bed!
Rhrosty.

Runner, the planet has to continue, you must agree?

Tally

The IPCC's latest assessment summary admits that 111 of the 114 climate models have been proven inadequate, with the frorecast warming not matched by observation. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend". http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf In my opinion, the problem is not that modelling is undertaken but that far too much emphasis is placed upon it.

'Runner, the planet has to continue, you must agree?'
Tally

you were not here when it was created and you will have no say when it ends.

OK byork, the climate models failed to predict the surface T hiatus, is that it? Well cherry-picked old chap!

I look again at the Lang approach, which is to assume catastrophe is just a point on a continuum and that man will adapt to any level of grief it may cause itself, if you call being reduced again to a small population of successful hunter-gatherer status 'adaptation'.

He predicates his adaptive approach upon ECS and TCR figures cherry-picked to give it the barest semblance of credence. The UN CLIMATE CHANGE 2014
SYNTHESIS REPORT http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf agrees with nothing he is saying on these matters, but that must be because the vast majority of the scientific establishment is just plain wrong, simple!

If you want to enter into an argument with Lang, in accordance with his flowsheet as to how a good one should run, you must first accept his facts and rules, much like playing a fantasy game.

What would it take for me to change my mind on how we should approach climate change? The cessation of warming, ALL warming, at the rate it is progressing, a rate unprecedented since the last ice-age. Meanwhile all Lang's prognostications are just shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic.

Runner...From the big bang till now...we have it pretty well covered. True, I was not there and I only have science to give an answer to you.

Tally

Runner, the world is a big place. The USA are our mates in this, and your on the right side so to speak:)

Leo lane and his or her understandings, Iam guessing anything is possible with understanding of what's reality from which "it" gets its information from.

CO,2 with, can only be calculated from no-bodies with the interests of greater science, which LEO Lame cant not give.

You must agree?

The fact that all science is evaluated on our best guess.... from which again, you have to agree?

Leo, You hold a fine argument, but that's all it is.

True, it maybe a 1000 years or 10 of thousands of years before the numbers match?

So, again, do you think the numbers are right?

Tally

Tally,

I think you may be trying to reason with the wrong person there.

runner thinks evolution is a crock.

Nuff said....