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.