I guess “believed” was the wrong word to use in the context:-). ‘Accepted’ was what I meant.

So take the quote mining to Uncommon Descent.

Its funny how pro warmers always resort to this attempt to slur people when they don’t have any other answer.
Used to happen to me regularly at Open Mind (Closed Mind?)no matter how many times I told them that I believed in evolution and the geological record of Earth’s history.

Gore raised US$320 million on the back of a what the UK High Court ruled was a pack of lies. But no, says Boris, that is not lying to get the money, that’s just an example of tetris having one of his conspiracy theory bouts.

Keep up the good work Boris: ignorance is bliss but delusion is Nirvana…

The range may be bad to very very bad for us, but the range itself says nothing to the validity of that assessment. Because the range says nothing on the subject, it does not clearly demostrate “the urgency for climate change mitigation measures.” The statement is fluff.

If I allow that lapse of logical consistancy, we would still have a problem with urgency of measures to mitigate climate change, rather than the urgency of measures to mitigate (common usage of the word) the threats of climate change. Proactive and reactive adaptation are legitimate responses to the threats of climate change. The claim of a clear demostration of “the urgency for climate change mitigation measures” disregards all but one response to the threat of climate change. Ergo there is no clear demostration and the statement is still fluff.

(edit: oops, that came too late, I was trying to respond under comment 4558)

If you do, keep in mind that there is very substantial evidence that they all have taken mind boggling liberties with the truth in order to secure ongoing funding.

Please keep your fantasies and conspiracy theories to yourself. Or don’t. Whatever. the “very” and “mind boggling” were a nice touch, though.

Raphael sez:

A range of possible climates clearly demostrates a range of possible climates.

And the range is mostly bad for us. And some of the range is very very bad.

Lucia: it is not just simply Schmidt. None other than Trenberth -in an original letter to Nature- last year argued that models do not need real world data to run. Interestingly enough, he also argued that GMCs are useless as forecasting tools and that if anything, we should start focusing more on regional models using real world regional data to see if we can them work – in fact not unlike what Pielke Sr has been arguing. His comments caused so much horse feathers to hit the fan in the dogmatists camp that he subsequently penned a climb down of sorts, fudging the issue.

Boris: do you trust Mann, Briffa, Thompson, Schmidt, Hansen and their ilk? If you do, keep in mind that there is very substantial evidence that they all have taken mind boggling liberties with the truth in order to secure ongoing funding. Fact is, it is the alarmist/dogmatist camp [not the skeptics] who over the past 20 years have been the beneficiary of over US$2 billion in government funding by keeping the AGW/ACC circus alive and going.

Do you realize that part of the sentence you quoted, “The range of possibilities highlighted for future climate at all
scales clearly demonstrates the urgency for climate change mitigation measures… ” was fluff?

Further analysis might demostrate a threat and an urgency, but the range alone demostrates nothing of the sort. Further analysis might rule out all possible threat responses other than mitigation measures, but the range alone demostrates nothing of the sort. A range of possible climates clearly demostrates a range of possible climates. The rest is clear as mud.

In your calculation for the standard error for residuals using the merges NOAA, GISS, and HadCrut, did you change the baseline? If so, how did you do it? I’m still looking for monthly temperatures for the GISS and HadCrut baseline.

That’s the standard bit they have to put in in order to continue to receive funding.

Nice logic…you trust a scientist who you also claim is lying to get more money.

That the models need to be improved does not mean they are not good at doing stuff already. So take the quote mining to Uncommon Descent.

That’s the standard bit they have to put in in order to continue to receive funding. The rest of the paper is a damning critique of climate models, eg,

Here, our focus is solely on complex climate models as predictive tools on decadal and longer time scales. We argue for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose

There is no compulsion to hold that the most comprehensive models available will yield decision-relevant probabilities, even if those models are based upon ‘fundamental physics’

Statements about future climate relate to a never before experienced state of the system: thus, it is impossible to either calibrate the model for the forecast regime of interest or confirm the usefulness of the forecasting process

Finally, model inadequacy captures the fact that we know a priori, there is no combination of parameterizations, parameter values and ICs which would accurately mimic all relevant aspects of the climate system. We know that, if nothing else, computational constraints prevent our models from any claim of isomorphism with reality, whatever that phrase may mean

In cases where the reliability of the forecasting system cannot be confirmed, the ability of our models to reproduce past observations in detail gives us some hope that the model forecast may provide valuable guidance for the real world. Climate models fail this test

They then list the areas where models need improvement :-

Examples are the inclusion of a stratosphere, a carbon cycle, atmospheric/oceanic chemistry, ice sheet dynamics, and realistic (ie. statistically plausible equivalents of real world behaviour) ENSO structures, land surface schemes (critical for the exploration of regional feedbacks),diurnal cycles, ocean eddies and many others

And note that Models of such complexity, at high resolution and with suitable exploration of uncertainty are not going to be available soon

Chad,

Yes that’s the one.

I understand the aerosols are washed out over a year or 2, maybe 3 in a big one but these things happen 10 times a century or more. So, the effect must be significant on the overall temperature increase. I would like to know for the 20th century if you remove volcanoes from the record what would have happened to temperature? I know they have a way for accounting for volcanoes in the models. So, why not assume an average mix just so we don’t believe the results were jimmied to be high.

Consider that everytime a volcano happens now they have to explain why temperatures will remain low for years and what impact it will have on their long range predictions. Wouldn’t it be better if they could say we already counted that in our models. The predictions are unchanged.

I think it may be because the aerosol forcing is not as persistent as, say, CO2 forcing. The aerosols in the troposphere get washed out fairly quickly. So an eruption would have cause a noticeable temperature drop, but it will rebound fairly quickly. Also, it may also simplify defining scenarios. Imagine each scenario they laid out times 3. For example you’d have say A1 with no volcanic activity, with little volcanic activity, with moderate volcanic activity, or with large volcanic activity. It would create more work for the modelers to do. Just a guess.