Simplistic binary argumentation: what planet uses this for policy decisions?

Saaaaaay, Raven, are you from Jupiter? Betelgeuse? Do we have an honest to goodness alien in our midst? Can I get your autograph? DNA? A piece of your ship?

Eppur si corvo!

Best,

D

Raven: Mark hit the nail on the head. Defending the models by insisting that virtually any possible temperature profile is ‘consistent with’ the models only demonstrates that the models have no useful predictive value.

Well, my prediction wasn’t falsified on this occasion!

I’d just like to make it clear I do not agree with Raven. The models (meaning ensembles of global climate models) have made predictions that could have been falsified and haven’t. (By, for example, tropospheric cooling, or lower stratospheric warming, over the last few decades.) In this sense they are consistent with observations.

Homo sap

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/5yrave.jpg

(The flock of ravens around here all seem to understand that.)

A number of papers have been published on the limitations of the models. The only issue is too many people ignore these papers and insist that the models should be assumed to be useful despite these rather glaring problems.

In any case, the ultimate test for a model is if it can predict the future and the models used in AR4 are doing a pretty poor job since all of the real data suggests they have significantly overpredicted the amount of warming. Of course it is possible that it nothing more than an 8 year blip and warming will resume soon but we won’t know until it happens. Until then the only reasonable position is to wait and see before betting trillions trying to solve a problem that may not actually exist.

The world anxiously awaits this Galileo-like paper that you, young Raven, surely are ready to publish, right? After all, you have knowledge that others don’t. You have a duty to teach the world, lad. And shut up all those green nazi warmer eh-gee-dubya religious priest adherent something-or-others.

Like I said, let us all know here when your manuscript is accepted. Because as we all know (except for a brave young lad, apparently), that is how knowledge is shared with the world.

Best,

D

Has to trot out phrases like “moving the goal posts” to cover his own ignorance. I have long said the models have no predictive value and the only think that has changed is there is peer reviewed research that admits that too.

The paper in question simply rehashes the argument originally presented on RC when the Douglass paper came out. The RC argument was debunked here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058#comment-305420

The important step that Douglass followed which RC left out was he first removed all model runs which are obviously wrong because they could not get the surface temperature trends right.

Poor Raven needs to move the goalposts to keep his ideology viable.

Young Raven, please go here and tell us specifically which models (or ensembles) have no predictive value.

And let us all know when you are going to publish your Galileo-like paper stating such, and showing those darn dirty warmers a thing or two!!!!!!

Best,

D