Study claims there is no significant natural component to global warming, i.e. 'it's all your fault'

Marcus, based on all of the empirical evidence, yes! LOL Models that imitate actual events accurately=good. Models that cannot imitate actual events=”better than throwing darts” but not a whole lot.

Bob, you say:
“Climate model-based study: disregard.”
Meanwhile you present your own models. Should I disregard you? Can’t have it both ways.

So Aphan, are you saying that my model that tells me that he is an idiot is correct ? Woohooo , where’s my grant money !!

Wagen – what Bob Tisdale was saying is that not the least of the deficiencies of climate models is that they cannot accurately predict El Ninos. That’s not ‘having it both ways,’ it’s ‘knowing what you’re talking about’. Try to upgrade your comments from little sister snark.

Wagen-
Let me keep this simple for you. Simple models work relatively to extremely well. Like models that only have one or two well understood, known, predicable factors. This is how specific scientific principles like gravity and physics and thermodynamics are tested. You control all of the factors except one, and then you ONLY adjust that one factor to see how that adjustment plays out in the system. Then you control that factor, and adjust another one. The more factors the model involves, and the more each of those factors can and does vary in and of itself, the less accurately we can control it and the less accurate it becomes.
There IS NO CURRENTLY EXISTING global climate model. We simply do not have the ability, at this current time, to accurately MODEL (and thus accurately predict) how a change in one specific “factor” of our climate system is going to affect every other uncontrollable, highly variable factor. So ANY “study” done that contains the words “global” or “earth’s climate” or ANYTHING that involves all of Earth’s system simply cannot determine anything to the degree of certainty that such a study claims it does. Period.
Bob Tisdale, as far as I know, rarely (if ever) uses models at all, but I KNOW he never uses “global” ones. He tracks and plots temperature measurements/data using the data that other sources provide, but he does not, as far as I know, “model” interactions between say the oceans and the atmosphere.
But thanks for the irrelevant accusation directed at Bob. It permitted me a chance to teach you something.

A model is nothing more than a mathematical implementation of your current understanding of a given process. It is not the process. Using models is fine, such as for decision making purposes (like whether to bring an umbrella tomorrow). However, using the output of the model to conduct further analyses gives you no further insight into the process itself. That’s what a “climate model-based study” does, and that’s why it can be disregarded.

“Bob is using models. At the same time he says “Climate model-based study: disregard.”Your choice who to defend, Bob or models.”
Wagen…do you know the difference between a “model” and a “climate model”? Because only climate models model climate. Other models, model other things. SO….when Bob says “Climate model-based study:disregard”…..he’s only talking about disregarding what….come on…you got this….CLIMATE MODELS. Wagen, the man wrote a book called “Climate Models Fail”. That one word…”climate” is an important descriptor word.
I believe that in my post I defended the use of models…simple ones. I have NOTHING against basic models in which parameters can be controlled and upon which REPLICATIONS are possible by other people. Models are valuable for many things.
Climate models are NOT controllable, replications are NOT possible, and at this point in time, are of limited, if any value. Bob may or may not use simple models. I don’t know. This is why I said :
“Bob Tisdale, as far as I know, rarely (if ever) uses models at all, but I KNOW he never uses “global” ones. He tracks and plots temperature measurements/data using the data that other sources provide, but he does not, as far as I know, “model” interactions between say the oceans and the atmosphere. ”
A climate model, in MY view/definition Wagen, would have to be a global model. So I very easily and logically can, and did, and will continue to defend Bob from your idiotic insinuations, AND defend the use of simple, basic models, while rejecting “climate models/global models”. And you will most likely continue to lie and make stupid statements about Bob.

They have trouble modelling ENSO, its too unpredictable.

@Wagen,
From the paper in my link above (and this a paper by Warmers reviewing a MET Model).
p. 3894
“Even today’s powerful computers take a long time to make a run of ϕCt (x; α), and so a less complex model is used for most calculations. To this end an ocean model consisting of a so-called slab model is adopted (i.e. an ocean with no currents and a uniform effective depth of 50 m). The role of the oceans in transporting heat is nevertheless represented by an applied atmosphere/ocean heat flux. The result of this manoeuvre is HadSM3, a computationally less demanding model.”

All models are wrong. Some are useful. Attributed to George Box, who said of the PV=nRT model for ideal gasses “For such a model there is no need to ask the question “Is the model true?”. If “truth” is to be the “whole truth” the answer must be “No”. The only question of interest is “Is the model illuminating and useful?”.
So there we are. No point asking is the model true or is the model completely accurate. The answer is always NO, even for the well used and extremenly useful gas equation. If we need closer to reality models for gases we use Van Der Waals or Peng Robinson models. But even these are not exact. They are wrong, but they are very useful.
Aphan says “We simply do not have the ability, at this current time, to accurately MODEL (and thus accurately predict) how a change in one specific “factor” of our climate system is going to affect every other uncontrollable, highly variable factor.” Yet exactly the same is true for the behavior of any real gas. Do we abandon the gas models? No, of course not, because they are very useful and they are accurate enough to obtain useful results.
All models will be wrong, but are they useful?
Keith Willshaw says “1) You study some phenomena
2) A hypothesis is developed that may explain it, this is where your model sits
3) The results of your hypothesis are tested against observation
4) If observation verifies your hypothesis then its proven and may considered a theory.
To date all climate models have failed at step 4”
All models fail step 4 as they are not supported exactly by observations. Even the gas equation.
Look at two approaches to this argument. First the “warmists”.
1) On studying the climate, it is observed to change over time.
2) Hypothesis. The climate changes due to forcings and movement of energy. Invent models that try to replicate these energy inputs, outputs and movements, one of which is CO2.
3) Test against observation – do the models accurately fit the observations? Not exactly, but a reasonably good fit. We can explain some things but not others.
4) Go back and refine your hypothesis.
Now those that say climate change it is natural.
1) Observe that climate changes over time
2) Hypothesis: “it is natural”. Climate will change, always has and always will. We do not need to ask why because, er, well, it is natural.*
3) Test against observation. This hypothesis has zero explanatory power because any observation can be explained. Temperature goes up? It is natural. Temperature goes down? It is the natural cycle. Sea ice melts? Natural cycle. Sea ice grows? Natural. Always has and always will grow and shrink. Something that explains everything explains nothing.
4) Er, thats it. The hypothesis is not disprovable, as it is not really a hypothesis at all. It cannot be refined because it explains everything.
If anyone disagrees, please explain what the “null hypothesis” actually is. And if you could do so without reference to a model of the climate that would be consistent and avoid instant rejection under Bob’s criteria.
*I have seen this written here many, many times. The “null” hypotheses that change is natural. The hypothesis that some claim removes the need to support the claim with evidence.

“Since climate models are unable to accurately reflect any aspect of the real climate, they qualify as both wrong, and not useful.”
All models fail to predict accurately the real world. Did you read my comment? Do you believe that climate models fail utterly to predict anything? Do they predict the world gets colder if solar irradiation reduces? Why, yes they do! Clearly they do in fact reflect some aspects of the real climate.

Bob Ryan – I was careful to say “two approaches” rather than “the two sides”. There are of course other views, as you have expressed. However, I don’t see how we can have some intermediate view without using some sort of model for the global climate.
“Few skeptics would argue that Carbon Dioxide and human emissions are not important – the argument is about how important. I accept as my prior that temperature changes and other climatic events are not unusual given the history of the planet of the last 2000 years. I would need very strong evidence to change my view.”
There must have been some reason for the climate to change in the past. In order to explain these changes we must use a model. The alternative is to just say “it is all nature” and leave it at that.
It follows that we cannot dismiss any conclusion that uses a climate model

Wagen that’s a really flippant remark. Most readers will take Tisdales flippant remark over yours because he goes to great lengths to inform with carefully compiled data from cited sources in his ongoing El Niño updates among other useful articles while you have none, at least that I can see.

Bob Ryan and jmarshs. Thank you also for a considered reply and engaging in constructive discussion. To jmarshs, we are not trying to make a new Earth, so comparing this to systems we are trying to build is not appropriate. The climate is more like the behavior of gases- it happens whether or not we understand it. The model for gas behavior is close to being accurate. It describes much behavior but fails in the fine detail. The climate models are vastly more complicated, and hence they fail in more of the detail. Yet they do replicate the broad brush behavior of the climate. The paper that is the subject of this post used actual measurements to confirm the model prediction about the Planck Response: “Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations “. It is observed in both the measurements and the models.
The gas equation assumes molecules occupy no volume and do not have forces acting between them. The improved gas equations such as Van der Waals takes the basic one and adds components for volume taken by molecules and for forces to exist between molecules. This is how climate models have evolved. Take a simple system like a sphere in space and add the complications on top. We are confident that we can model the temperature of an Earth sized black body sphere in space 1AU from the sun. That is our basic model.
Bob Ryan says no model is needed to observe previous climate fluctuations, which is true. No model is needed to observe that bodies fell in the past. We need some model if we want to say things will fall in the future. Say I let go of my pen and it rose to the ceiling. Is that extraordinary? Well. I have seen things rise before. Rockets, thrown things, aeroplanes. Is my pen one of those, or has something extraordinary happened? I decide because I have a model. In my model there is gravity, and things must have a means of overcoming this force if they are to rise. The pen rising is extraordinary. Without the model it is exceedingly hard to say. I must perhaps list everything I have seen rise, and try to classify them, then see if my pen fits into these categories. It is the same with climate.
You may argue that our models are not good enough, but I don’t see how you can dispense with models if current conditions are. And it is certainly not correct to say that the models fail in all respects, as this paper itself demonstrates.

seaice1,
I think there are some weaknesses in your arguments.
Your opening comment all “models are wrong, some are useful” was responded to by another commenter’s outline of the scientific process ending with…

To date all climate models have failed at step 4”

You then contrasted different approaches concluding that the natural causes approach is not valid because its hypothesis is not provable. I think you mean not falsifiable, but that’s not my point.

2) Hypothesis. The climate changes due to forcings and movement of energy. Invent models that try to replicate these energy inputs, outputs and movements, one of which is CO2.
2) Hypothesis: “it is natural”. Climate will change, always has and always will. We do not need to ask why because, er, well, it is natural.*

The hypothesis “It is natural” is not specific enough to be falsifiable. Had you specified natural causes that drive climate change, such as cloud and solar effects, a more equitable comparison of the hypotheses would be achieved.

To jmarshs, we are not trying to make a new Earth, so comparing this to systems we are trying to build is not appropriate.

Regardless of whether something is being built or already exists, a model can be useful for evaluating the thing. The problem is different models can correlate the same data. That doesn’t mean either one is a correct model. The models have to be tested against new data to see if they continue to be consistent.

The paper that is the subject of this post used actual measurements to confirm the model prediction about the Planck Response: “Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations “. It is observed in both the measurements and the models.

Am I correct in assuming that you and I have not read the paper? If so, we don’t know whether or not the model was created apriori, as opposed to being developed by correlating it to the existing data. There are plenty of models that correlated past data, but failed to predict more recent temperatures. To use the ideal gas equation as an example, what contribution does it make to show that model fits data for an ideal gas? What would be worthy of publication is are new models predicting the behavior of non-ideal gases.

Andyj, “The only people who could claim this is valid science is the insane, the stupid, and liars.”
I would only note that when discussing CAGW, that there is a very high amount of overlap among those three sets.