"Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]).
When they can also account for phenomena external to our atmosphere, I might get concerned about a minor increase in a trace gas.
If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].
I'll believe in a model when they have one that can reproduce the historical data.
Posted to another ongoing thread, which is why I have it handy on my desktop:
Ensemble Climate Simulations With Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings
Here's the last sentence, in case you're tempted to not click on the link: "The ensemble of experiments with all four forcings yields a time-varying global mean surface air temperature response that closely resembles that observed during all portions of the 20th century."
Is that satisfactory, sir?
“I’ll believe in a model when they have one that can reproduce the historical data. “
Their models have hundreds of settable parameters. It would be childs play to make them reproduce the past by adjusting the parameters so that thay do fit the past. Past “predictions” of answers you already know is not especially impressive. I know. I’m in the modeling business. I bulid models for a living.
As to future projections, I don’t find it very impressive if they just say it’s going to keep getting warmer jut the way it has been in the recent past. If that’s your hypothesis, you don’t need a big ol’ model. A ruler and a pencil drawing a line thru post tempratures and projecting them forward does a fine job in that situation.
What would be impressive would be a model that predicted a surprising change in advance. So had one of he AGW models called in 1997 that in two years, the globe would start cooling, that would be impressive and I would have to start taking that model more seriously. But mostly what they do is get their predictions wrong and then go back to adjust the models to fix the error. Basically, that are straining to save epicycles with one bandaid after another.