make sense and has some good ideas or is it rubbish

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

At the beginning it sounded like he wanted to construct a kinematic model of climate, probably because he doesn't have the background in physics to do things the right way. But then he brings in the crackpot Miskolczi--and even Roy Spencer doesn't really believe Miskolczi.

The real problem is that he needs to stop TALKING about making a model, and proceed to actually MAKE a model.

Kano, I understand what this person wants to do with the new climate model and I know why. It is true that current climate models do not do an incredible job of projecting forward when using the natural climate variability. There is a reason for this. No one can accurately model an El Nino or La Nina event because no one can predict exactly how strong or enduring such an event would be. The same is true of any single solar cycle. How active/inactive would any solar cycle be? Who can determine what types of clouds and what extent will their coverage be for any period of time?

Let this person run their climate model. Let this person show the methodology used "to plug in the numbers" to their model and what data set(s) will be used. But, let us truly be fair with this model if the real intent is to show its advantage over all of the other climate models. The model should be ran with no more than 290ppm of CO2 and no less than 270ppm of CO2. In other words, take CO2 completely out of the equation and see how well the climate model performs using just the natural variability of the climate. (Hint: this has already been done and natural variability alone does not account for all of the warming. This method does not even come close to matching the observations.)

I strongly suspect that there is an alternative reason to suggesting this "new" climate model. It is a favorite for those that want inaction on CO2 mitigation. It is a delay tactic in the form of, "Well, lets just wait and see for another 40 - 50 years and see if this model is better than the others".

Like you said, it really doesn't matter who has come up with this model. We will let the model succeed or fail based on its own merits. Just do not expect anyone that understands the science behind the AGWT to rest on one's laurels for the next 40 - 50 years to see how well it performs.

Well, there is a rather major problem:

>>We need a New Climate Model (from now on referred to as NCM) that is created from ‘the top down’ by looking at the climate phenomena that actually occur and using deductive reasoning …<<

If you begin by looking at “things” that actually occur in the real world– it is called “inductive reasoning” (You may also be familiar with one of its other common names, “the scientific method”).

[Just to avoid any mind-numbing arguments, I’ll concede that, in isolation, you could argue – hypothetically - that hypothesis testing and testing scientific theories (not the formation of hypotheses or development of theories) - are deductive.]

Either way, we are left with two possibilities: (1) the “new” model is really just the “old” model – and the author is doing science like everyone else, but without really understanding the scientific method or that he is doing the same thing as everyone else, or (2) the “new” model is really just the “old” model – and the author is just a lying jack-off who doesn’t know anything about anything.

Based on how the article begins, I’m inclined to just assume that (2) is most likely and let it go at that.

------

Kano --

>>explain how and why<<

I can't. I admit to not working through the model because it is epistemological mumbo-jumbo - and that is more than enough to put me off, right there. Maybe he should rewrite it with an Introduction containing less spiritual-intellectual confusion and more about modeling ".. the climate phenomena that actually occur."

How many papers has Mr Wilde had peer-reviewed and published so far on climate?

What are Mr Wilde's scientific qualifications?

Lets start with that and once you've established that he is in fact a credible authority on the subject, then I am more than willing to have a look at his 'model'. But I am not losing my time with yet another crackpot theory by yet another 'armchair expert with a blog'.

PS Mr Wilde's 'model' is well-known among real scientists. They have a good laugh every single time he writes a blog post about it.

make sense and has some good ideas or is it rubbish

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/