A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

Take that, Mr. Gore.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

So have we found any new solutions, or are we just going to argue more?

We have more CO2 in the air, and plastic in the land fills then we did yesterday, and what have we solved?

 

[2dye4]

tgs4

If you cannot tease out the factor that CO2 contributes how can you claim that the pause in recent warming indicates failure of the models. How do you know that one of the other factors didn't cause the halt in temperature rise??

Surely it is certain that CO2 has an independent impact. Meaning if you could run the experiment many times with varying levels of CO2 some repeatable result would come out relating CO2 concentration to new steady state temperature conditions with all other factors held constant...

Your point is that the science isn't there to validate MMGW, if so then it isn't there to invalidate MMGW based on the last 15 years.
Essentially nothing can be concluded then.

So what do we have then. We have the 100 year old theory of greenhouse gasses which has been verified as correct. We have a warming
trend ( the hockey stick ) measured from relatively modern equipment showing an unusual spike in the Earths temperature corresponding
to the exact time that we are digging up millions of years of stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere.

The above evidence is circumstantial but even circumstantial evidence is considered occasionally based on the likelihood of events.

So as long as I think this circumstantial evidence is impelling and you think a precise and verified scientific model is required before any conservation activities are undertaken then we are pretty much done discussing the issue.

ornerynorsk
I think progress is being made, I have tentatively accepted TGS4 explanation of why detailed modeling may be necessary to predict
the amount of heat trapping. But in the long run I know the issue is unsolvable because the public will not vote itself pain in the form of higher energy costs even thought the long term effect may be positive. We can no more cooperate on this that the individual virus cells can agree to not kill the host.

 

[SomptingGuy]

How does plastic in the land-fills differ that much from oil under the seas. In geological times?

- Steve

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
The milk/fuel ratio is far from a universal truth. What is a universal truth is that there is little incentive to manipulate the price of milk (beyond the amount of manipulation that happens with all agricultural products) so the price of milk is a reasonable surrogate for a global CPI. A gallon of milk is the currency I use for most comparisons (e.g., a luxury vehicle should cost around 20,000 times the price of a gallon of milk) over time and across currencies (e.g., if I know a pair of shoes in my town would cost 30 gallons of milk, then if the same shoes in Brisbane cost 40 gallons then they are expensive, if they cost 25 gallons in in London then they are cheep, if they cost 10 gallons in Singapore then they are knockoffs). I also use a 1 lb loaf of bread, but it keeps getting harder to find a 1 lb loaf so the ratios get messy. I know it sounds strange but it works for me.

I can't explain why the reaction to the carbon tax was increased sales of fuel-inefficient vehicles, it was just an observation not intended to be data.

There are places where market forces can lead to societal inefficiencies. Free market hydrocarbons should not have been one of these, but it was. Probably because the market was never really free. By banning exports, local surpluses have had a downward force on prices. In the short term that is good. In the long term it has led to decisions that were not in the public interest. Now "solutions" that treat symptoms (generally by forced re-distribution of wealth from producers to speculators) will not be effective. They never have been, never will be. I would like to see a repeal of the bone-headed anti-export laws to allow US producers to access world markets. $4/MMBTU wellhead price for natural gas in the US and $20+ in Europe and $30+ in parts of Asia are simply not supportable long term. Repealing the stupid laws would stabilize the world price somewhere around $15/MMBTU with long-term contracts around $10/MMBTU. At those prices many coal-fired plants go away instead of being retrofit with emissions equipment.

My prejudice is that people in the military tend to be somewhat less bone-headed on most topics than the population at large. It is obviously not true, but I still hold the prejudice.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
You were posting your latest while I was writing my latest. The point that everyone is trying to make is that NOTHING in the atmosphere is independent. Nothing. Nothing at all. If a CO2 molecule is hit by a photon and heats up and then radiates the heat and boils a water droplet, the latent heat of vaporization will result in a net zero temperature change. It is all interrelated.

So what do we have then. We have the 100 year old theory of greenhouse gasses which has been verified as correct. We have a warming
trend ( the hockey stick ) measured from relatively modern equipment showing an unusual spike in the Earths temperature corresponding
to the exact time that we are digging up millions of years of stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere.

Models with a bias to show AGW have "verified" the theory of GHG, data collected (and manipulated) over 100 years has failed miserably to support this theory. The hockey stick always has the sharp left turn NEXT YEAR. Then next year the new graph has the hockey stick bend NEXT YEAR. JJPellin's video was vivid on this point. The models from the late 1990's show the left turn in 2000. The 2013 models show it in 2014. Same sharp left turn.

Methane is the single most renewable energy source on the planet. Eventually we will do a better job of capturing it. Estimates have indicated that it is physically feasible to supply all of the world's non-transportation energy requirements from recovering biogenic gas. Farmers are doing it all over the world today. I wouldn't be too worried about "digging up millions of years of stored carbon". The sooner it is gone the sooner we will have energy prices that will encourage conservation.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

If you cannot tease out the factor that CO2 contributes how can you claim that the pause in recent warming indicates failure of the models. How do you know that one of the other factors didn't cause the halt in temperature rise??

Surely it is certain that CO2 has an independent impact. Meaning if you could run the experiment many times with varying levels of CO2 some repeatable result would come out relating CO2 concentration to new steady state temperature conditions with all other factors held constant...

The models have made predictions. Yes, the predictions have been made on varying levels of CO2 concentration increases. The predictions have substantially over-predicted the OBSERVED temperature. Prediction ≠ Observation = failure. My whole point has always been that the feedbacks that are hard-coded into the models, combined with a lack of inclusion of natural cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc), all thrown together in a simulation that has a discretization that is woefully inadequate is bound to fail - and lo and behold they have.

As I have stated before, the zero-feedback effect of CO2 concentration is (more or less) 1°C/doubling. That's from experiments and fundamental physics and 100+ years of study. There aren't that many people who disagree. It's in the discussion of natural cycles, and feedbacks that we get the disagreement. In fact, if you drill right down to it - that is exactly the heart of the matter: natural cycles and feedbacks.

What I find interesting is that if the "pause" from 1998 to present is due to natural cycles, then what does that mean about the "rapid warming" in the 1980's up to 1998? And what about the long-term trend from the Little Ice Age?

 

[TGS4]

But in the long run I know the issue is unsolvable because the public will not vote itself pain in the form of higher energy costs even thought the long term effect may be positive. We can no more cooperate on this that the individual virus cells can agree to not kill the host.

Why is this the only solution that you can foresee?

David's anecdote of fuel prices in Stavanger, Norway is somewhat interesting for me, but largely irrelevant. It has a population of ~130,000 people on 27 sq. mi. My city has 1,100,000 people on 320 sq. mi. Bicycling is an option for only the most fit, and then only for the 5.5 months that it is not winter-y. Plus, in the winter, it gets really cold - and burning fossil fuels is how ALL of the houses are designed to stay warm. Increasing the price of energy will result in the poor (or those on fixed incomes) having to choose between staying warm or eating. So, while Stavanger is more northerly than I am, it is much warmer in the winter, and would not have the same issues.

Furthermore, to be totally selfish, I welcome some measure of warming. Every winter, most people here spend $2k-$4k/person to travel to a location that is 40°C-50°C warmer - for a week or two. And people wonder why we balk at spending that much every year to AVOID 1-3°C of warming in 100 years!

 

[rconnor]

I’m getting into this late, so I’ll avoid addressing individual responses but I’d like to touch on a few general topics.

Carbon Tax
I’m not sold on the concept of cap-and-trade, especially if it’s traded as a financial commodity through Goldman Sachs. It will lead to the commodification of the environment to an even greater extent and is likely to be damaging to both the environment and the financial world.

While a carbon tax appears to be a better solution than cap-and-trade, a revenue neutral carbon tax appears to be a better (or more agreeable) solution than a straight carbon tax.

We have a fairly large scale, real-world example going on in BC right now. The program is in its 6th year and is showing great results. Fuel consumption in BC has fallen 17.4 % per capita (18.8% relative to the Canadian average) since it took effect in 2008. BC’s GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada over that period and the tax shift has allowed for lower income tax rates, the lowest in Canada (even lower than the conservative, oil rich Alberta). It also has seen an increase in approval rates in the program from 54% in 2008 to 64% in 2012. So it’s (1) effective at reducing emissions, (2) is not damaging to the economy and (3) the people that live with the tax seem to like it more and more.
Information regarding the rebate
2012 Study
2012 Report
2013 Report
Desmog Article
Economist article
Talk on carbon taxation

Models: The Worst Thing Since Unsliced Bread
This is, to me, the second most frustrating topic (next to the ubiquitous attempt at explaining how greenhouse gases work to one poster), so I’ll be brief.
(1) Models aren’t 100% accurate
(2) Models aren’t 0% accurate
(3) Models can’t be used in isolation to prove a theory
(4) The forecasting accuracy of models diminishes with increasing system complexity and intrinsically sporadic, yet influential, events (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina, etc)
(5) Models can be used to gauge the response of complex systems by alternating certain variable and attempting to extract their influence on the system.

(Also, a good article here)

I feel that models are more useful in studying the influence of certain variables to try to extract the physical mechanism behind a change in a complex system. This is key and I will touch on this more in a later section. But for now, see this very interesting new study that attempts to isolate and understand the effect of El Nino/La Nina cycles on global temperature. Through this method, it was able to reconstruct global temperatures with quite remarkable accuracy. A good article describing it here.

Seamless Transition into “The Pause”
Now, some on the other side may see this as more proof that the warming is natural (maybe a few links to Judy Curry’s blog). This I find is a strange stance because all this appears to show is that El Nino/La Nino has an effect on global temperatures in the short term. However, it cannot explain long term trends as it is merely the storage and release of energy, not the driver behind the increase/decrease in the long term energy imbalance. See this great article for more details.

In fact, it works against the “pause” argument because it develops a natural cause for a temporary slowing in warming. In other words, the “pause” seems to suggest that anthropogenic effect is still high but the short term natural effect of La Nina is counterbalancing it. If there were no anthropogenic effect (or other unknown effect), the negative natural forcings as of late (low solar activity, double dip La Nina) would have cooled temperatures. This also matches up nicely with the research that suggest the oceans are continuing to accumulate energy despite the surface temperatures staying relatively constant.

There is a ton of research on this:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here (no models)
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

Physical Mechanisms
All this snide finger-wagging about “being a good scientist/engineer” from the other side is a little hypocritical. We all agree that climate is changing. Yet the reaction is commonly, “yes, but it’s always changed”. True. However, climate does not magically change, there are ALWAYS physical mechanisms behind physical changes (usually a complicated chain of mechanisms and feedbacks). So you can’t say “it’s changed before” and assume you’ve just rendered the vast majority of research in the area invalid; that’s gravely illogical and unscientific. What natural processes can account for the recent change in weather? How have these natural processes changed global temperature historically?

Like it or not, the body of evidence suggests that anthropogenic CO2 is the leading candidate for the increase in global temperatures. There are obviously other influencing factors (the sun, orbital cycles, massive singular events strong enough to flip climate trends, etc.) but there is also a body of evidence that compares their influence against that of CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 continues to be the most predominate.
For example:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

To change this, another (natural) process, or collection thereof, needs to do a better job accounting for the recent change in climate.

On a closing note, can we stop with the broad sweeping, unsubstantiated claims that offer no reference or data to back them up? Declaring something authoritatively does not make it any more valid.

 

[zdas04]

TGS4,
That anecdote was not intended as a value judgement, just an observation. There is a fuel price where behaviors will change. They found it in Norway. We have not seen anything like the same prices in the US. I have no idea what the unintended consequences of their fuel price are. I'm confident that there are some, but don't know what they are.

rconnor,
I suppose I'm the "one poster". Please assume a response that is far more profane than profound.

I do want to take exception to one point--models are not "accurate" at all. Models either match observed hindcast data or they don't. If they do match hindcast data, they may provide useful predictions of the future or they may not. They simply represent the mind and biases of the author so are exactly as valid as the "broad sweeping, unsubstantiated claims that offer no reference or data to back them up" that you complain about.

I must say that I haven't yet read the links that you provided. I skimmed a half dozen of them and don't have an opinion on their contribution to the discussion. Not the kind of stuff you read quickly.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cvg]

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress....ing-160-years-of-temperature-observations.pdf

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226, 2012

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived
using 160 years of temperature observations
N. P. Gillett,V. K. Arora,G. M. Flato,J. F. Scinocca,and K. von Salzen

Received 4 November 2011; accepted 28 November 2011; published 10 January 2012.

[1] Projections of 21st century warming may be derived
by using regression-based methods to scale a model’s
projected warming up or down according to whether it
under- or over-predicts the response to anthropogenic
forcings over the historical period. Here we apply such a
method using near surface air temperature observations
over the 1851–2010 period, historical simulations of the
response to changing greenhouse gases, aerosols and
natural forcings, and simulations of future climate change
under the Representative Concentration Pathways from
the second generation Canadian Earth System Model
(CanESM2). [highlight #FCE94F]Consistent with previous studies, we detect
the influence of greenhouse gases, aerosols and natural
forcings in the observed temperature record.[/highlight]

just proves that you can use any model, alter it somehow and then "detect" anything you desire. What hogwash!

 

[GregLocock]

"All that is being asked is that the industrialized countries give up driving mammoth SUV and pickup truck for no reason other than
vanity and ridiculous indulgence. Along with industry taking energy conservation seriously"

The onus is on you to do the sums, as that is at first sight an unlikely proposition, but do you really think that those three actions alone will reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions below current levels, in a world where 0.3 billion Chinese want to buy cars who currently ride pushbikes, and where that country is building two new coal fired power stations every WEEK?

"Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.
The difference is very significant. "

Supposedly everything they can think of. That's why there's a dip when a volcano goes off, the negative effect of the smoke outweighs the additional CO2. I gather you haven't got the faintest idea about GCMs? Why do you trust them then?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

John makes a point. Which, of course is the rationale behind the carbon [sic] tax movement - to somehow monetize the cost to the collective/society by emitting CO2. In that environment, then certainly unbridled capitalism will most certainly find the most effect means. That, in turn, result in not more government, but really less government involvement. Should be a win-win.

However, in the event that the cost to "stop" global warming is greater than the cost to adapt to the consequences, then the collective/societal cost is greatly reduced. This link demonstrates that even IF the science is settled, the adaptation costs are 50 times less than the costs to stop the warming from occurring.

Word of advice to the "warmists"/"alarmists": you're not going to win by arguing for a complete de-industrialization of the world (which is what "stopping" global warming, if the science is true, would take). However, selling a pay-to-play system where all funds raised are dedicated to adapting to the warming, would be a much easier sell. Then, there's no cap-n-trade where the bankers are the only ones making money, there's no additional five levels of government (including the UN) expanding at rates vastly exceeding inflation, there's none of that. I don't understand the insistence on demonizing energy and prosperity.

Now, you may ask, why, after all my harping on the (lack of) scientific rigour, and the insistence on having a carbon-consumption-price sensitivity, why I would submit to a taxation on carbon [sic]? Well, the fact of the matter is that the globe has warmed in the last century - whether that's man-made or not is not the point. There are most certainly costs associated with that - some may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, which may be the case. But, we can have some measure of accounting of this, on an ongoing basis. If there are net costs, then someone has to pay for them. I'm not categorically opposed to figuring out some measure to pay for real, incurred costs. We do that with other aspects of our civil society: infrastructure, education, health care, defence, etc.

I just don't see that

This is a very interesting post, with a very interesting point. Allow me to rephrase it:

"Whether the carbon tax would fix global warming or not is technically irrelevant. We need to spend money preparing for, and dealing with, global warming regardless, so why don't we just raise money for that through the carbon tax. Either it helps on one end or it helps on both ends."

I think that would be a valuable position if the UN collected taxes, and the UN was responsible for civil projects across the globe. But it's not. In fact, its track record with parallel programs (oil-for-food anyone?) has been abysmal, and wrought with graft.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GregLocock]

rconnor, I appreciate you putting some effort in, but if we have somewhat reliable data for CO2 and temperature for 150 years that is used to calibrate the models, and then they run free for 15 years, and diverge significantly from reality over those 15 years, in a way that contradicts the main findings that they have been used to 'prove', why on Earth is anyone worrying about their predictions for 2080 and beyond? The models are broken. They have no predictive power so far as we can tell from 15 years . The parrot is deceased.

Of those articles I thought the ars technica one was condescending tripe. Lots of pretty pictures and assurances that they are gobsmacked by the resulst. I'm not gobsmacked, see the two graphs I posted before.

The El Nino one is interesting, showing that if the models can be made around one order of magnitude more complex then they might be more useful. That is, by including the effect of the oceans, which is a lot bigger system than the atmosphere, and directly intersects with 70% of it by area, then they might be onto something.

Now, the great news is that on Friday the IPCC will announce that the models need to be drastically improved.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TenPenny]

GregLocock wrote:

rconnor, I appreciate you putting some effort in, but if we have somewhat reliable data for CO2 and temperature for 150 years that is used to calibrate the models, and then they run free for 15 years, and diverge significantly from reality over those 15 years, in a way that contradicts the main findings that they have been used to 'prove', why on Earth is anyone worrying about their predictions for 2080 and beyond? The models are broken. They have no predictive power so far as we can tell from 15 years . The parrot is deceased.

I spent some time reading text books on developing mathematical models for investments, using historical stock market data to 'prove' the accuracty of the model. There is a lot of explanation that many iterations and adjustments can be made, and in the end, you wind up with a model, based on, say 150 years of data, that perfectly 'predicts' the current state, and is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS to predict anything in the future.

 

[2dye4]

Look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.
If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude
that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.
If you don't believe the measurements due to some other issue related to placement of sensors or ........ then look at the
satellite data.

Greg, I don't think you answered my question.

["Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.
The difference is very significant. "

Supposedly everything they can think of. That's why there's a dip when a volcano goes off, the negative effect of the smoke outweighs the additional CO2. I gather you haven't got the faintest idea about GCMs? Why do you trust them then?]

Are you saying that model predictions must factor in future volcano eruptions ???
That would be a really hard thing to do.

I believe you are trying to say that the IPCC models projections are for absolute temperature and not just CO2 forcing.
And then I would disagree, but please chime in and clear up your position.

Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?

 

[CajunCenturion]

Look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.

Yes, unprecedented on that chart.

But look at this chart: Ice Core Data
There are four (4) hockey sticks on that chart, each of chart which is considerably more profound and pronounced than your hockey stick of the last 150 years. The hockey stick of the last 150 years is so tiny and minuscule in comparison that it cannot be identified. And yet, that's the "definitive sample size" that we're being asked to accept as the standard to predict the future of earth's climate.

That's my issue. With respect to earth's climate, the chosen sample size is tiny. And yet, the amount of faith that we're being asked to put in that tiny sample size as a predictive base is one of "all in". Our very future depends on it.

==> Are you saying that model predictions must factor in future volcano eruptions?
How much effect do volcano eruptions have on the global climate? If the models are to be comprehensive, then wouldn't it prudent to estimate to whatever degree possible and necessary those effects? Agreed, it would be extremely difficult, but then, the earth's climate is an extremely complex system.

==> Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?
I don't think either side has clean hands when it comes to tossing out insults.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[TenPenny]

Look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.
If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude
that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.
If you don't believe the measurements due to some other issue related to placement of sensors or ........ then look at the
satellite data.

With all due respect, if the chart is not a model, what instruments measured the temperatures in the year 1000, and where were they recorded?

Did you actually read any of the underlying references?
"(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956"

Do you understand what 'interpretation' means? How about 'integration'?

 

[zdas04]

TenPenny,
I started to write your post (in a bit snarky'er tone) when I saw your post.

I've seen some of the hard copies of those "objective" records from the 1800's and it is really difficult to read the handwriting, hard to puzzle out the time gap between recordings and some of them change between Fahrenheit and "Centigrade" without indication (I saw one "98" followed by a "40" three weeks later, was it a cold snap or a change in units?). The data coverage was kind of sparse too. Many of the old temperature records were from sailing ships at sea (where the weather is of critical importance, but combining location fixes with temperature data on the report was a lower priority), during my time at sea I was always amazed at the 20-30F temperature change you would see over a few minutes as you crossed one of the major circulation systems or entered a rain squall. Rigor in that old data was lacking. Integrity in the new data is lacking. In both cases, the gaps are filled with computer models.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart. If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.

Well, I am going to have to add paleo-climate reconstructions and time-series evaluations to the list of things that you don't understand.

As an engineer, if I had an industrial variable that was first passed through a low-pass filter that filtered out any variation less than 50-years (actually, these are basically 50-year running averages, but essentially the same thing), and then looked at the last few data points that provided data on a daily or weekly basis, and thought that I could conclude anything from that, then I would be an idiot. Oh, and especially if the 50-year running average data wasn't actually data, but an interpretation of secondary or tertiary information that may or may not have a direct causal link to the variable that I am interested in, and when these variable are compared to the actual data that I have in the time-span that they overlap actually show divergence... You've probably heard the line "hide the decline", but accepted some charlatan's explanation of it. Go and research Steve McIntyre's assessment of paleo-proxies and all of their inherent problems.

Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?

Have you actually been paying much attention to the "concerned side"? We've been compared to Holocaust Deniers, Alcoholics, Abusive Spouses, Racists, Homophobes, and that's just in the last week. I have just as much disdain for the "Sky Dragons" brand of skeptics, so on that account, no, you're not that special. Exactly what kind of engineering do you do, anyway, that you can profess to have any credible opinion on this topic?

Oh - and will any on the "concerned side", please call out one of your most vocal proponents, Dr. David Suzuki, after his masterful appearance on ABC in Australia (transcript here). He didn't know what UAH, HadCRUT, RSS or GISS were.

 

[2dye4]

Really puzzled here....

Greg and Cajun both seem to require climate models to see into the future and account for volcanic eruptions.

I am at a loss how to understand..

1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..

2 What is wrong with our language that makes this glaring example of disagreement on such a fundamental issue so difficult to resolve.

To predict future volcanic eruptions is entirely impossible, the people that study this sort of thing for a living will tell you
they can do it at most weeks out from the event.
Why do people expect climate modellers to do it decades out..

OK maybe the chart is the result of a model, an inference type of model and not a future predictive type of model. Essentially it is not plagued by the run into chaos that fluid dynamic models suffer.
The reconstruction models have statistical error bands in their results that are far lower than the hockey stick spike. Read their analysis methods.