4:00 AM Ramblings

It is nearly 4:00 AM local time and despite my best attempts at sleep, I'm still wide awake. At this point I'm not sure it matters as I need to be up in less than two hours to go up to the rocket test facility. Oh well.

There has been a fair bit of discussion during the past week that I'd like to comment on and a few things that I've been meaning to write about but haven't had the time.

First, climatology seems a bit too new of a science to get past my skepticism. The plain facts are that despite all the best efforts of some really good scientists, we just don't have enough hard, direct data to know whether "global warming" is something to worry about, or how much change is humanity's fault. Add in this recent little poll, suggesting that over 15% of researchers admit to matching conclusions to funding sources. Add in that funding sources may pick research topics based on what would expand their own little empires. Just a second, is there anyone here who is skeptical of Exxon-Mobile funded research, yet is not skeptical of NOAA funded research? If you are here, can you help me understand why? Thanks in advance. Back to the topic on hand, tax funded research tends to go to research that would lead to more tax funding. Incentives matter. Having said that, I'm not going to suggest there isn't global warming, and more importantly, I'll happily go out on a limb and say that there is climate change going on. Rather safe bet that there is change, seems to be the only constant.

Raich
and Federalism - the Hamiltonian reading of the commerce clause wins. Nothing is off limits. Question - we (U.S. citizens) choose policies by a method of indirect democracy. Now in a democracy, governance is by the majority. If the majority of people are bigoted, ignorant idiots, then are we sure we want to centralize the civil rights movement in a democratic body? Moreover, does legislation really matter? There are right now towns in this great country where a person with the wrong skin color will not get served. That goes all ways. There are neighborhoods in Chicago where I won't be treated very well, and there are neighborhoods where I'll be treated like family and a darker skin guy will be treated very poorly. Going back a hundred years when the laws were all about segregation, many businesses resisted segregation. The legislation in place does not seem to do much good and can go either way. Really, civil rights are too important for legislative fiat and dynamic interpretations of the Constitution. There will come a time when legislative fiat and dynamic interpretation are used against civil rights, and there will not be anything to fall back on.

At the Catallarchy party in Arlington, Va a bit ago we discussed Hayek's Road to Serfdom thesis. The general gist of the discussion was that it failed as a strong thesis, the U.S. and Britain disprove it, but allowing for economic changes and knowing about the problem allow us to avoid the destination. At the time I generally agreed, but I'm thinking I was wrong then. The strong thesis has not been disproven. There is nothing in the thesis that says what speed or even what direction one must go on the road, but rather that as you pass certain waypoints on the road certain things occur. The U.S. has been travelling much slower, hazard lights on, and half of Europe cussing at us for going so slow on the autobahn. The USSR and Nazi Germany drove down the road in Formula One race cars at full tilt. Britain was heading down the road at a fairly good pace, but then did a bootlegger reverse and hit the gas for a bit. The U.S. does not disprove the strong thesis, but rather just hasn't gotten to the problem spots yet.

Well, I've rambled enough.

Share this

Good point, matt. These

Good point, matt. These sweeping theories of history do suffer from a lack of falsifiability.

I myself made an error on

I myself made an error on this last post. I misread a source document to assert that Willie Soon is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil. In fact, he isn't. I regret the error. But this at least supports my major point; specific assertions can be checked; vague one can not.

David, regarding your Hayek

David, regarding your Hayek comment I'd like to mention that you're probably quite right about the aspects of the thesis that are unclear (it doesn't say how fast a country should progress, etc.) It remind of a marxist discussing marx's "capitalism will sow the seeds of its own destruction" argument- the marxist who are left will defend this (and a few other of Marx's more loony theses) using precisely the same argument you're using here. Enter Karl Poppper...

Rich, I must have been too

Rich, I must have been too brief and not clear on my position on climatology. As for my "uneducated opinion" I deal very heavily in fluid dynamics as a part of my profession. Climatology is a subset of fluid dynamics - just on a really big scale. Now in order to model any fluid system (or any system for that matter) we must figure out what variables have any effect, and then what variables actually matter. One aspect of my professional fluid dynamics work is engineering rocket chambers and nozzles. Very few variables. Geometry and properties of the injector, chamber, and nozzle; and the properties of the working fluids (two species being combusted resulting into approximately 10 significant species). With something so simple, modeling a rocket engine is not trivial and involves lots of trial and error i.e. the models regularly fail. Now let's look at climatology - Solar activity, volcanic and other geologic activity, Earth's geometry, biological acivity, magnetoshpere acivity all acting on how many chemical species in the atmosphere and oceans and land?

Climatology has made some great advances and provides a lot of good information about the world we live in, I have no problem with that. The models of the North Atlantic currents that show how the amount of salt in the water can seriously change those currents and result in a really cold Europe is great stuff. But do I think those models are good enough to tell us when it will occur? No. Do I think those models are good enough to suggest a way to prevent that change? No. Do I think the models provide some good insight into how things work? Hell Yes!

I have a problem with claims of the various climate models being good enough to take massive political action on. It has been within my lifetime that climatologists were trumpeting a coming ice age!

Listen, I deal with science every day, one of the first things anyone must understand is the limits of human knowledge on the given subject. Addressing my "belief" in quantum mechanics or relativity, let's move this closer to what I'm trying to say. My take on physics is pretty much the same as my take on climatology. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and our best models fail miserably all the time. All NASA's best scientists and engineers could not correctly model the orbit and necessary station keeping of SkyLab, the predictions for the time in orbit was off by many years. Even as SkyLab descended from orbit the best orbital mechanics could not predict the final impact point of SkyLab. We humans seem to have problems with models that predict things in the span of months and years all the time. I know from personal experince the fallability of physics and economics. Why should I not question the fallibility of climatology?

There is nothing "anti-intellectual" about admitting or acknowleging ignorance. In fact it is the first step towards enlightenment.

Your uneducated opinion on

Your uneducated opinion on the matter is worthless.

As is your opinion on civility.

David, your argument from

David, your argument from ignorance doesn't mean much. Really, dismissing climatology because "it is a bit new of a science"? Arrhenius discovered global warming in 1895. I guess that by your "not too new" rule, you must not believe in general relativity, quantum theory, or DNA. And for your 15% of scientists matching conclusions to funding sources -- gee, who do you think these are, the Exxon-Mobil scientists whose funding source is Exxon-Mobil, or the tenured academics working on basic science who can't be fired and who will continue to work on some aspect of climate no matter what they discover? NOAA research isn't going to end if global climate change was discovered not to be anthropogenic; people would still want to try to predict what was going to happen as best as possible.

People supposedly set a high value on civility here, but it's not civil to voice ignorant scepticism of an entire scientific field. It is anti-intellectual, however. And really, who cares if you "go out on a limb" and say that climate change is going on. Your uneducated opinion on the matter is worthless.

David, if there is nothing

David, if there is nothing anti-intellectual about admitting ignorance, then maybe you should not be so quick to assume that you know what is going on in climatology. I have no idea about what your qualifications are as an engineer, or what you really know about fluid dynamics. I do know that "climatology is a subset of fluid dynamics" is nonsense. Fluid dynamics will not help you solve a problem in atmospheric chemistry, or analyze an ice core.

And it's not reassuring that put in at least one known falsehood. I refer to your remark about how, within your lifetime, climatologists have been trumpeting a coming ice age. I already posted a link in the recent thread "Sweet, Snowy Irony" containing a page about how climatologists never predicted a global cooling that would happen within human timescales. You should go and read it. Of course, if you mean that climatologists predicted that an ice age would eventually occur on some geological timescale, the answer is yes, but so what? That is perfect consistant with global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 occuring within human timescales.

But I'll try to read your remarks as charitably as I can. What you appear to be saying is that you don't trust climate *models*. So what? You don't know anything about them. But let's imagine that you are right and that they "provide some insight" but are somehow still rubbish. We still know, by basic physics, that putting more CO2 into the air must raise the global temperature. We know, by direct measurement, that we are putting more CO2 into the air. We know that climate must change if we continue what we are doing. If you are correct and models are worthless, then we don't know when the climate will change, or how it will change, only that it will change. Actually, we also know that the climate *is* changing now, because we can see the temperature going up. Now, if you think that this is not enough reason to "take massive political action", that's, well, an opinion -- but it is literally an ignorant opinion, because you're saying that although you don't know what will happen, only that something must happen, you insist that we should do nothing about it because we don't know what it will be. I really hope that you don't build your rockets on a similar principle.

Lastly, I think that you're being disingenuous. You started out with an explicit assertion that tax funded research corrupted scientists, and linked this to climate studies in particular. That's a politically motivated smear. It is not in any way similar to the assertion that Willie Soon, a particular person, is influenced in his work by the fact that he is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil, or by the fact that he works for a particular right-wing think tank. The assertion about Willie Soon can be backed up by facts, which people can evaluate using their own judgement. Yours hints at scandal while being too vague to ever be tested.

You're the second or third libertarian here to imply that you don't believe what you do about climate science for political reasons. Well, I don't believe you. I think that your political ideology has no way to deal with this problem, and that therefore you must deny its existence -- though pseudo-science, through deliberate ignorance, through repetition of propaganda, and through baseless smears of the kind that I see in your original post. That reflects poorly on you and on your political philosophy.

And for your 15% of

And for your 15% of scientists matching conclusions to funding sources – gee, who do you think these are, the Exxon-Mobil scientists whose funding source is Exxon-Mobil, or the tenured academics working on basic science who can’t be fired and who will continue to work on some aspect of climate no matter what they discover?

Both. BTW, Exxon-Mobile funds research programs at universities as well as internal research programs, as does NOAA. University-Corporate partnerships are very common. Also, even if you are tenured, there are many incentives to be involved with certain studies, boards, and outside organizations. No one is a perfect saint.

NOAA research isn’t going to end if global climate change was discovered not to be anthropogenic; people would still want to try to predict what was going to happen as best as possible.

NOAA exists and has a budget based on the whim of Congress. From time to time, the top ranks of NOAA (as does every department and administration) goes before Congress to justify their budget. Now which is easier and more lucrative - "we need this budget to study this crisis..." or "we need this budget to continue basic research on ..." Both get some budget, but Congress-critters open up the change purses much wider for a crisis. Just look at Homeland Security and DoD in the last several years.

Rich, one other thing. My

Rich, one other thing. My first sentence about climatology goes with the second sentence, probably should have been two clauses in one sentence instead. Climatology and weather measurements are too recent an invention to test models against reality. Climates can take an awful long time to change enough to be sure the hypothesis is supported or not, even with a punctuated equilibrium case.

Matt, hmmm...You just may

Matt, hmmm...You just may have a point. I'll have to go back and review Road to Serfdom. If I recall correctly though, Hayek was wise enough to tie specific actions and conditions to specific consequences. One such example - in describing how a country would come to select a brutal dictator Hayek says that there must enough of the economy in the hands of the government to have large segments of the population fighting over the benefits as a matter of life or death and you need a viable scapegoat. In pre-war (WWII) Britain even though the level of socialism was pretty high and increasing there were not large segments of the population fighting over economic benefits, there was enough to go around. Contrarywise in Germany, there were not enough economic benefits to be doled out to everyone. A scapegoat was found and Hitler came to power.

Though there is still a problem of quantification. Hmmmmmm.....
(one would think that a follower of Austrian econ wouldn't worry about quantitifying things.)

Contrary to my usual idea

Contrary to my usual idea that one shouldn't post during late-night data runs, I'm going to write this at 4:00 AM. That should give some sort of biological cycle parity with the original.

Starting with Doug's questions --

1. Carbon has three main isotopes, 12C, 13C, and 14C. 14C decays quickly (half-life of 5700 years) so fossil fuels don't contain much, as it decayed long ago. 14C is replenished by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Fossil fuels also contain less 13C than air does, because plants (which produced fossil fuels) prefer CO2 containing 12C to CO2 containing 13C in photosynthesis. This means that carbon from the oceans is depleted in 14C but not 13C. One can track the isotopic distribution of CO2 over time in various ways, such as sampling tree rings or directly sampling the atmosphere (for recent periods). The isotopic distribution of CO2 shows a major source from fossil fuel burning. (Although there is the complication that atmospheric nuclear weapons testing put 14C into the atmosphere in the 1950s).

2. I'm stumped about how to explain this one quickly at 4 AM. OK, people know that CO2 is not the only cause of global temperature change. As we went through in the other thread, changes in solar activity, the orbital position of the Earth, albedo (like dust from a meteorite impact) and many other things might also change global temperature. It is the particular circumstances of the current situation that lead to the identification of anthropogenic CO2 as the main cause. This was clearly not true for the Ice Ages. Currently, the best guess is that orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) started the warming, and that this led to increased CO2 release from plant life which in turn accelerated the warming. As the end of the article that you quoted says:

"greenhouse skeptics will probably jump on this paper as 'proof' " that there is no necessary causal relation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures, said Anthony J. Broccoli of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. But in fact, he said, the new findings are completely consistent with a "positive CO2-temperature feedback" system in which changes in one prompt changes in the other."

And yes, there have been developments since 1999. A possible resource is

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

It's a site by a microbiologist (I think) but may be a good source for links and so on. I still assert that basic physics requires that more CO2 in the atmosphere must lead to a higher global temperature, all other factors being equal. I'm not sure how to prove this in a comment box. Here, instead, is some dead-pan humor that is also scientifically accurate:

http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/co2_ref.txt

Try Emailling Grumbine about it if you are really interested. And do not tell him that I sent you. :-)

Next, David's points --

I also make mistakes, as I have just shown in my comments just above this one. Let me try to focus in on where I think we really disagree and not on side issues like whether chemistry is really part of fluid dynamics (I think it isn't, since fluid dynamics is part of compression mechanics, but I'll let you have the last word since you know more about that than I do.)

No one can tell you what an "ideal" global temperature is, but it is higher likely than rapid (i.e. within a century) changes in global climate will be bad for us, since our arrangements are based on the current state of climate. If you want economic consequences and error bars, the best guess has been done by the IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm

Whether this is reason enough or not to take action is a political question. I'm not even going to really try to argue political questions much on this, if we can't even agree on consensus science.

But as to one of your major points, I think that the two circumstances (between industry funding through think-tank and NOAA funding through peer-reviewed grant) are indeed different. All scientists must get funding from somewhere. You can't just say, from this obvious fact, that science is all biased by its funding sources. There are mechanisms in place that are intended to discourage that to the extent practible -- thus only 15% in the survey, not 100%. Those mechanisms are drastically weakened when a scientist is doing things that a scientist is typically not supposed to do. A sign of industry capture is seen when a scientist's public opinions become more and more widely distributed even as they become steadily less and less supported by respected peer-reviewed work.

Look, for instance, at the mass resignation of the editors of Climate Research in connection with the Baliunas and Soon paper. (Can't do links now; I provided one in the last thread.) That kind of effect is a clear sign of what's going wrong.

The counter hypothesis is not untestible because it is possible to document money travelling through scientifically nonstandard channels, and it is likely that money travelling through these channels is much more likely to influence people than money through reviewed channels, sent in response to worthy-looking grant proposals.

There is sometimes the suggestion that climatologists want to somehow gain more moeny for the whole field by inflating glboal warming as a problem. I say again that people would want to know why the changes that we see happening are happening, no matter what the best estimate of the cause was. I don't think that the supposed added prod of having it be an anthropogenic cause would be worth an entire scientific field deciding to prostitute itself.

Lastly, I don't plan to respond so frequently, so please look up more of these considerations on your own. I'm not a climatologist, so you wouldn't be doing anything that I haven't had to do.

David, if there is nothing

David, if there is nothing anti-intellectual about admitting ignorance, then maybe you should not be so quick to assume that you know what is going on in climatology.

You should be aware that I will from time to time make mistakes, every once in a great while I'll do it purposefully (I haven't purposefully made any in this thread). It's why we have the comments section, correct me. As for climatology I am an interested layman with a considerable common knowledge base due to similarities with my profession (and that both weather and climate affect my professional life directly).

I do know that “climatology is a subset of fluid dynamics” is nonsense.

Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is all the various phenomena of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a dynamic fluid.

Fluid dynamics will not help you solve a problem in atmospheric chemistry,

Fluid chemistry is part and parcel of fluid dynamics.

or analyze an ice core.

Climatologists like rocket engineers need to collect data, which invariably means a whole bunch of additional skills. Climatologists doing really long-term studies might use a lot of geology to collect data. So? I use videography, mechanics, electronics and software engineering to collect data. This does not change the fundamental nature of the science, which is fluid dynamics.

I refer to your remark about how, within your lifetime, climatologists have been trumpeting a coming ice age. I already posted a link in the recent thread “Sweet, Snowy Irony” containing a page about how climatologists never predicted a global cooling that would happen within human timescales.

My mistake, I missed that link earlier. In fact I missed the comment that caused you to post that link as well. I made the comment based on my own recollection of popular science rags from the seventies. I probably shouldn't make comments based on my recollections, they are faulty. Thank you for the correction.

What you appear to be saying is that you don’t trust climate models. So what? You don’t know anything about them.

Nothing. Nothing at all. Let me guess, climatologists use a completely different math system? Nothing I'd recognize as statistical analysis, or integration of terms, or any algebra. No possibility of chaotic or complex systems. I suppose that means that confidence levels and error margins are right out too. I suppose the chemistry is really wild?

Actually, we also know that the climate is changing now, because we can see the temperature going up.

Yep. So tell me, what is the ideal average world temperature, and how do we know that? We know it was frickin cold in Philly in 1777/8, and it wasn't an unusual winter. What is the maximum and minimum that humans have been through? What are the economic consequences? What are the confidence levels and error margins?

Now, if you think that this is not enough reason to “take massive political action", that’s, well, an opinion – but it is literally an ignorant opinion, because you’re saying that although you don’t know what will happen, only that something must happen, you insist that we should do nothing about it because we don’t know what it will be.

No it is a very informed opinion, based on economic and political science. I don't need any climatology to tell me that political action has serious negative unintended consequences, often *worse* than what it is supposed to be fixing.

Lastly, I think that you’re being disingenuous.

Not intentionally.

You started out with an explicit assertion that tax funded research corrupted scientists, and linked this to climate studies in particular. That’s a politically motivated smear.

Public choice theory in practice. The only link to climatology is that it is what we are talking about. I hold similar views of other sciences. Climatology gets it bad because it is currently all over the popular press. But basically public choice theory says that politics can be analyzed by economic means, the results of this analysis is that if you expect foul play in the corporate world, the same type of foul play can be expected in the political world. Now that is a drastic over-simplification, but it is what is germaine to this discussion.

It is not in any way similar to the assertion that Willie Soon, a particular person, is influenced in his work by the fact that he is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil, ... Yours hints at scandal while being too vague to ever be tested.

Now earlier you stated:

And for your 15% of scientists matching conclusions to funding sources – gee, who do you think these are, the Exxon-Mobil scientists whose funding source is Exxon-Mobil, or the tenured academics working on basic science who can’t be fired and who will continue to work on some aspect of climate no matter what they discover?
are you trying to tell me that you did not mean to disparage anyone with that statement? Or hinting at an untestable scandal?

BTW, all the respondents for that 15% number are NIH funded, i.e. government funded researchers.

BTW, I did notice the area

BTW, I did notice the area of the article that claims that a change in one (CO2 and temperature) prompts a change in the other. But the article in its entirety is interesting nonetheless.

As I've mentioned earlier in

As I've mentioned earlier in another thread, I'm not a guru on the topic of climatology. I'm not an engineer, either. But I do enjoy info-gathering on the subject, and I have a couple honest questions here.

Rich, you said:

"We still know, by basic physics, that putting more CO2 into the air must raise the global temperature. We know, by direct measurement, that we are putting more CO2 into the air. We know that climate must change if we continue what we are doing."

I had come across this article printed from the Washington Post that states:

In one paper, published in the March 11 issue of the journal Nature, researchers said they found that during the past 11,000 years--the period known as the Holocene epoch that began around the end of the last ice age and extends to the present--levels of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, did not remain constant until the onset of the industrial revolution, as many had long supposed.

Instead, although average global temperatures stayed relatively stable, carbon dioxide levels fluctuated considerably during the Holocene, according to a team from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Bern, Switzerland. "The system was never in equilibrium because the carbon dioxide levels never stabilized," said Martin Wahlen of Scripps, part of the University of California at San Diego.

...

In the other study, reported in the March 12 issue of the journal Science, Scripps investigators addressed one of the most vexing "chicken-and-egg" questions in climate research. Namely, when the Earth shifts from glacial to warm periods (as it does every 100,000 years or so), which comes first: an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase in global temperature? Contrary to what many believe, the team concluded that the temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to 1,000 years later.

That's what the researchers found at glacial-interglacial transitions from 240,000, 140,000 and 13,000 years ago. That sequence of events appears to contradict the fundamental logic of simple greenhouse warming theories, which argue that increases in heat-trapping gases will be followed by higher surface temperatures.

The analysis also points to vegetation as a major source of the carbon spike.

This raises two questions in my mind...

1. If CO2 levels occasionally shot up during a time when there was no industry to speak of, how can we know for certain how much of today's CO2 increases are indeed man-made? Can we confidently tell? Are we responsible for a small part of it? Most of it? Nearly all of it?

2. Considering the last couple paragraphs, these seem to contradict Rich's assertion that "by basic physics ... putting more CO2 in the air must raise the global temperature."

PS: I realize that this particular article was from 1999, so it's obviously not THE most up-to-date piece. So if that plays a piece in this puzzle, let me know.

Before anyone responds, try to not shoot the messenger. These are legit questions by an admitted layperson (me) who freely admits he's just looking for feedback in an area in which he's not an expert. I'm throwing "ideology" out the window here, so let's not even go there.

I don’t know much about

I don’t know much about the global warming debate but before going overboard changing every thing because of what might or could happen one should look at a little history.
For example take the “Population Bomb” and “Nuclear Winter” scares. (If you are old enough to remember) The people who are pushing the global warming panic are the ones that pushed the first two forgotten buzz words. What do they have in common? They promote Anti-technology, anti- capitalism and Anti-American political leanings. They also have in common the foolish belief that you can reliably predict future events that involve complex systems. As all good libertarians and anarchists know, and have repeatedly expressed here, spontaneous order surpasses understanding or planning by the “experts.” All these predictions about complex systems have the weakness that they don’t anticipate the reactions that take place when conditions driving the process change.

Let’s combine all three whacky theories into one. Since the population bomb failed to result in the destruction of civilization, thus allowing global warming to occur, why not counteract the process by inducing a nuclear winter? Are you hesitant? But it’s for our own good.

Patinator, you really should

Patinator, you really should give up the urge to mine scientific documents that you don't understand for "gotchas". The paper that you happened on last time talked about "skill" -- a concept with a specific meaning that I'm not sure that you understand -- within a certain, specific (and difficult) type of modelling. When I linked to the IPCC in general, I didn't expect that you'd migrate to one of the more difficult areas, find a paper that says that hey, doing this part of cutting-edge science is difficult, and use that to imply that models are worthless. That is the same thing that creationists do when they find a paper in biology that they don't understand that talks about a current problem in understanding some evolutionary issue -- they hold up some paragraph from the middle of it to say "Look! Scientists say that evolution is bunk!"

If you want to try to understand global climate models and their problems, try

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/309.htm

and start with the Executive Summary. Keep in mind that this is from 2001, so there will have been progress since then. But the reason I send people to it rather than some more recent paper is that this is specifically designed to be a statement of scientific consensus that it is remotely possible that someone outisde the field can read.

Rich or Dave or anyone, Can

Rich or Dave or anyone,

Can either of you provide a link which demonstrates the accuracy of climate prediction models? By this I mean prediction vs. actual not model vs. model or data fitting without prediction.

I went to a site that Rich recommended, but found a report that appeared to state the opposite. I admit that this was one report among many (the others I did not read) and there might be one to substantiate their accuracy, but I didn't find it.

I'm not even sure why you

I'm not even sure why you think that such a graph would be convincing. I mean, which temperature? What kind of model? Why would a single graph of the output of a single model tell you what the Executive Summary of a document prepared by hundreds of scientists and designed to reflect the current state of the science would not?

Oh, very well. Here is a link to the results of a recent paper. Look for the third illustration down on the page, the one referring to changes in temperature. That has the match between actual temperature change and model output for the last hundred years or so. If you want model predictions for future years as well, find your own link. I can't tell you much more about it because the link to the actual paper that it is in is currently not working.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148#more-148

Rich, Thanks for the link.

Rich,

Thanks for the link. I only have 200 pages left in Don Quixote and my interest is starting to wane, but this 800 page climate study may restoke my fire.

Upon first glance it does not have what I am looking for, but let me explain. All I am looking for is a graph (or graphs for each uncoupled model) - temprature (or climate) on the y axis, date (say 1900-2100) on the x axis, the two variables are model output and actual. Are the model evaluations ever tabulated in that format?