[cogitator]

You evince a lot of ideas. It's not useful to argue with your ideas -- it would take too much time. Rather, I'll show where you are grossly wrong, and maybe this will convince you to reexamine your other ideas and perhaps improve your understanding.

Anybody who is reasonably facile with mathematics can tell you that a model is only useful in its predictive power if it can be retroactively applied to past conditions and produce “predictions” that, in fact, “mirror” the observations of that past time frame.

Such as like this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127

Caption: Global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to the 1880 to 1920 mean from the instrumental record compared with ensembles of four simulations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model (from Stott et al., 2000b; Tett et al., 2000) forced (a) with solar and volcanic forcing only, (b) with anthropogenic forcing including well mixed greenhouse gases, changes in stratospheric and tropospheric ozone and the direct and indirect effects of sulphate aerosols, and (c) with all forcings, both natural and anthropogenic. The thick line shows the instrumental data while the thin lines show the individual model simulations in the ensemble of four members. Note that the data are annual mean values. The model data are only sampled at the locations where there are observations. The changes in sulphate aerosol are calculated interactively, and changes in tropospheric ozone were calculated offline using a chemical transport model. Changes in cloud brightness (the first indirect effect of sulphate aerosols) were calculated by an offline simulation (Jones et al., 1999) and included in the model. The changes in stratospheric ozone were based on observations. The volcanic forcing was based on the data of Sato et al. (1993) and the solar forcing on Lean et al. (1995), updated to 1997. The net anthropogenic forcing at 1990 was 1.0 Wm-2 including a net cooling of 1.0 Wm-2 due to sulphate aerosols. The net natural forcing for 1990 relative to 1860 was 0.5 Wm-2 , and for 1992 was a net cooling of 2.0 Wm-2 due to Mt. Pinatubo. Other models forced with anthropogenic forcing give similar results to those shown in b (see Chapter 8, Section 8.6.1, Figure 8.15; Hasselmann et al., 1995; Mitchell et al., 1995b; Haywood et al., 1997; Boer et al., 2000a; Knutson et al., 2000).

For that matter, we do not have any statistically valid, data observation compilations of the amount and compositions of gases put into the earth’s atmosphere by volcanic activity, let alone the total amount of such activity, more than a century ago. We do know from very limited observations that a single volcano can potentially “belch” more greenhouse gases and other, erstwhile, pollutant gases into the atmosphere in a single eruption than any possible industrial contribution.

Totally wrong. While volcanoes are a significant contributor of SO2 (particularly big eruptions), SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and actually would cause a cooling effect. Volcanoes are not a signficant source of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas compared to current anthropogenic production.

Gases: Man versus the Volcanoes

Volcanic Gases and their Effects

We have no data on the so-called, “ozone hole” over Antarctica prior to the satellite age nor do we have unquestioned explanations as to that phenomenon’s recently observed variations, let alone its driving mechanism.

Incorrect again. The ozone hole was discovered by ground-based measurements of ozone (Dobson unit decline) made by the British Antarctic Survey; in fact, when the ozone monitoring sensors on satellites first detected the hole, it was thought that the measurements were erroneous and the ground-based measurements had to be consulted to confirm what the satellites were observing.

Ozone Hole

The Antarctic Ozone Hole

Simple statistical analysis of the variations that are postulated to have occurred in the past based upon observations of ice core drillings and ocean core samples, etc., reveal that the currently observed changes are not outside the expected range of natural variation.

That's a specious ["have a false look of truth or genuiness"] argument. Even if the observed changes are not out of the full range of natural variation, their relevant aspect is the climate context in which the observed changes are occurring. If natural causes cannot be identified for the observed changes, then at least part of what is happening is not natural variation. Therefore, it is relevant to try to determine if the non-natural causes have the potential to push the climate system beyond the range of natural variation -- and this indeed is the concern of the climate science community.

[Lucky Dog]

It's not useful to argue with your ideas -- it would take too much time. Rather, I'll show where you are grossly wrong, and maybe this will convince you to reexamine your other ideas and perhaps improve your understanding.

Sorry you feel that way. It would seem to me that the ideas are, in fact, what is the source of the disagreement. As to your assertion concerning my incorrectness, please allow me to offer some counters that may convince your to reexamine your other ideas and perhaps improve your understanding..

Such as like this: [link to global mean temperature model]

Perhaps you missed part of my comment earlier. Therefore, allow me to restate it here:

As climate change, based upon inferences from the geological record, is a phenomenon that transpires over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, [emphasis added] the very first problem concerning model predictions is that there are no accurate, comprehensive records of all of the climatic conditions for that length of time.

The model to which you linked was for less than a century and half of data. Indeed, the readings for the first 40 to 50 years of that time could be potentially challenged on the basis of accuracy and precision compared to the later portion. However, regardless of that point, the time frame shown for the model is insufficient to have any relevance to climatic changes which occur over much longer time frames. Therefore, my point remains statistically valid.

However, let’s look beyond just the statistical validity issue to the actual model inputs as specified by the caption material you quoted. To wit:

(a) with solar and volcanic forcing only… anthropogenic forcing including well mixed greenhouse gases, changes in stratospheric and tropospheric ozone and the direct and indirect effects of sulphate aerosols… The model data are only sampled at the locations where there are observations…

An immediate question arises: Exactly how did the modelers obtain data on solar and volcanic activity as well as stratospheric and tropospheric ozone levels in the 1880’s, or, for that matter, at any time prior to the 1920’s? While there were balloon flights, I don’t recall reading of any regular flights to the stratosphere for data collection in that time frame. Additionally, I don’t recall reading of atmospheric sulfate aerosol data collection efforts from that time.

While volcanoes are a significant contributor of SO2 (particularly big eruptions), SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and actually would cause a cooling effect.

Well, let’s examine the information to which you linked:

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

According to information from global warming sites, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide are all greenhouse gases. However, it is necessary to go further and discuss measurements for quantities of these gases:

Gerlach (1991) estimated [emphasis added] a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes.

Please recall that in my earlier post:

For that matter, we do not have any statistically valid, data observation compilations [emphasis added] of the amount and compositions of gases put into the earth’s atmosphere by volcanic activity, let alone the total amount [emphasis added] of such activity, more than a century ago.

My point still stands: There are no data, i.e., measurements, of worldwide, volcanic contribution to the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. Most certainly, there were not even estimates prior to the last few decades. Therefore, no mathematical model can be said to be accurate in forecasting past climatic conditions since there is a dearth of past input data.

However, let’s press on with examination of another statement:

While volcanoes are a significant contributor of SO2 (particularly big eruptions), SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and actually would cause a cooling effect.

Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world.

Obviously, the above information must be an “estimate” as no one is reported to have measured the output of all volcanoes. Nonetheless, from a discussion point, it would seem that if the above estimate were true, when combined with your earlier statement that “anthropogenic” activities are responsible for global cooling as much, or more, than global warming.

We have no data on the so-called, “ozone hole” over Antarctica prior to the satellite age nor do we have unquestioned explanations as to that phenomenon’s recently observed variations, let alone its driving mechanism.

Incorrect again. The ozone hole was discovered by ground-based measurements of ozone (Dobson unit decline) made by the British Antarctic Survey; in fact,…

British scientists began their measurements of Antarctic ozone in 1957.

Please note that Sputnik was launched in 1957 which is commonly referred to as the beginning of the satellite age. Therefore, my statement is not Incorrect again.

As an added item of interest in this area, it should be noted that the use of Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons (CFC’s) as a refrigerant was not very wide spread less than a decade prior to this measurement. Refrigerators as consumer items were not universally common items in the US until the late 40’s and early 50’s and even later in other parts of the world. Automobile air conditioning was not widespread until the early, or even late, 60’s and household air conditioning was even later becoming a broadly based phenomenon in the US. An argument could be made that household air conditioning is still not wide spread outside of the US. Industrial use of refrigerants outside of the food preparation industry was, and remains, limited except for internal environmental control. Despite these facts, the hole in the ozone is attributed to CFC’s.

… when the ozone monitoring sensors on satellites first detected the hole, it was thought that the measurements were erroneous and the ground-based measurements had to be consulted to confirm what the satellites were observing.

This may be true but was irrelevant to my statement.

Simple statistical analysis of the variations that are postulated to have occurred in the past based upon observations of ice core drillings and ocean core samples, etc., reveal that the currently observed changes are not outside the expected range of natural variation.

That's a specious ["have a false look of truth or genuineness"] argument.

Let me assure you, my statistical argument is not specious. Perhaps you should research something know as Type I and Type II errors and the related Alpha and Beta risk.

If natural causes cannot be identified for the observed changes, then at least part of what is happening is not natural variation.

Perhaps you could provide the natural cause for the previous peaks that match or exceed the currently observed temperatures in the inferred temperature graphs from ice core drillings? By your stated logic, if you cannot identify those natural causes, then at least part of those changes is not natural variation. Obviously, neither you nor anyone else can identify those causes. Therefore, you statement concerning the inability to identify current change causes does not preclude that the sources of the current causes may be the same sources that caused the previous changes.

Therefore, it is relevant to try to determine if the non-natural causes have the potential to push the climate system beyond the range of natural variation -- and this indeed is the concern of the climate science community.

At last, a statement we can agree upon! However, I expect that we part company on the difference between pronouncements of concern versus pronouncements of absolute certainty as to causes and what might, or might not, be appropriate remedies.