While looking for quotes on an upcoming post about Ocean Heat Content, I ran across the press release for a new paper (in press) by Neely et al, which blames the recent slowdown in global warming on smaller more moderate volcanos.
ADD ANOTHER REASON TO THE NON-CONSENSUS
Many readers will recall the October 2011 article by Paul Voosen titled Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming. The article presented the different responses from a number of climate scientists, including John Barnes, Kevin Trenberth, Susan Solomon, Jean-Paul Vernier, Ben Santer, John Daniel, Judith Lean, James Hansen, Martin Wild, and Graeme Stephens, to the question, “Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?” The different replies led Roger Pielke, Sr. to note at the end of his post Candid Comments from Climate Scientists:
These extracts from the Greenwire article illustrate why the climate system is not yet well understood. The science is NOT solved.
Judith Curry provided running commentary in her post Candid Comments from Global Warming Scientists. If you haven’t read it, it’s a worthwhile read.
NEW STUDY BY NEELY ET AL PRESENTS ANOTHER REASON
Neely et al 2013 (in press) blames moderate volcanos. According to a press release from the University of Colorado Boulder:
A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning, said lead study author Ryan Neely, who led the research as part of his CU-Boulder doctoral thesis. Small amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth’s surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet.
The paper (in press) is Neely et al (2013) Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol.
The abstract reads:
Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth’s climate. Contributions to this increase both from moderate volcanic eruptions and from enhanced coal burning in Asia have been suggested. Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources. Here we use a global climate model coupled to an aerosol microphysical model to partition the contribution of each. We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
Bottom line: There’s still no consensus from climate scientists about the cause of the slowdown in the warming rate of global surface temperatures.
And of course, the sea surface temperature and ocean heat content reveal another reason: there hadn’t been a strong El Niño to release monumental volumes of warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and shift up the sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. Refer to my essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” and my ebook Who Turned on the Heat?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These scientists are now modelling the noise rather than the signal.
The classic error of statistical neophytes.
At this rate, AGW C02 will soon be responsible for “Global Cooling”
It appears the back peddling has started. There is no extreme AGW crisis to solve.
The next step would be media discussion of the green scams.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/
John Daniel:
“We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
JC comment: Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel.
Just looking at the variables, this is a remarkably stupid epicycle.
In the Carbon Cult model, the input variable is CO2 and the output is “global” temperature, and the model says the output should follow the input.
Facts aren’t cooperating with the model. The output variable is moving in various ways, but it’s not following the CO2 input.
A normal dishonest pseudoscientist would try to keep his model alive by introducing an OPPOSING epicycle, a made-up variable that keeps subtracting more and more from the output to keep it flat while the input increases.
But our dear Carbon Cult friends don’t even know how to be normal dishonest pseudoscientists. They introduce a CONSTANT epicycle, which won’t help their cause. Volcanos are a constant input, so they won’t counteract the increasing CO2 input.
So, ironically, coal is contributing to the cooling? Ha. How would that play in the press release?
If an increase in stratospheric SO2 content is what’s causing a slowdown / stop in global warming, isn’t it likely that a decrease in SO2 was the cause of the earlier global warming itself? And what do the actual levels of SO2 look like? Since their results are strictly from models, what assumptions as to CO2 and SO2 climate sensitivities are they using?
There would appear to be a logic problem here.
We are told:
=that the reason for ‘Super Storm Sandy” was ‘global warming’;
=that the reason for all the snow is extra moisture caused by ‘global warming’;
=that the reason for the heatwaves in Australia is ‘global warming’
=that the droughts in Texas and the mid-west is ‘glbbal warming’
=that the reason for the continual rain on UK was ‘global warming’
=that the reason for the melt of the Arctic ice cap was ‘global warming’
=that the reason for the extra ice extent in the Antarctic is ‘global warming’
And now we are told that the reason there has been NO global warming for 15 years is because of volcanic aerosols?
So as it is now agreed that there has been no significant global warming for 15 years and we now have been given a solid reason for that being the case – the preceding claims of severe weather being caused by warming they now agree didn’t happen must be false.
There also volumes of optical depth measurements of the totat atmosphere, taken all during that interval, which contradict his thesis. I haven’t read the paper yet, so I should be silent, but it isn’t like no one has been looking at that issue. Lots of people have.
Well, the obvious next step, sacrificing virgins.
=========
Drowning men? Straws?
Silent, but deadly. We need an array of hydrogen sulphide sniffers to examine these eruptions.
Nor am Iikely to read the paper, as it is behind a paywall. However, there are several other presentations Mr. Neely did on the same subject that are out in the open.
“Bottom line: There’s still no consensus from climate scientists about the cause of the slowdown in the warming rate of global surface temperatures.”
if they agreed youd bitch that it was a conspiracy or that consensus didnt matter.
If they disagree youd bitch that the science wasnt settled and remark that the sun explains it all.
Does this sound familiar? It should–it’s the same argument used to explain the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977 only then it was supposed to have been increased atmospheric sulfur as a result of increased use of higher sulfur coal. The cool period ended abruptly in 1978 with no change in either either atmospheric sulfur or CO2.
Volcanoes have been spitting out sulfur for millions of years and there is no evidence of any significant difference today than at any other time in geologic history.
How long will political scientists continue to ignore the excellent correlation between global warming and cooling and ocean temperature changes, such as the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc and attempt to ‘explain’ global warming and cooling on such flimsy scenarios?
Nonsense fewer cokes and beers have been sold globally. Most certainly the cause as they emit sequestered CO2 and now not so much. I heard about this theory while marching with James Hansen. One of the chants I believe.
It takes exactly 2 seconds to see the error in this. And 2 seconds to see the bias.
‘Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth’s climate.’
Earth’s atmosphere, not the Earth’s climate.
Just propping up the failed feedback theory with sticks.
Unbelievable. The audacity of these groups to say global warming is due to humans alone except when it comes to the earth cooling, it’s a few volcanoes.
Why are so many of these studies doctoral dissertations? Is it just me, or is it hard to take these very seriously?
…where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet.
I wonder if they realize clouds are made of water particles, too. And that clouds vastly overwhelm those water particles with a direct volcanic origin? Maybe they just consider clouds as obnoxious things that get in the way of their observations as they look skyward.
A typical “can’t see the forest for the trees” quandry.
Mosher, ” if they agreed youd bitch that it was a conspiracy or that consensus didnt matter.
If they disagree youd bitch that the science wasnt settled and remark that the sun explains it all.”
Yes, you finally get it. Now, live with it.
Steven Mosher says:
March 2, 2013 at 6:23 am
You’re the only one to introduct the word “conspiracy”, Steven. Are you a conspiracy monger? Or do you have something to contribute to the discussion?
So when are there not volcanoes going off somewhere. Aren’t there many thousands of them, always some active. Could one not explain absolutely anything with such input data?
Steven Mosher says:
March 2, 2013 at 6:23 am
“Bottom line: There’s still no consensus from climate scientists about the cause of the slowdown in the warming rate of global surface temperatures.”
if they agreed youd bitch that it was a conspiracy or that consensus didnt matter.
If they disagree youd bitch that the science wasnt settled and remark that the sun explains it all.
______________________
Again, Mosh- you are trying to make a point with a fairy tale.
Why try to attribute words to others which they did not say? Lots of comments have been taking you to task for this sort of thing, lately. Don’t you remember where you are, or what you’ll find here at WUWT?
It looks very much to me like there are only two dials in the climate models of any significance, CO2 to make temperatures go up and volcanic aerosols to make temperatures go down. So the only thing surprising about this study to me is that it eliminated Asian industrialization as the culprit. When the models can predict the magnitude of an ENSO cycle, can better understand the decadonal ocean processes and have a much better understanding of water vapor, clouds and thunderstorms, they might become good predictive tools as opposed to after the fact rationalization mechanisms.