Thick ash poured from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull Volcano when the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite acquired this image on April 17, 2010. The ash in this image is at two different altitudes. A concentrated plume rises over a more diffuse cloud of ash, casting a dark shadow on the ash below. The volcano had been emitting ash in puffs that reached between 16,000 and 24,000 feet, according to the Icelandic Met Office. The higher plume seen here is likely from a more explosive event.
Now some new research on this eruption leads to a conclusion that volcano aerosols may be underestimated. Apparently they find that there’s a secondary nucleation particle mechanism. They say:
…we report the first observation of nucleation and new secondary particle formation events in a volcanic plume.
Essentially, they analyzed how many secondary particles this ash generated as it reacted with the atmospheric chemistry of the atmosphere. They found that particles created from the eruptions were mostly composed of sulfuric acid, but as a consequence of the atmospheric reactions, especially at lower than previously considered altitudes, they grew over time, multiplying the effect. This new paper was in the PNAS early edition this week.
Abstract:
Observations of nucleation of new particles in a volcanic plume
+ Author Affiliations
aLaboratoire de Météorologie Physique, Observatoire de Physique du Globe de Clermont Ferrand, Centre National de la Recheche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 6016, Université Blaise Pascal, 63177 Aubière, France; and
bLaboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement, Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5183, Université Joseph Frourier, BP 53-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
-
Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, La Jolla, CA, and approved June 21, 2011 (received for review March 29, 2011)
Abstract
Volcanic eruptions caused major weather and climatic changes on timescales ranging from hours to centuries in the past. Volcanic particles are injected in the atmosphere both as primary particles rapidly deposited due to their large sizes on time scales of minutes to a few weeks in the troposphere, and secondary particles mainly derived from the oxidation of sulfur dioxide. These particles are responsible for the atmospheric cooling observed at both regional and global scales following large volcanic eruptions. However, large condensational sinks due to preexisting particles within the plume, and unknown nucleation mechanisms under these circumstances make the assumption of new secondary particle formation still uncertain because the phenomenon has never been observed in a volcanic plume. In this work, we report the first observation of nucleation and new secondary particle formation events in a volcanic plume. These measurements were performed at the puy de Dôme atmospheric research station in central France during the Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption in Spring 2010. We show that the nucleation is indeed linked to exceptionally high concentrations of sulfuric acid and present an unusual high particle formation rate. In addition we demonstrate that the binary H2SO4 – H2O nucleation scheme, as it is usually considered in modeling studies, underestimates by 7 to 8 orders of magnitude the observed particle formation rate and, therefore, should not be applied in tropospheric conditions. These results may help to revisit all past simulations of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate.
h/t to reader “Scarlet Pumpernickel”.
They’ll use this to say that the non-warming of the past decade was due to the volcanoes.
Hmmm… This finding may also be relevant to Henrik Svensmark and his team’s theory on galactic cosmic ray modulation on average cloud cover, as that too appears dependent on the rate of aerosol production in the atmosphere.
Just wondering, given that these nucleation particles are a basis for cloud formation, has anyone linked historical volcanic activity to observed cloud cover variability during the satellite era?
And at South of Chile, The Caulle Puyehue is still releasing ash.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51316
Nice sat images.
@Mr Nobody Parker, More likely they’ll use it to explain away any cooling since the eruption. The Chinese sulphur aerosols explain the rest of the cooling.
Unfortunately, a huge volcanic input to the stratosphere would give the Warmistas a decades-long excuse for the absence of any warming. Much better that the impending Solar Minimum get to do all the cooling by itself, thereby firmly destroying AGW, whereas a volcano totally lets them off the hook.
Ah ha!! I thought so! This might confirm my hunch about global atmospheric temperatures since 1979. Temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s should have been much higher, and a number of swings up and down in the 2000s may now have a logical explanation. This encourages me to keep working on an article I hope to post in Mid-August (or maybe a bit later) at kenskingdom on the long term influence of SOI on temperatures moderated by volcanic activity.
I have a question- sulfates are supposed to have an effect for only a short time. Does this study therefore imply they can have a longer influence?
Ken
Who would have ever guessed that a volcano would not be PC. Maybe as others have suggested we should tax the offending country that owns the volcano. Maybe Lisa Jackson can regulate it. But if humans are not at fault then what will the AGW “science” have as their cornerstone? Maybe VolcanicGlobalCooling brought about by a solar minimum. VGC for short.
So all that is needed to end the recent warming is for Vulcanism to increase.
No problem, as a quiet Sun or failed Solar Cycle will do the trick, increasing the rate of eruptions.
“…These results may help to revisit all past simulations of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate…”
Sounds like they’ll need more money to re-run the climate models. And, when the model runs are over, they’ll use it to “project” that it’s worse than we thought.
Nothing new here.
Is it worse than we thought or better than we thought?
Does the vast volume of sulphurous chemicals erupted in one of theses events have a scrubbing effect on chloroflourocarbons?
Do the sulphurous chemicals add to or subtrtact from other man-made aerosols?
How much of this stuff is just naturally up in the stratosphere all the time?
I though tthe effect of large volcanic eruptions was already reasonably well constrained. If such eruptions generate an order of magnitude more sulphur compounds in the stratosphere than previously thought then is the average effect of such compounds only about 10% of what had previously been calculated?
So many questions, so little time.
Similarly, a new harmonic tremor has just been spotted at Katla in Iceland. I’m hoping it’s just a rerun of the 1955 event, not 1918.
Check out this Icelanders blog for details and updates. http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/
I heard just the other day this cooling trend is because of Chinese factories burning Australian black coal and now the impact of volcanoes may have been underestimated.
It’s a travesty that they can’t find the AGW signal and in the end they will run out of excuses.
“In addition we demonstrate that the binary H2SO4 – H2O nucleation scheme, as it is usually considered in modeling studies, underestimates by 7 to 8 orders of magnitude the observed particle formation rate and, therefore, should not be applied in tropospheric conditions.”
Many people, while spending many years working on an advanced degree, have neglected learning how to communicate. 7 to 8 orders of magnitude sounds like a lot but we are not told – at least here – what the “usual” is. Then there is that last part about “tropospheric conditions.” What are we to make of this? Are they suggesting the issue is not ready to be taken out of the laboratory? Perhaps it can be applied in stratospheric conditions? Then they note “These results may help to revisit all past simulations of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate.”
all; my bold. I wonder what the ‘number = all’ might be? Maybe do one and see how it works out. Funding may not be available to do “all.”
Rob R says “Is it worse than we thought or better than we thought?”
Whichever way it is, we’re doomed.
Now say “Eyjafjallajökull” three times quickly.
Q. what happens when a whole lot of SO2 is injected into the stratosphere by a large volcano
A. The S02 combines with water vapour in the stratosphere, stripping the stratosphere of water vapour causing it to cool for decades after the event as can clearly be seen in the stratospheric temp graph on the atmospheric maps page. ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Initially the SO2 injection causes an increase in stratospheric temp as the aerosols absorb energy, however after they settle out after a couple years the stratosphere is left depleted of water vapour and cools to below its original level. A classic boom and bust scenario that is obvious but has been missed by science.
The question is what happens to the troposphere when the stratosphere cools, the observations suggest an inverse relationships that implies the Mt Pinatubo eruption may have been the cause of late 1990s step increase in temp!
Of course we all know that the sun rotates around the earth and volcanoes cause global cooling, not global warming!
No doubt the surprisingly extreme cooling effect of these volcanoes will be quickly deemed a consensus by 97% of climate scientists. This way they can warn us in the most alarming terms in the very near future that the effects from the volcanoes will eventually wear off causing the earth to be rapidly burned up in a life-ending heat wave. Therefore the solution is still – we must immediately stop using fossil energy and pay a huge carbon tax that will decimate the American way of life. Nice thing about the volcanoes being immensely cooling for an undefined period of time is it gives the warmists all the cover they need for why there was no warming for the past ten years, and perhaps the next 50 or 60 yrs if the earth stays in a cooling trend. The warmists already lost the excuse that the excess heat is stored in the deep ocean when recent data shows the deep oceans are cooling. The warmists now have the perfect alibi to keep the AGW scare alive.
Why don’t we all just agree that AGW is REAL but instead of prevention let’s roll with Mitigation when/if ever it actually comes.
Huh? says (11:14pm): “Why don’t we all just agree that AGW is REAL …”
Because there isn’t any evidence of it. Next question?
Huh? says: “Why don’t we all just agree that AGW is REAL but instead of prevention let’s roll with Mitigation when/if ever it actually comes.”
We don’t need to agree. Just leave in the word “if”: “Let’s roll with Mitigation if ever it actually comes“.
The story about Chinese power station falls apart quite quickly.
On this site http://ciera-air.org/wiki/country-so2-emissions
is a spreadsheet
Total SO2.xls – 431.5 KB
This shows emissions to 2005, still far lower the peak years of the 70’s and 80’s
Assuming the trend has continued the total emissions will be near to the peak years now.
There was a warming trend in the 70’s and 80’s and there isn’t now – SO2 is not the reason for that.
Take yor pick for the real reason. A combiation of solar, PDO and CO2 , probably in that order.
As context total current emissions are 130m tons/year , Mt Pinatibo injected 20m tons of SO2 into the atmosphere in 1991 and dropped global temperatures by 0.5C. So the temperature drop was only partly due to the SO2?
I had hoped that the Earth would experience a volcano quiet period so that we would have a better opportunity to study the effects of a quiet sun (if the sun turns out to be quiet over the next few decades).
We do not have sufficient understanding of natural events that may impact climate let alone their inter-relationship with other natural and/or man made factors so that we can be certain of being able to eliminate these from other effects so as to ascertain the true and proper strength of each forcings.
Obviously, there is potential for Volcanos to act as the ‘warmists’ get out of jail card. However, it may not be that simple because everything has knock on effects. I seem to recall that there is research that suggests that there was more volcano activity during the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half. I even seem to recall that the IPCC has endorsed those findings.
This is potentially significant since if there was more volcano activity during say the period 1900 to 1950 (than during the period 1950 t0 2000) and if volcanos cause more of a cooling effect than previously estimated AND since manmade CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming during the first half of the 20th century (ie., 1900 to 1950s), it follows that whatever natural factors caused that warming, those factors must have been stronger than presentlly estimated. If those factors are still in play today, it therefore suggests a lower sensitivity to CO2 since a greater proportion of the ‘observed’ warming during the period 1950 to 2000 was due to natural factors.
A more realistic appraisal of the volcanic (positive and negative) forcing :
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/ammann.pdf
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 12, 2011 at 1:48 am
A more realistic appraisal of the volcanic (positive and negative) forcing :
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/ammann.pdf
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks the heads up.
I haven’t had time to consider the paper in detail but from a quick glance, it does appear that there was considerably more volcano activity/volcanic aerosols during the period 1920 to 1960 than compared to the period 1980 to 2000. That paper does seem to support the point I made that there appears to have been greater volcanic activity during the 1st half of the 20th century than that during the latter half. IF that is so AND IF the effect of volcanic aerosols has been underestimated (and I am not sure that it has), I consider that it follows that the natural forcing effects in play during the first half of the 20th century have been under-estimated. In passing, I would point out that the under-estimation of these would be even greater IF the temperature increase during the first half of the 20th century has been downgraded by the continued revisions to the data set which appear to down play the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century (possibly motivated by or at least having the effect of making the temperature rise during the latter half of the 20th century appear to be more signiificant) .
It is a wonder that the sulphate atmospheric input is not also being blamed, with CO2, for ocean acidification.
To put ocean acidification into perspective with worries that pH has fallen to 7.9, which is within the ‘normal’ range, the pH near volcanic vents on the oceanic ridge system has been measured at a pH of 4.5. This is extremely acid but the ocean looks after itself and this climbs rapidly to the normal range as distance from the vent increases. Species of shellfish still seem happy to live in such acid water next to the vents.
Yes, but people have VERY short memories now. In 10 years time, people will forget all about this and move on. The eco-commies will latch on to the next big thing. My prediction is water — our jet airplanes and SUV’s and HDTV’s are destroying the earth’s potable water supply. Big Environment has already done the hard part, which is to become established. They can quickly change to next pseudo-fad easily.