It seems that there’s a paper (from JeanPaul Vernier at NASA) out that contradicts the findings of Kaufmann et al 2011, where they blame China’s increasing coal consumption for lack of warming in the past decade saying coal use is adding aerosol particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. [Update, see caveat at end of this post] But in Vernier et al in press at GRL, they say
Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO(2) entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes.
=====================================================
Dr B Basil Beamish writes in Tips and Notes:
Anthony,
Here is a new paper hot off the press that seems to contradict the recent concept of cooling temperatures from China’s coal use.
Author(s): Vernier, JP (Vernier, J. -P.)1,2; Thomason, LW (Thomason, L. W.)1; Pommereau, JP (Pommereau, J. -P.)2; Bourassa, A (Bourassa, A.)3; Pelon, J (Pelon, J.)2; Garnier, A (Garnier, A.)2; Hauchecorne, A (Hauchecorne, A.)2; Blanot, L (Blanot, L.)2,4; Trepte, C (Trepte, C.)1; Degenstein, D (Degenstein, Doug)3; Vargas, F (Vargas, F.)5
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 38 Article Number: L12807 DOI: 10.1029/2011GL047563 Published: JUN 30 2011
Abstract:
The variability of stratospheric aerosol loading between 1985 and 2010 is explored with measurements from SAGE II, CALIPSO, GOMOS/ENVISAT, and OSIRIS/Odin space-based instruments. We find that, following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, stratospheric aerosol levels increased by as much as two orders of magnitude and only reached “background levels” between 1998 and 2002. From 2002 onwards, a systematic increase has been reported by a number of investigators. Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO(2) entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes. These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes. Citation: Vernier, J.-P., et al. (2011), Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L12807, doi:10.1029/2011GL047563.
==============================================================
It seems the Calipso satellite is designed specifically for this task. From Spie.org:
Since June 2006, the Cloud-Aerosol and Lidar Infrared Pathfinder Observations (CALIPSO) satellite, a joint US (NASA)/French (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) mission, has provided high-resolution aerosol and cloud profiles of the Earth’s atmosphere. The long-range transport in the tropics of several small-scale volcanic plumes has been monitored using these observations, which are unprecedented in their scope and detail. Their fate demonstrates the importance of even minor volcanic events on stratospheric-aerosol levels.
CALIPSO offers a unique opportunity to monitor aerosols and clouds in the atmosphere. The instrument is carried on a spacecraft circling the Earth in a polar orbit (see Figure 1), which provides coverage from 82°S to 82°N. The CALIPSO lidar (light detection and ranging) uses a laser that emits light at 532 and 1064nm. The laser light is scattered by molecules and particles in the atmosphere, and a portion is scattered back (backscattered) towards the spacecraft. The backscatter signal is collected by a telescope and sampled at a rate of 10MHz. The 3D location and density of clouds and aerosol layers can be inferred from the vertical backscatter profiles from the ground to the stratosphere.3 Primarily designed for studying tropospheric particles, the nighttime channel at 532nm has a high sensitivity and can, with sufficient averaging, be used to detect small-scale volcanic plumes in the stratosphere for several months, even if the aerosol density is very low.
Since June 2006, CALIPSO observed several volcanic plumes and followed them as they were carried around the world by atmospheric circulation. Figure 2 shows the evolution of the mean scattering-ratio (SR) profile between 20°N and 20°S from June 2006 to May 2010 with a temporal and vertical resolution of 16 days (CALIPSO measurement cycle) and 200m, respectively. The SR is the ratio between the total (aerosol and molecular) and molecular-only backscatter. The maxima, seen in 2006 with an SR greater than 1.2, represent two volcanic plumes, injected at 20 and 17km, respectively, by the Soufriere Hills in the Caribbean on 20 May and the Tavurvur cone of the Rabaul volcano in Papua New Guinea on 7 October. The plume from Soufriere Hills remains at the same level for three months before being slowly lifted in the stratosphere by the general circulation, while the Tavurvur aerosols, at lower levels, disappear within two to three months.
Smaller plumes, with SRs between 1.08 and 1.14, were observed at 17–19km in November–December 2008 and July–December 2009, respectively. These two plumes are further transported into the tropics after the Kasatochi (Alaska) and Sarychev (Kamchatka, Russia) eruptions on 7 August 2008 and 12 June 2009, respectively. The signal seen at 21–22km in March 2009 with an SR of 1.10–1.12 is the signature of soot particles from an extreme biomass-burning episode near Melbourne (Australia) on 7 February 2009 (‘Black Saturday’).
For the first time, those moderate events have been detected over a long period, demonstrating that eruptions with a volcanic explosivity index between three and four and located in the tropics can be an important source of aerosols for the stratosphere, a fact not fully recognized until now. The sulfuric dioxide initially injected at 19–20km is oxidized into sulfuric acid droplets and transported by the general circulation—also called Brewer-Dobson (BD) circulation—into the middle tropical stratosphere, forming a reservoir. Afterwards, those aerosols are released into the global stratosphere according to the season and the phase of the quasibiennal oscillation.5 The vertical velocity of the ascending branch of the BD circulation can be deduced by subtracting the sedimentation from the apparent volcanic-plume uplift, providing an opportunity to evaluate the mean vertical atmospheric motion in the stratosphere.
more at Spie.org here
JP Vernier has done a nice slide show explaining it all, just prior to the publication of the new paper, and you can view it here:
http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/geoengineering2011/presentations/vernier.pdf
I found this graph most interesting:
They say that small trend starting in 2002 is “No large eruptions over the last decade : but small and frequent ones”.
Update – Caveat: As Jos points out in comments, this Vernier study is about the stratosphere (15-30) where Kaufmann et al is the troposphere (0-15km) , an important distinction that I missed. That’s what I get for posting late at night while tired. However, the premise that Vernier contradicts, the issue of stratospheric aersol increase due to China coal use appears to be falsified. Perhaps though, the authors will turn to the troposphere next as this recent study suggests that the volcanic impact on climate may be significantly underestimated. The secondary nucleation process they cite may work to increase tropospheric aerosols, and also, it stands to reason the smaller eruptions, as cited by Vernier, would also inject into the troposphere as well.
So according to that graph , aerosols were doing more masking from 1985-89 than from 1995 on.
if you a adjusted the UAH series for that , I suspect there would be 2/3rds of bugger all trend in the satellite period.
How quickly they talk out the other side of their mouth. Wasn’t demon coaluse a contributor to warming ? Yet now squinting at their themometers and seeing them not rise, it follows, gadzooks, that demon coal use must really be bad because it is a contributor to cooling. The narrative of demon coal survives.
Sorry Anthony, but Vernier et al. [2011] is about stratospheric SO2 (15-30 km altitude), Kaufmann et al. [2011] is about tropospheric SO2 (surface to 15 km altitude). Totally different parts of the atmosphere, these two studies & hypotheses are unrelated.
REPLY: Thats’ what I get for posting late at night, my mistake for noticing. I’ll add a caveat – Anthony
Given the impact Pinatubo had on climate and the order of magnitude smaller current stratospheric SO2 the recent lull in tropospheric temperatures has at least nothing to do with volcanic eruptions.
Sorry, that should be
… order of magnitude smaller current stratospheric aerosols …
Alex the skeptic says:
July 18, 2011 at 3:37 am
“The alarmists will blame anything to try to explain away the 10-15 year temperature statis, except, of course, solar activity.
When my pot takes a longer than normal time to bring to boil, I check the gas burner underneat the pot, not the CO2 level in the kitchen, or the aerosols at ceiling level. Ok, not a perfect analogy, but NASA should start looking at the sun, which anyway supplies 99% of all energy on the surface of this planet. ”
I wonder what makes you think that the solar output. TSI and activity are NOT being monitered by NASA and a lot of other people ?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html
Alternatively you couild check the data and references at the WUWT site –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
It is clear there is a LOT of data about solar output available with very accurate measurements of the very small variations that are happening. This solar minimum shows no lower activity than previous solar minima – although it may be longer-lasting.
But as the magnitude of this variation is a couple of orders of magnitude SMALLER than the variation that results from orbital eccentricity it is difficult to see it having any significant impact of the climate.
I’m so glad the science is settled……….
The left over heat from El Nino’s as well as the winds of La Nina adequately explain warming in some areas and cooling in others. ENSO characteristics do not translate into global trends, they translate into regional and local trends, which explains why folks will comment thusly: “It may be warmer [colder] where you are but we are freezing [roasting]”.
Wait,Wait,Wait…If coal burning by China is reducing global temperatures, then we should ramp up our coal burning to further reduce temperature. That might not work since the EPA has such stringent particulate emission requirements, so we need to back off the requirements to allow more particulate emissions to dirty up the air to cool the planet. With this knind of logic, the greens heads will explode….Clean air equals hot planet!
Kaufmann et. al 2100?
REPLY: Typo fixed, thanks
Drew, what is “wearing thin” is the constant drone from the AGW camp of catastrophic effects of the warming that clearly is not occurring.
While this study is interesting, it does not explain away the lack of warming or explain why the models still show it.
After 30 years and 100’s of billions of dollars of taxpayer funding one would expect a little more certainty coming from the researchers. Unfortunately too much of that money has been blown on studies that do little or nothing to investigate the fundamental science of climate change. I would not however say that this study fits that characterization.
Darren Parker says: July 18, 2011 at 3:25 am
Could Volcanoes be another method the earth haas of self regulating – as the pressure of the atmosphere builds the pressure on the plates increases and volcanoes release cooling particulates relieving the pressure?
I have been wondering if there is a connection to solar activity and earthquakes, but that the lack of pressure from the solar wind due to the inactive sun might be the cause.
Ridiculous. The last graphic is counter intuitive if the posit is correct. Look at 1995, given that there was less atmospheric CO2 and much great aerosols (sulfa dioxide and whatnot), the temp decline should have been much more significant than what we’ve seen since 2002. Yet, the trend isn’t much different.
Try again. That’s not it. As noted elsewhere in the comments, the assumptions about atmospheric gases are shown to be wrong.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:1991/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2002/trend
At least it is tacitly agreed that temperatures are not climbing, that c02 is not the most important climatic factor, contrary to what the Met Office says, and that anthropogenic sulphur emissions from China are not the cause.
That leaves natural events again. Nature continually trumps NASA and the Met office a priori prognostications, such as oceans, the sun, and the natural events that take place between land, sea, and air
So all we have to do to save the planet is turn off all the scrubbers at the coal power plants? Wow. I think we can manage that… How’s next Wednesday sound?
Gerry
Skimming the pdf it sounds fairly devastating to the argument that it’s manmade pollution that is counteracting the effects of manmade pollution. Of course, circular arguments generally don’t need to be disproved. I will continue to drive a large vehicle and enjoy it. 🙂
When holding the climatologist card you can only claim that volcanoes impact climate to lower the temperature if you roll a seven and hasn’t previously included volcanoes in your super duper handheld super computers too many times so as not being able to explain away it with a should shrug and head in sand bucket.
I wish that SO2 aerosols injected into the upper atmosphere would stop being arbitrarily assigned the AGW convenient property of infrared reflectivity. Instead and more properly, treat their action potentials as being essential to ERBE through their contributory impacts upon upper atmosphere magnetism and the top to bottom layering of pressure change potential (here I am also thinking about implications for why weather regimes of pressure can exhibit an increase tendency to become stuck–pressure and magnetic density as correlates to resistance to change and determinants of what energy balance is required to overcome their conditions
The AGW debate cannot be won if its language conditions promote evidentiary bias.
still not singing from the same hymn sheet….
Looking for internal (in)consistency in the warmist hypothesis:
The longer-term GISTemp global rise is 0.145C/decade. The last 9 years (leaving out the 1998 El Nino event) saw nil or within-the-error-bar non-heating. If, as the warmists wish to say, that aerosols (Chinese or other types) cancelled the CO2-induced warming, then the 1995 – 2011 increase in CO2 (32 ppmv) warming power equals the increased reflectivity of the planet due to the aeosols. We can therefore
1) deduce the increased reflectivity of the planet by IPCC theory of CO2 (3.75 Watts per m2 for delta 280 ppmv CO2) or, conversely,
2) deduce the heating power of CO2 (for 32 ppmv) by the changes in the reflectivity of the planet.
If there is no measurable reflectivity (albedo) change from 1995 to 2011, then the warming power of CO2 has an upper limit set by the ability to measure the albedo. If that is true, then the insolation-as-cause of global warming will be seen to be as credible as the warming of the atmosphere by CO2.
The time-period of 1942 – 1965 (or even a little later) in which the planet cooled by GISTemp records, has been attributed to post-WWII aerosol pollutions. This `negative` warming, in comparison to the current non-warming, can therefore be calculated as a multiple of the currently accused Chinese or volcanic aerosol atmospheric load. Going back to points 1 & 2, the amount of increased reflectivity of the aerosols or CO2-warming power AT THAT TIME can be deduced (according to IPCC theory).
Taking the IPCC AND the current excuse for the planet not warming at present, at face value – the best tactic for revealing errors in the warmist theory – should demonstrate the uncertainty in a) the calculated warming power of CO2 and b) the role albedo changes may be under-appreciated in the IPCC theory.
A post on this – say by Talkbloke, who has the math and the graphs – could be interesting. For all the technical arguments are worth, we are faced with a `consensus`of a `settled`science. It is by showing the internal inconsistency or disconnect between IPCC expectations and reality that both the consensus and the settledness of the warmist position can best be challenged. To derail CAGW legislation we need not show that the skeptical position is `right`but only that the warmist position is wrong, i.e. incorrect.
If legislation – prohibitive activities, taxes and market-intrusive policies – were not involved, the CAGW would be an interesting and challenging product of our times, with time leading to truth. The legislative drive is what motivates the furor of the debate, and that drive is the product of so-called certainty (even as the Uncertainty Principle is called upon as justification). Hansen, Gore, Suzuki and other fellow travellers use the claim of 95% or 97% or 99% certainty that CO2 increases (caused by man) are behind the heating and that we know the outcome of continued CO2 emissions to a similar level of certainty. If that certainty can be knocked down to 50%, say, then justification for action now disappears. Even the Uncertainty Principle requires a reasonable amount of certainty to be invoked.
Comments or calculations ……..
TWE says:
July 18, 2011 at 3:05 am
Small typo on the Kaufmann paper’s link, it says 2100
===
When they were telling you global warming was unstoppable… LOL
BTW the Latmos is one of those IPSL laboratories -IPCC contributors- and their reaction during the 2010 Icelandic volcano crisis was quite pathetic: they could not interpret their own Lidar readings in relation to the weather systems… These guys are just trying to say that global warming continues but is masked by volcanoes aerosols. That of course fits the AGW story. What’s indeed funny is that Kaufmann et al. found another reason to fit the same bill… LOL
If there are any scientists – not global warmer scientists but real ones – on this blog they could perhaps explain something to me, an absolute layman. I have just read Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 and a lot of methane, why is it so cold that the CO2 freezes? I know the distance makes a hell of a difference but if an extra 100 parts per million will raise the temp by 2 degrees why does 950,000 parts per million do the opposite. I notice on the NASA site that the permanently frozen parts are shrinking and someone suggest it maybe the sun but that suggestion was shot down faster then a rapist in a nunnery.
Title of the post should be :
“New NASA paper contradicts Kaufmann et al saying it’s volcanoes causing aerosol increases, not China coal”
Aerosol levels are obviously a lot lower than they were after El Chichon and Pinatubo when warming was fastest. It’s reality that contradicts Kaufmann’s warming hiatus rubbish.
There is currently no observed warming of the stratospere as did occur in the El Chichon and Pinatubo events, hence the current effects are negligable.