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.
remeber the Iceland Volcano 2010? people asked questions then about IF the ash etc would affect the climate. the answer: “The amount of CO2 output still pales into insignificance beside human emissions.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8631396.stm
izen says:
July 18, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Thanks!
Izen,
NO2 has a molecular weight of 28, O2 is 32 hence not much difference to cause stratification due to different densities. However, SO2 is 64, which is more than twice the average the atmosphere, 78% of which is N2. (In my original post about this I had a typo: NO2 instead of N”)
So, I would very much appreciate a theory explaining how SO2 can reach the tratsphere after exiting a 100 Foot chimney at 5m/s, the velocity dissipating t near zero after exiting the chimney. Honest.
Off the record: a soon to be published paper – currently under embargo, I have inside information – will link it to AGW …
Wayne Swan here in Australia has just stated that with a carbon tax, coal output will double. As if by magic! So, in reality, what he really means, taking out the political spin, is that Aussie taxpayers will subsidise the emissinos from burning Aussie coal in OTHER countries. Does this man think we’re all THAT stupid??
“izen says:
July 18, 2011 at 10:36 pm”
How do you know that to state that as a categorical fact? Where is your proof/observations of that?
Chinese coal burning, volcanoes; as Roseanne Roseannadanna, so aptly put it: “It’s always something–if it ain’t one thing, it’s another”
One essential difference between SO2 from volcanoes and from industrial sources is not mentioned yet: SO2 in the troposphere, mainly from human sources, has an average lifetime of only 4 days, before raining out. An equal quantity injected in the stratosphere by volcanoes has an average lifetime of 3 years (see the Pinatubo effect). While the amounts emitted in the troposhere by humans are higher (80 Mt SO2 vs. 20 Mt for the Pinatubo), the effect thus is much smaller, due to this short lifetime, probably less than 0.025°C.
See a short discussion on RC (my comment at #6):
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=245
Moreover, much of what is measured in the troposphere by ground Lidars are not only SO2 aerosols, but also SOA, secondary organic aerosols, mainly caused by oxydation of volatile organic matter from trees (like terpenes), causing the haze of the “blue” mountains. See:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/heald_2005.pdf
where it is clear that climate models overestimate the effect of human induced aerosols…
@-Patrick Davis says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:38 am Re:- the greenhouse effect on Mars –
“How do you know that to state that as a categorical fact? Where is your proof/observations of that? ”
Proof is for math and liquor.
Direct observations of the Martian atmosphere and temperatures are from the mid 70s Viking landers. Since then the other surface and orbital missions to Mars have confirmed the ~5degC greenhouse effect.
Try ‘Planetary Atmospheres/Mars – R M Haberie for more detail.
@- Alex the skeptic says:
“So, I would very much appreciate a theory explaining how SO2 can reach the stratsphere after exiting a 100 Foot chimney at 5m/s, the velocity dissipating t near zero after exiting the chimney. Honest.”
Actually…. very little of the SO2 will reach the stratosphere, most is rained out before that.
But this idea that the atmospheric gases might ‘settle out’ in layers according to molecular weight seems to reappear occasionally.
I find it a real puzzle why when we all have a lifetime experience of the mixing of the atmosphere. The release of intestinal gases in an elevator does not result in a thin layer on the floor or ceiling….
At a more scientific level the military closely investigated how different gases spread during the 1950s when atmospheric nuclear tests enabled them to track the precise rate and extent of different substances. Look how rapidly iodine (a heavy element!) reached the US from the Japanese nuclear plant meltdown after the recent tsunami.
Given the direct observational experience of the mixing of gases I wonder where this idea that they could stratify comes from.
Once they are mixed of course the 2LoT makes it highly improbable that they can UNmix- at least not without the expenditure of significant energy!
The theory resides in the fact that the molecules are traveling at ~1000 miles an hour and the mean free path – before they collide and bounce of another gas molecule is a very VERY small fraction of the path length over which any gravitational drop could occur. Think of it as a large box of tennis, baseball, pool and ping-pong balls all shaken so hard that they are traveling around a thousand miles an hour and continually colliding. You would not expect that they would ‘settle out’ with the heavier balls at the bottom of the box in those circumstances, so why expect it of molecules?
@- Dr Dave
Briefly overcoming my reluctance to paddle in the political froth…..
The US system could be converted to the Australian/UK parliamentary democracy version by allowing the majority in the senate to select a ‘president’ from their members and form the government.
Having a separately elected head of the government forces the political system to be a two party setup and avoids any possibility of coalition governments.
Having the government and leader emerge from a majority of elected representatives allows parties to change leader according to political expediency.
The rolling elections where only a part of the democratic caucus is up for re-election every 2 years would be an interesting modification of the Australian and UK systems. And of the US system if the head of government emerged from the senate (congress?) majority!
No big national election, just an evolving balance as 1/3 were up for (re)election every 2 years. Much more leadership changes and multi-party cooperation, coalition and transient groupings I suspect. Greater response to local and topical factors perhaps ?
Whatever the ideological claims and justifications for all this civic governmental engineering, the end result, and probably the point of it all is to ensure reasonably stable civic government without disruption from democratic input for at least 3 or 4 years. That seems to be the median sort of timescale which social groups will accept leadership and government. Perceived failure for longer than that usually results in rejection. These democratic mechanisms ensure that leadership/government changes minimally disrupt ongoing civic management.
WOOPS
wrong blog, my last post should have been at libertygibbert… sorry!
The SAOT shown below doesn’t contain the latest Calipso data, but does show that even with less sensitive sources the levels were higher than the post 2006 period. Calipso with being more sensitive would also show higher levels previously, so showing higher values with a different data set doesn’t indicate that emissions are increasing post 2006. The SAOT data also shows major volcanic eruptions staying in the stratosphere for around up to 6 to 7 years after the initial event.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7766/saot.png
This latest image compared with the previous graph shows previous source data ended by the post Calipso data or this would have been reflected with lower values below.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/vernier_stratosphereic_aod.jpg?w=640&h=420
Global human SO2 emissions have been declining over this period overall until 2005. (not been able to get update yet) This is depsite significant gains in countries like China, India and even International shipping. The data below shows no trends with global temperatures and human SO2 levels linked. It does show quite significant changes with increases and decreases in SAOT levels. With the eruption from Pinatuba around 0.4c drop and general background levels no more than about 0.02c over a similar period.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/429/had3vso2vsaot.png
The graph below shows what global temperatures would be like adjusted by SAOT with general background levels no more than 0.02c over a similar period as major volcanic eruptions. The genral conclusion is that not only can a link between human SO2 levels and global temperatures not be seen. The link between human SO2 levels and the change in the SAOT doesn’t exist, but this is continually been blamed for in climate. There is no evidence that human SO2 emissions actually reach a similar height that volcanic emissions do. (~25km)
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5816/had3vsaotadj1979.png
Izen, in the brewery where I worked we had installed CO2 monitors in the beer-fermenting areas to sound the alarm in case the level of CO2 gas (product of fermrntation) leaked and reached dangerous levels. The monitors were installed a few inches above floor level because that’s where it would mostly tend to accumulate, CO2 being somewhat heavier than air. We never had any alarms really, but the beer was bl@ur momisugly@dy good.
Alex the skeptical beer drinker says:
July 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm
absolutely – in a relatively still air zone – CO2 and many other heavier than air gases will sink. Of course its used to great effect in shows as dry ice!
One time on an offshore oil rig in the Middle east, an H2S rich gas blow out caused several personnel to panic and jump overboard – they were suffocated as the gas sank to sea level.
Izen is confused because AGWScience fiction promotes memes which are not in real science. His explanation of how gases travel at these speeds and mix thoroughly as default, taking work to un-mix, comes from ideal gas ‘law’, i.e., he’s imagining an atmosphere where real gases don’t exist. He doesn’t understand your explanations of breweries, or of how methane separates out to layer in ceilings of mines and so on, because he can’t picture it. His picture of the atmosphere is where air is an ideal gas, a hard non-interacting taking up no space ‘thing’, having no volume, moving at great speeds in empty space, in nothing, bouncing off other such imaginary molecules, because, that is what is taught directly by AGWScience.
“AGWScience” is what I’ve called this ‘body’ of information backing AGW physical explanations – it also can be seen in its science fiction meme that Light heats organic matter and not thermal IR (KT97) – it makes no difference to the belief when given real explanations from real science that for example blue visible light transmits through water which is a transparent medium for it, they still imagine that because it travels deeper than other visible wavelengths this means it heat the oceans further down… They believe that photons act like ideal gas molecules and all encounters are bounces off each other in which heat is created. They have not, seemingly, the ability to imagine the real world interactions, for example photosynthesis, where heat is not created, chemical, fluorescence and so on.
Anyway, that’s why izen shouldn’t go for a p-up in a brewery, he claims from AGWScience that Carbon Dioxide is always well mixed and wouldn’t be able to appreciate the dangers of falling asleep next to a vat of the good stuff brewing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/ He says: There is no way with those velocities you will get gases stratifying out by weight within the first few miles of the atmosphere.
I ‘discovered’ that AGWScience teaches that oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are ideal gases when I began questioning a PhD physics AGWarmist about the claims that CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years and asked how come when CO2 is heavier than Air and displaces it (in the real world)? He taught the subject and marked exams and said that anyone submitting contrary (as I was claiming), would be failed. At first he denied, as does izen, that CO2 separates out at all, then when I produced numerous real world examples, breweries, volcanic vents and so on, he deleted his denial post and came back with the ‘explanation’ that the larger amount of CO2 came down in a package of ‘air’ to sink to the ground, but from then it would rapidly diffuse back into the atmosphere in ideal gas bouncing of its own volition where it couldn’t be unmixed. [I proposed a room where CO2 had entered and pooled on the floor and the conditions for it pooling remained unchanged, no work to move it, no windows open or fan going.] This AGW claim of rapid diffusion ideal gas bouncing sometimes comes with a strange alternative of ‘Brownian’ motion as the cause of the diffusion. Take your pick. Oh, another variation is the ‘atmosphere is in constant turbulence from winds’ – I haven’t been successful explaining that ‘wind’ is air on the move, not a big spoon mixing the molecules up in empty space equally all around the globe without hemispheres, and no convection in AGWScience because ideal gas doesn’t have volume.
I have it on good authority that 50 % of scientists cant be believed. Its only a theory, but its reinforced by the large pay packets they take home, the cynicism happens when you question them and the truth eludes us. Calling us cynical
Maybe their ego is too large. They should stop trying to predict the future. Alchemists have been trying to turn base metals into gold for years. These climate change predictions are turning buls**t into gold. Quite an achievement.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. George Bernard Shaw.