Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Richard Muller and the good folks over at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project have released their temperature analysis back to 1750, and are making their usual unsupportable claims. I don’t mean his risible statements that the temperature changes are due to CO2 because the curves look alike—that joke has been widely discussed and discounted, even by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) supporters. Heck, even Michael Mann jumped on him for that one, saying
It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement 🙁
And if anyone should know about “self-aggrandizement”, it’s Michael Mann … but I’m not talking about Muller’s claim that humans caused the warming. No, I mean the following statement:
The historic temperature pattern we observe has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface for a few years.
In support of this statement, Richard Muller offers up the following chart:
Figure 1. BEST claims about temperature and volcanoes. SOURCE
So what’s not to like?
Well, first it appears he has included and excluded volcanoes depending on whether they show up in his temperature record. If we look at big eruptions, eruptions with a “volcanic explosively index” (VEI) of 6 or above, since 1750 we have the following volcanoes:
Mount Pinatubo, 1991
Novarupta, 1912
Santa María, 1902
Krakatoa, 1883
Mount Tambora, 1815
Grímsvötn and Laki, 1783
So Muller has left off Santa Maria and Novarupta, and included El Chichon and Cosiguina. But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that many of these occurred after or during the temperature drop that they are supposed to have caused … here’s the BEST data including all relevant volcanoes, without the style of overlay that they have used that obscures the actual timing:
Figure 2. BEST temperature data and dates of volcanoes. Red line is a four-year centered Gaussian average of the temperature data. Photo shows Mt. Redoubt in Alaska.
So let’s look at the volcanoes, one by one:
LAKI, 1783: Occurred near the end of the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
TAMBORA, 1815: Occurred at the end of the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
COSIGUINA, 1835: Occurred near the middle of the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
KRAKATOA, 1883: Occurred at the end of the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
SANTA MARIA, 1902: Occurred in the middle of the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
NOVARUPTA, 1912: I can see why Muller omitted this eruption, which occurred just before a rise in temperature …
EL CHICHON, 1982: Occurred during the fall in temperature that it is supposed to have caused.
PINATUBO, 1991: This is arguably the only one of the eight volcanoes that could legitimately be claimed to cause a detectable fall in temperature … a whopping fall of 0.15°C or so.
So while volcanoes certainly may cause a minor drop in global temperature, the claim of Richard Muller and the BEST folks that there are “abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions” is simply not true. There are abrupt dips, but they don’t match up with the volcanic eruptions.
w.
[Update] Further reading:
Prediction is hard, especially of the future discusses the GISS analysis of Pinatubo.
Missing the Missing Summer is about the eruption of Tambora.
Dronning Maud Meets the Little Ice Age investigates a claim that the Little Ice Age was triggered by vulcanism.
Volcanic Disruptions plays the game “Spot the Volcano”
[Update] Another way to investigate the question is to look at the average temperature anomaly during the two years before and the two years after the eruption. Figure 3 shows that result.
Figure 3. Average temperature anomaly two years before and two years after the eruptions. Black lines show the standard error of the mean.
After some eruptions it cooled a bit, after some it warmed a bit, and after some there was no change … go figure.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
George says:
July 30, 2012 at 3:12 am
“So what we really might have is a possible relation with falling temps causing large volcanic eruptions…. /sarc”
No need for the sarc. Most large events occur after very cold seasons, and usually on a warm burst.
Volker Doormann says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:13 am
Volker, you are 100% right. I have “never come to hand to any of [your] given arguments”, nor do I have the slightest intention to come to hand with them.
So please, as I requested earlier, TAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ELSEWHERE. This is not the thread for your “unique work”, this is a thread about something entirely different.
w.
PS—You say:
Really? That’s your evidence? You truly think that the ecliptical length (angle) between Mars and Pluto is relevant to the eruption of Krakatoa? Really?
I gotta tell you, Volker, it’s that kind of thing that makes me classify you among the cyclo-maniacs. You may be right, but I can’t make heads or tails of that. IF you think that you can tell the time of an upcoming volcanic eruption using your method, please let me know. Until then, your arcane astrological calculations involving “M.C./Mars” and “ASC/Saturn” and the like are of absolutely no interest to me.
Oh, and by the way:
So your lovely, precise timing, of 10:02 in the morning of August 27th, was just one of many Krakatoa eruptions stretching from May 1883 to August 1883, and only one of four eruptions on August 27th … so did astrology predict the exact timing of the other dozens of Krakatoa eruptions as well?
In any case, if your hot-rod, you-beaut method is accurate to the minute as you seem to think, please come back when you have a forecast to the minute (or to the hour, or even to the day) of an upcoming volcanic eruption. Not a hindcast like you’ve done above, but an actual forecast. Then and only then can we see if your method has any value.
But until you have such a forecast, please leave your cyclo-mania off of my threads. You are more than welcome to post on my threads, but while I am interested in your comments on other topics, I’m not interested in your astrological calculations in the slightest. Please take them somewhere that people will appreciate them, because I’m sorry, but I think they’re a joke.
I was worried by Volker’s list of aspects. That they are simple fractions of 360 degrees doesn’t work for me. At full (180) or new (360) moon there are major tidal stresses on the earth, but at any other aspect, forces cancel out. Wouldn’t that be the same only more so for muliple out-of-phase planetary effects?
Ulric Lyons says:
August 3, 2012 at 9:18 am
Oh, please. Your claim is that large volcanic eruptions “occur after very cold seasons, and usually on a warm burst”???
Since you have not provided a) a definition of a “very cold season”, or b) a definition of a “warm burst”, or c) a definition of a “large” eruption, or d) the slightest scrap of evidence that your claim might be true, I’m just going to point and laugh. You and Volker need to have a “dueling theories” session, you say it’s warm weather, he says it’s the angle between Mars and Pluto …
Me, I say if people could forecast volcanic eruptions by such means, they’d be rich and famous. As it stands, scientists may be able to give us a few weeks or days warning from a network of sensors on a given volcano, but Mars, Pluto, and warm weather don’t feature too strongly in their calculations …
w.
My estimation of the next likely date for a VEI 4 or larger event would be late February to early March 2014, with Nicaragua being a possible location.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:24 am
“Me, I say if people could forecast volcanic eruptions by such means, they’d be rich and famous.”
I made a good forecast for the last VEI 4 event:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/something-is-brewing/#comment-10
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:10 am
Volker Doormann says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:13 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
The simple point is that Willis Eschenbach never come to hand to any of my given arguments on the subject above, but discredit my unique work with ‘all folks over there, gravity-heads and cyclo-maniacs, pressure-freaks and solar tidal surfers, people saying they’ve discovered perpetual motion, anyone at all’.
Volker, you are right. I have “never come to hand to any of [your] given arguments, nor do I have any intention to come to hand with them.
It is not relevant in science what ones personal intension is. Relevant in science are given arguments.
>> <b<Argumentum ad ignorantiam means “argument from ignorance.” The fallacy occurs when it’s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn’t been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true. <> “ Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”
If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you.” <> “ Argumentum ad populum . This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. “ <<
What are cyclo-maniacs in science? Is it a well accepted object in physical science?
IF you think that you can tell the time of an upcoming volcanic eruption using your method, please let me know. Until then, your arcane astrological calculations involving “M.C./Mars” and “ASC/Saturn” and the like are of absolutely no interest to me.
Science is the idea to find the truth in nature. Science is not the game of self declared kings to play an inquisitor to presumed deceiver in the public.
Astronomy is the science of the law of the planetary motions discovered by I. Kepler. The ephemeris of the motions of the planets are refined by the NASA and out of this I have calculated the ecliptic longitudes for all my graphs.
.. please come back when you have a forecast to the minute (or to the hour, or even to the day) of an upcoming volcanic eruption. Not a hindcast like you’ve done above, but an actual forecast. Then and only then can we see if your method has any value.
Because there is no general difference visible about the nature of big solar flares
(see J. H. Nelsons work at RCA: http://www.volker-doormann.org/nelson1.htm) , big Volcano eruptions or mayor earthquakes this may be an example:
From: Volker Doormann <noreply@volker-doormann.org
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:13:29 +0200
Newsgroups: de.alt.astrologie
Subject: 2006.01.02
Message-ID: <d7nlqu$lc4$00$1@news.t-online.com
Zum Beispiel Djakarta 2. Januar 2006, 13h45 (06:45 GMT)
“A major earthquake occurred at 06:10:49 (UTC) on Monday, January 2, 2006. The magnitude 7.4 event has been located EAST OF THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS. (This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.) Location: 60.807°S, 21.474°W ”
That was forecast a half a year prior to the mayor quake and the accuracy in time was less an hour.
Thank you. Sorry for bother your mind.
V.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:24 am
“Since you have not provided a) a definition of a “very cold season”, or b) a definition of a “warm burst”, or c) a definition of a “large” eruption, or d) the slightest scrap of evidence that your claim might be true, I’m just going to point and laugh”
a) typically the cold N.H. winters that directly precede almost all the eruptions that you have picked.
b) is where many regions have simultaneous have above or well above normal land temperature
for a week or more, due to periods of faster solar wind.
c) VEI 4 and above: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
d) if you had read my links you would have found some detailed descriptions, such as:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/volcanoes-cause-climate-change/#comment-370886
which includes a correct forecast for no major Katla eruption in June 2010, as well as comments
about cold N.H. winters preceding large events, which can be easily verified. So your uncivil
behaviour is misplaced.
Man, it seems you can’t get astrologers like Volker and Ulric to shut up. The more you ask them to go away, the more nonsense they babble. Is it an occupational thing? Is the Jupiter-Lunar ecliptical length making them looney?
Now Ulric is taking credit for forecasting that there would be no eruption from a certain volcano in June 2010, and claiming that cold winters in New Hampshire presage eruptions. And Volker is telling us that there is no general difference visible about the nature of big solar flares, big Volcano eruptions or mayor earthquakes. No general difference between the nature of solar flares, eruptions and earthquakes? Keep it up, boys, I haven’t laughed this hard in a while, you guys are precious.
w.
logicophilosophicus says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Thanks, logicophilosophicus. You clearly don’t understand the mental processes of cyclo-maniacs. For them, any correlation between phenomena, no matter how tenuous, tortured, or slight, confirms their theories. Doesn’t matter if there is an actual physical effect such as you have discussed, they are just looking for something, anything upon which they can hang a baseless theory.
Which is why it’s called “astrology” and not “astronomy” …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:21 pm
“Now Ulric is taking credit for forecasting that there would be no eruption from a certain volcano in June 2010, and claiming that cold winters in New Hampshire presage eruptions.”
Don’t ignore the correct forecast I made for Autumn 2010 for an Indonesian eruption. And N.H. is the Northern Hemisphere not New Hampshire. Sorry to spoil your precious fun again Willis but you need to do your homework properly before firing off.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“For them, any correlation between phenomena, no matter how tenuous, tortured, or slight, confirms their theories.”
The only correlation with large eruptions that I have mentioned here is surface temperature changes, which is actually in agreement with your graph showing cooling starting before the eruptions. You need though to look at least monthly temperatures rather than your annual smoothed red line to examine the occurrence of much colder periods in seasons preceding the eruptions, and the following warmer episodes where the eruptions take place.
logicophilosophicus says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I was worried by Volker’s list of aspects. That they are simple fractions of 360 degrees doesn’t work for me. At full (180) or new (360) moon there are major tidal stresses on the earth, but at any other aspect, forces cancel out. Wouldn’t that be the same only more so for multiple out-of-phase planetary effects?
Logicphilosophicus,
this thread deals with the possible connection of volcano outbreaks and global temperature anomalies. I have argued here above that as long as the cause of the structure of the global temperature anomalies is not known, optical ‘dips’ in curves cannot in general be separated as volcano effects. But it would be possible, if the natural global temperature function, free from human activities and volcano effects is known.
Willis has more than one time declared that he is not interested in that matter that is based on solar tide functions, in general, and in all his threads, I do accept that.
But because Willies has explicit asked questions in this his thread to that matter, I have given my answers to him.
It is out of the topic in this thread to discuss the astronomical background of the heliocentric functions which are well correlated with the measured or reconstructed global temperature data. And because of this I have given only a comparison graph to show the quality of the method for a time window of about 3 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_gl_july_2012.gif
The graph shows an example of an unknown higher temperature level, 2 years ago, for which I have no astronomic function found, that could fit the global temperature.
Regarding the worry you have, it was an example of astronomic configurations, which are some different to the solar tide functions, which are related to the global temperature. A statistical analysis of the astronomic geocentric aspect configurations while earthquakes and big volcano outbreaks show in the geocentric configuration a large number of integer division parts of the ecliptic circle as shown. From this recognition I could make successful a prediction of an earthquake on 2006, January 2nd with a precision in time of 35 minutes, a half year before the quake. I have no idea what the mechanism is. However, if you calculate an index in 5 minute increments for 2 different mayor quakes for a month the index is maximized in the 5 minute window while the earthquakes happened.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/19950116.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/260101.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/china_quake.gif
Again, this is off topic here and is only given to show the geometries background and the effects. I do write here on WUWT, if my discovery of the relation between the solar tide functions and the cause of natural global temperature function is discussed or could be relevant.
bye
V.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/on-volcanoes-and-their-climate-response/
REPLY: Since Mr. Mosher has this serially annoying habit of making incomplete and cryptic comments, I’ll embellish for him.
He and uber warmist Robert Rhode (BEST team guy and creator of globalwarmingart.org) have made a reply to Willis on the issue.
Draw your own conclusions from that association. – Anthony