Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Back in 2010, I wrote a post called “Prediction is hard, especially of the future“. It turned out to be the first of a series of posts that I ended up writing on the inability of climate models to successfully replicate the effects of volcanoes. It was an investigation occasioned by the oft-repeated claim from the modelers that the models are wizards at replicating volcanoes, such as this claim from Andrew Lacis:
There we make an actual global climate prediction (global cooling by about 0.5 C 12-18 months following the June 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption, followed by a return to the normal rate of global warming after about three years), based on climate model calculations using preliminary estimates of the volcanic aerosol optical depth. These predictions were all confirmed by subsequent measurements of global temperature changes, including the warming of the stratosphere by a couple of degrees due to the volcanic aerosol.
My research showed that contrary to the claims of the modelers, the models did a very poor job of replicating the effect of the volcanoes. In particular, they overestimated the amount of the global temperature change resulting from an eruption. I wrote these and subsequent results up in a number of following articles (list appended). Many people objected strongly to my results that showed the volcanoes didn’t have the huge effect claimed by the models.
As a result, I was pleasantly surprised to find an article in press at JGR entitled “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions“. The paper is not yet published, but the Abstract says it all:
ABSTRACT (emphasis mine)
Key Points
• Large volcanic eruptions cause a major dynamical response in the atmosphere
• CMIP5 models are assessed for their ability to simulate this response
• No models in the CMIP5 database sufficiently represent this response
The ability of the climate models submitted to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) database to simulate the Northern Hemisphere winter climate following a large tropical volcanic eruption is assessed. When sulfate aerosols are produced by volcanic injections into the tropical stratosphere and spread by the stratospheric circulation, it not only causes globally averaged tropospheric cooling but also a localized heating in the lower stratosphere, which can cause major dynamical feedbacks. Observations show a lower stratospheric and surface response during the following one or two Northern Hemisphere (NH) winters, that resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Simulations from 13 CMIP5 models that represent tropical eruptions in the 19th and 20th century are examined, focusing on the large-scale regional impacts associated with the large-scale circulation during the NH winter season. The models generally fail to capture the NH dynamical response following eruptions. They do not sufficiently simulate the observed post-volcanic strengthened NH polar vortex, positive NAO, or NH Eurasian warming pattern, and they tend to overestimate the cooling in the tropical troposphere. The findings are confirmed by a superposed epoch analysis of the NAO index for each model. The study confirms previous similar evaluations and raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of global circulation variability to external forcings. This is also of concern for the accuracy of geoengineering modeling studies that assess the atmospheric response to stratosphere-injected particles.
So it turns out to be even worse than I have been saying for a couple of years now. Not one of the models used by the IPCC was able to replicate the effects of volcanoes. The problem, as always, is that the climate is not dead. It actively responds to mitigate and alter the effects of a volcanic eruption, and the models are unable to replicate that active evolution of the global meteorology that occurs in response to the eruption.
It’s always nice to see other scientific studies backing up the results of my own research, particularly when I’ve taken lots of flak for the positions I have espoused. And it’s good to know that once again, WUWT has been publishing tomorrow’s science today …
w.
APPENDIX: My other posts on volcanoes:
Pinatubo and the Albedo Thermostat
Dronning Maud meets the Little Ice Age
New Data, Old Claims about Volcanoes
BEST, Volcanoes, and Climate Sensitivity
Zero Point Three Times the Forcing
The Nuclear Winter of our Discontent
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Disagreeing with the IPCC & the models is a big NO NO! ((^_^))
good job Willis keep up the hard work and I will keep spreading your articles as far as I can through every means I can.
Good for you, Willis. The gentleman who can visit the Playa is the man who actually gets out in the (sur)real world of life. Not unlike some psychologists from down under who cannot put a decent, coherent questionaire together and then get this peer reviewed. It must be very satisfying to notice that one is right. (probably, this is science, after all).
Have fun.
I think albedo likely also modulates humidity. I suspect that drying of the atmosphere from cloud cover shielding bodies of water has been incorrectly attributed to temperature change, exagerating the water vapor feedback.
In Science, the climate is never settled. 🙂
And these are the latest versions, presumably better than the ones from 5 and 10 years ago.
Is dynamical even a word?
‘Tomorrow’s science today’? So, predicting the future is not that hard after all! (except for Warmies)
Volcanic and geomagnetic activity shouldn’t correlate, bit it appears they do.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
I deny any responsibility for what may be concluded.
One thing I found recently is that volcanoes seem to have a greater impact in the Arctic (specifically northern hemisphere impacting volcanoes I guess).
The UAH north pole Ocean lower troposphere temperatures for example, clearly show the impact of Pinatubo and El Chichon – an impact which is about 2 to 3 times the global impact
http://s17.postimage.org/k6nwfo8lb/UAH_North_Pole_Ocean_Model_Aug_2012.png
Perhaps polar amplification showing up; perhaps something else. But this is also going to have an impact on sea ice conditions. I note that the NSIDC often says something occurred in 1995 which started the sea ice on its downward trend. Perhaps it was just Pinatubo wearing off. Maybe volcanoes have a greater impact on sea ice conditions than has been thought.
Bill Illis says: September 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
……..
Makes sense, since there are more volcanoes in the North Hemisphere
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/maps/world.png
Good post. Two comments:
1. This is one of the many reasons James Hansen’s infamous 1989 predictions (based on late 1980’s climate model projections) are so far from reality.
2. IPCC climate modeler Eduardo Zorita, commented (at Die Klimazwiebel) that volcanic forcings are one of several parameters that can be tweaked to improve a model’s hind-cast of the climate. But this illustrates why climate hind-casting is worthless. Accurate hind-casts are products of ‘after the fact’ adjustments, usually made to make models look better than they really are. They have no bearing whatsoever on a model’s ability to predict the future.
FYI: For those unaware, Eduardo Zorita is one of the few climate scientists who commands respect. In November of 2009, Zorita put his career on the line by stating publicly that Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process because “the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore”:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/eduardo-zorita-on-climategate.html
They should change the name to Coupled Hemisphere Model Intercomparison Project Simulation.
CHIMPS. Because their models aren’t any better than having chimps do it.
Back in ’08 I had an article in New Scientist that claimed some fraction (half or third) of the warming over the past 30 years was due the absence of volcanic aerosols since 1995 (when Pinatubo’s stuff settled out). In other words, the aerosol from Agung, el Chichon, and Pinatubo cooled the earth by 0.2C before 1995.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13376-lunar-eclipse-may-shed-light-on-climate-change.html?feedId=earth_rss20
New Scientist got a second opinion from Susan Solomon, a chemist, who said not so, the models had this under control and volcanoes have no effect on the warming/cooling. So you mean to tell me the models could have been wrong????
Tell me it isn’t so!
Willis,
When I saw your name and the picture of airborne particles…
I thought you had a good demo about getting the Playa dust out of your truck…
Both great articles. Welcome home.
Here’s a copy: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/DriscollSubmitted.pdf
“””””…..Mark Wagner says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:09 am
Is dynamical even a word?…..”””””
Dynamic would be an adjective; I believe that dynamical is an adverb, indicating activity, rather than simply active.
Anthony says…….”The problem, as always, is that the climate is not dead. It actively responds to mitigate and alter the effects of a volcanic eruption, and the models are unable to replicate that active evolution of the global meteorology that occurs in response to the eruption.”
Have you thought about extending this logic a little further? I would think that the earth and it’s various systems are comparably as complex as a human being. So one could say that making a model of climate that is accruate enought to predict true climate change is as complicated as making a model of a human climate scientist (or skeptic) that will correctly predict their behavior.
Myron Mesecke says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Slight error; CHIMPS or CHMIPS [Model Intercomparison]
Very good tho —
“The problem, as always, is that the climate is not dead. It actively responds to mitigate and alter the effects of a volcanic eruption, and the models are unable to replicate that active evolution of the global meteorology that occurs in response to the eruption.”
Yup. That was the money quote, Willis. I’m guessing it’s just not possible to nest enough “IFs” to cover every change.
Maybe it’s because we don’t really understand how aerosols impact climate after all?
Aerosols, Climate Change and The Dramatic Failure of Planck’s Law
Physicists show how Planck’s law of black body radiation breaks down for nanoparticles, a discovery that could have huge implications for climate science
The effect of aerosols on the Earth’s climate is hugely important but mind-bogglingly complex. In addition to cooling the Earth, some aerosols, such as soot, tend to absorb sunlight and so heat up the atmosphere.
A huge outstanding question in climate science is how these processes of heat absorption and reflection balance out.
Part of the problem is that nobody understands how nanoparticles absorb and emit heat. In theory, this process is governed by Planck’s law, which describes the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a perfect black body at a given temperature
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429112/aerosols-climate-change-and-the-dramatic-failure/
Over the last few months, time permitting, I’ve been looking at a regression model which includes the effect of volcanoes. The model suggests that the effect of volcanoes on annual global temperatures is very small – the maximum effect of Krakatoa in 1882 was only 0.04 °C for example.See:
http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php?id=5505161221680733484
..particularly figure 4.3.
“The problem, as always, is that the climate is not dead. It actively responds to mitigate and alter the effects of a volcanic eruption, and the models are unable to replicate that active evolution of the global meteorology that occurs in response to the eruption.”
That’s the problem with the entire AGW enterprise in a nutshell – the models are kluged together out of odds and ends without taking into account the complexity of the interactions between subsystems. Years ago, my advisor gave me a sheet on “How to Read the Literature,” which had a number of pat phrases one tends to find, and what they really mean, e.g.,
It is known = I think
It is generally known = A couple of other guys think so, too
Of great theoretical and practical importance = It’s the only problem I can solve
The guys on the forefront of this fiasco became enamored of the simple problems they could solve, and their handiwork appeared so beautiful to them that they assumed it must represent truth.
“So it turns out to be even worse than I have been saying for a couple of years now. Not one of the models used by the IPCC was able to replicate the effects of volcanoes. The problem, as always, is that the climate is not dead. It actively responds to mitigate and alter the effects of a volcanic eruption, and the models are unable to replicate that active evolution of the global meteorology that occurs in response to the eruption.”
It looks to me that the models must have positive feedback in order to be unstable and show huge temperature gains in the future based on human CO2 generation. The problem with that is that volcanos would trigger the same “tipping point” and obviously haven’t done so in the past.
“Prediction is hard, especially of the future”
Come clean, Willis. You’ve been hanging around with Yogi Berra!