While looking for quotes on an upcoming post about Ocean Heat Content, I ran across the press release for a new paper (in press) by Neely et al, which blames the recent slowdown in global warming on smaller more moderate volcanos.
ADD ANOTHER REASON TO THE NON-CONSENSUS
Many readers will recall the October 2011 article by Paul Voosen titled Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming. The article presented the different responses from a number of climate scientists, including John Barnes, Kevin Trenberth, Susan Solomon, Jean-Paul Vernier, Ben Santer, John Daniel, Judith Lean, James Hansen, Martin Wild, and Graeme Stephens, to the question, “Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?” The different replies led Roger Pielke, Sr. to note at the end of his post Candid Comments from Climate Scientists:
These extracts from the Greenwire article illustrate why the climate system is not yet well understood. The science is NOT solved.
Judith Curry provided running commentary in her post Candid Comments from Global Warming Scientists. If you haven’t read it, it’s a worthwhile read.
NEW STUDY BY NEELY ET AL PRESENTS ANOTHER REASON
Neely et al 2013 (in press) blames moderate volcanos. According to a press release from the University of Colorado Boulder:
A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight — dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning, said lead study author Ryan Neely, who led the research as part of his CU-Boulder doctoral thesis. Small amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth’s surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet.
The paper (in press) is Neely et al (2013) Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol.
The abstract reads:
Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth’s climate. Contributions to this increase both from moderate volcanic eruptions and from enhanced coal burning in Asia have been suggested. Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources. Here we use a global climate model coupled to an aerosol microphysical model to partition the contribution of each. We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
Bottom line: There’s still no consensus from climate scientists about the cause of the slowdown in the warming rate of global surface temperatures.
And of course, the sea surface temperature and ocean heat content reveal another reason: there hadn’t been a strong El Niño to release monumental volumes of warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and shift up the sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. Refer to my essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” and my ebook Who Turned on the Heat?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is very basically and clearly what Popper referred to as the “immunisation” of a theory against disproof.
It is always, guaranteed possible to conceive an immunisation of any theory against disproof, post hoc.
That is why the only method in real science of establishing the legitimacy of a hypothesis is to propose what will happen in given circumstances (eg, an experiment or if CO2 keeps rising) if the hypothesis iscorrect and what will happen if it is not, the null hypothesis, BEFORE the predicted data is gathered.
The AGW hypothesis is embodied in its modelling. The modelling would need to take account of aerosols to be valid. That validity would have emerged in the prediction of this warming hiatus on the basis of known volcanic events.
The modelling, in spiteof volcanic events being known, did not predict this warming hiatus. ergo, the models are wrong. Therefore the hypothesis is falsified.
AGW proponents have never, as far as I am aware, proposed a null hypothesis. Findings that would potentially disprove the hypothesis. That in itself is pseudo-scientific. The only thing resemblinga null hypothesis they offered was that 15 years without warming would inducate a doubt over the theory. That 15 years is now in.
The bottom line is this, ignore the immunising sophistry after-the-fact, concentrate on the main point: they knew about the volcanoes, but their hypothesis never predicted such an outcome. Hypothesis is wrong.
DocMartyn says:
March 2, 2013 at 6:18 am
Good idea, lets put all of the Climate Scientists around all the volcanoes. They’ve got everything it takes to detect the gases..
Maybe partly aimed at “solving” the problem with sulfate emissions? Being short-lived, not much crosses the ITCZ, but here in the SH we do have some “moderate volcanoes” 🙂
Don Easterbrook says:
March 2, 2013 at 6:24 am
How long will political scientists continue to ignore the excellent correlation between global warming and cooling and ocean temperature changes, such as the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc and attempt to ‘explain’ global warming and cooling on such flimsy scenarios?
The AMO’s 9 and 60 year oscillations correlate directly to the combination of the solar and geo-magnetic variability as shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
Eventually someone will correctly identify physical process driving the oceanic oscillations.
Steven Mosher says: “if they agreed youd bitch that it was a conspiracy or that consensus didnt matter. If they disagree youd bitch that the science wasnt settled and remark that the sun explains it all.”
Hmm. I don’t recall ever saying that the sun explains it all, Steven. Wanna try again?
Steven Mosher, you write “if they agreed youd bitch that it was a conspiracy or that consensus didnt matter.
If they disagree youd bitch that the science wasnt settled and remark that the sun explains it all.”
Not at all. In the SPMs to the AR4, the conclusions are stated with phrases like “extremely likely”, and “very likely”, which, on page 3, are define as being >95% probability, and >90% probability repsectively. I do not believe the reasons the IPCC stated for their confidence, and this lack of consensus merely underlines the suspicion that these confidence limits are based on very little, if any, physics.
Got to grasp on and hold tightly to anything but solar variation and a complete cluelessness about what actually drives temperature.
Oh, yes, anything but solar variations and a complete unwillingness to look at the obvious that is staring you in the face – that climate scientists are completely unable to admit that they may be wrong about their golden calf.
Am I having a senior moment? The sentence:Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth’s climate. says the atmosphere is becoming more optically transparent. To me that means light has an easier route through the atmosphere, so how does this cause extreme cooling to counteract the extreme heating from CO2? I thought the aerosols were optically more opaque to cause cooling.
I could find very little on the history of sulfur removal from fossil fuels, Except that it started as early as the 1950s, and the main industrial source of sulfur is oil refineries. So they are currently removing a lot of sulfur from petrol/diesel.
30 years ago in SE Asia, cities had an acrid street level haze, which is now almost completely gone. The removal of sulfur from fuels is probably a significant factor.
It’s plausible that reduced sulfur emissions from vehicles played a role in the post 70s warming. And increased sulfur emissions from increased coal burning from the late 90s reversed this trend. No need to invoke volcanoes.
Since both China and India have seen large increases in coal consumption since the 1990s, if sulfur causes cooling, then we should expect to see regional cooling in both places. We don’t. We see cooling or limited warming in India, and general warming in China, which indicates black and organic carbon emissions play a bigger role in temperature (BC and OC cool) and BC/OC have been recently found to reach the stratosphere.
Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000
This begs the question: What was the increase between 1980 and 2000?
Mr. Mosher, whose point (or what point) are you trying to make here? If “we” won’t a accept the science because the consensus either doesn’t exist or it’s a conspiracy, what does that say about the flip side of the coin? Do you seriously suppose the AGW folks are simply following the science to where it leads them, with nary a thought to policy advocacy, or might it just possibly be the case that they have made up their minds a long time ago and are looking, always and every time, for a justification for their correctness? Little volcanoes? Really?
Heck we are talking solar, I didn’t say it was just the sun. I would like to find someone who said that because frankly I don’t know anyone who believes it was just the sun. What nonsense, where does Steve get his ideas for these conspiracy theories of his?
Mosher reminds me of the atheist’s tombstone: “All dressed up and no place to go…”
Wunderbarley!!!
Now we have computer models to explain why previous computer models don’t work. It seems that this wouldn’t be necessary with an hypothesis that was accurate.
So… model SO2 study easily overpowers the invincible model CO2 warming studies.
Has CO2 has lost its mojo?
Let me see if I understand this:
In any year, the measured average temperature of the Earth will go up, or down.
If the temperature goes up, it’s due to human CO2 output, and we must stop our industry. It’s obviously human CO2, because we can measure CO2 output, divide that by the temperature rise, and get a figure for unit CO2 effect. It must be that, because we can’t think of anything else it could be.
If the temperature goes down, it’s due to human aerosol emissions, and we must stop our industry. It’s obviously human aerosol emissions because we can measure aerosol output, divide that by the temperature rise, and get a figure for unit aerosol emissions effect. It must be that, because we can’t think of anything else it could be.
You know, if they can make this stick, they’ve got us. Those arguments are not capable of being disproven until someone fully understands the climate. And with our economies collapsed, there won’t be any money left for that…
P.S – the maths implied above conforms fully to climate science guidelines, and is warranted genuine…
The problem with your statement (a rare complete thought from you) is we are constantly reminded by the carbophobic climate alarmists that they have the full force and and credibility of a world wide consensus. Except that there is now a consensus that warming paused years ago and they don’t know or agree why, it’s dead, Mosh – the consensus is dead. Nothing left but the soulless empty shells of climate zombies walking away from the light. Let it go.
The Pinatubo eruption was the largest eruption of the past decades. The resultant temperature drop was about 0.6°C at its maximum effect and the effect was fast declining, but still measurable over the following 3 years. The Volcanic Explosion Index (VEI) of the Pinatubo eruption was 6 on a logarithmic scale, which is a measure of the amount of debris and SO2 pushed into the atmosphere/stratosphere.
Every year or so, there are smaller eruptions of VEI 4, thus a factor 100 less aerosols for volcanic eruptions like the Eyjafyallajökull in Iceland. That means, taking into account the aerosols of 3 moderate volcanoes accumulating over 3 years, an average of 0.012°C cooling caused by volcanic aerosols over the past decade or so.
Even if that doubled over the past decade, is simply is unmeasurable in the noise and not the cause of the standstill, if CO2 has such a huge effect as implemented in current models…
I’m assuming there is some constant level of these smaller volcanoes going off.
Was there some surge starting in 2000?
No. There is roughly the same number of smaller ones each decade so it has not contributed to a “change” in the trend of stratospheric aerosols starting in 2000. We’re at the same aerosol optical depth values that we were at from 1920 to 1962 for example (during a period when there were no large volcanoes).
GISS has updated their Aerosol Optical depth – tau – numbers here up to the year 2012. It is provided in 4 different levels including the 20 km to 30 km level that this study is based on.
Visual of the total tau from 1850 to 2012 here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.map_2012.12.pdf
Detailed table by year, latitude, and level here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.map_2012.12.txt
Main page here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
I think those must be GWDCVs: Global Warming Denier Created Volcanoes, because they came at the right time to distract the public from the important truths that climate scientists are trying to communicate.
More seriously, as Don Easterbrook says, these things have either been operating all the time or we have more serious problems with those volcanoes because they have ramped up their output all of a sudden.
Yep don’t blame it on emerging growing markets that will help Big Green make tons of money, blame it on these irresponsible little volcanoes that don’t get it…
Is anyone really surprised – the spin for grant money goes on. I wouldn’t miss this crap for the world!
This 2013 paper will be making waves: https://sites.google.com/site/fredericparreninpro/publications
==
As for this: “Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.”
So when it cools it’s natural but when it warms, it’s anthropogenic… So much for geoengineering, human influence on climate etc… They shoot themselves in the foot and smile!
>> John Daniel:
>> “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply
>> this is due to global warming,”…
Curious : we have a few heat waves here and there, which result
in fractional increases in the Mean Global Temperature, which is
presumably how one detects the presence of global (sic) warming (sic).
Then it is claimed that GW has caused the heat waves.
Sorry, pass that by me again ?