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?
So, if it’s not CO2, then what mechanism best correlates with the rise in temps since the industrial revolution?
I asked this question on another thread, but so far, I’ve only received the following three answers:
1) Nobody knows
2) It’s the sun (but when I asked for a graph showing the correlation, there was silence)
3) hot air from the media
So far, that doesn’t look very good from the perspective of someone who tends to get their info from encyclopedias and the like.
Evan – Good question, but you need to realize that any man-released-CO2 effect CANNOT have existed prior to 1950 timeframe.
Before that – WWII included! – there simply was not enough CO2 released by man’s activities to be affecting the world’s climate.
There are some 900+ papers listed on the Idso’s site establishing that the Little Ice age and Medieval Warming Period were global, were affecting all proxies under all conditions, and were a valid real time item. Thus, whatever is affecting climate in the long term – and EVERYBODY MUST be humble enough to admit the only thing we really can say is “We don’t know the cause of the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age” – cannot be CO2.
Whatever was changing climate in the short 1973 – 1998 time period when both CO2 and temperatures were increasing “may” include CO2.
But, between 1998 and 2013, CO2 decided not to affect climate.
Evan Bedford:
“1) Nobody knows”
At least, no one knows for certain.
What we do know is that CO2 is not any more than an incidental forcing, if that.
Where do you get your misinformation from, anyway? Certainly not from WUWT articles.
Oh!?
— Was there a late reprieve issued from one of the tropical hoorah conferences where CAGWers are desperate to sign up both countries to a new emission standards and reductions? Make it less now so they aren’t forced back to the feudal age like Western Civilization?
— How is it determined that mysterious SO2 volcanic seeps are lightly puffing their emissions so high into the atmosphere?
— Surely it can not be sub surface vents. I would expect most SO2 would be scrubbed out long before the bubbles surface.
How?
— Freakish CAGW formed thunderstorms blast the heavy little buggers far above normal T-Storm heights?
— Planes drag the volcanic aerosols higher with them?
— The heavier SO2 gas molecule floats higher than lighter gas molecules?
— Perhaps SO2 reacts with water to form H2SO4, a liquid? Is there any way to distinguish H2SO4 reflectivity from water droplets or clous surfaces at that low altitude? If the SO2 molecule found H2O molecules to play with in this study are they suggesting that H2SO4 aqueous molecules are more reflective; even when surrounded by H2O playgroup buddies?
— Perhaps they mispoke; but as already mentioned above (Tom J.), I read this as stating that the stratosphere layer between 20 – 30km is either getting clearer or larger in depth or both. After all; optical quartz, optical glass both refer to the clearest transparent material.
— If the optical layers cleared or got larger; isn’t this result a desired one?
— If they mispoke; then exactly what increased, from what to what and what is the total now versus what was the initial level? 4% is a useless phrase without the qualifiers!
— — This statement also needs verification from direct observations. As the satellite era enabled better measurements, (step changes), and constantly undergo improvements, (more step changes); their short history invalidates global climate effects until a number of cycles are observed.
Say what!?
— I thought Asia was already given a pass, (noted above). Is this some sort of temporary reprieve? Sign them up, gaff them securely, then punish?
— What moderate volcanoes? It takes a severe eruption, (Volcano explosivity index (VEI) scale 4 or greater) to actually push ejecta to those altitudes; Eyjafjallajökull, Mount St. Helens and Pinatubo were the most recent ones that come to mind. Unless of course the researchers manage to find a way that SO2 winkles it’s way higher in the new CAGW physics…
Oh, of course! This is the proverbial “We don’t know, so we’re making it up” model. Taken as stated and I believe they meant in the abstract; this sentence comes across as stating that they adjusted the models till they got the result they wanted. They sat. They played with models. They are sure failing to conquer.
— Asia was given a bye for the moment, so instead they’re blaming the mysterious moderate volcanos. Surely everyone will just accept that statement without qualm…
Outside of the desperate IPCC intention to overwhelm good science with bad science for the AR, (quantity instead of quality, feed them and they’ll multiply), unless the abstract’s description of the paper is terribly incorrect; this is a perfect example of allowing them to stuff their feet and posteriors into their mouths.
I do wonder how much this research actually cost versus how much funding they received.
Is there any evidence for an increase of volcanic explosions?
Evan Bedford says:
March 2, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“So, if it’s not CO2, then what mechanism best correlates with the rise in temps since the industrial revolution?
I asked this question on another thread, but so far . . .”
If the hypothesis fails the test of observation it is the responsibility of the maker to fix it or abandon it. It is not, repeat not, the responsibility of a person pointing out the failure to fix it for you. Here’s the idea:
One example was on Climate Audit (CA) five or six years ago and went (something) like this: Suppose ‘JC’ as a mining engineer with impeccable credentials you are requested by XYZ Mining Co. to investigate claims by Evan Bedford Gold Co.’s flamboyant chief executive that his latest find is showing an abundance of Gold. So ‘JC’ investigates using personal experience, scientific principles, and data manipulation skills – and then tells XYZ not to make an offer on Evan’s property because the find has been overblown or out-right faked. Upon hearing this, Evan says “Well then, if you are so smart, tell me where I can find a rich Gold deposit!” — squawks, stomps foot, slams door.
“Martin van Etten says:
March 2, 2013 at 11:14 am
……here is another link about SO2 emissions:
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf”
If you look at the graphs you’ll see a major shift of SO2 production from Europe/North America to East and Central Asia. If one perturbs a chaotic system so significantly the effect on global climate will be the result of a warming tendency in Europe and North America and a cooling tendency in East and Central Asia plus the unpredictable chaotic component. But as most of the thermometers back then were North America / Europe based, I’d expect to see a “global” warming tendancy in the record and as the overall SO2 falls a continuing warming tendancy until SO2 levels flatten.
Whatever the net effect, taking account of all other drivers, the recent slowing/stopping of warming is not surprising but it is indicative of a significantly smaller component to warming from anthrogenic CO2 than the models are programmed to show. The next 10 years will be very interesting.
Solar Cycle 24 is to blame. Call a spade a spade if you can. Or are you too stupid?
Martin van Etten says:
March 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm
@ur momisugly vukcevic March 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm
I studied both graphs you provided me;
I dont think they fit the existing temperature records like
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
………………..
You are wrong. They are de-trended data, as clearly stated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
I should have said;
The end of solar cycle 23, as it was epic, and solar cycle 24 so far, is to blame.
“ALL-CLEAR IN THE STRATOSPHERE”
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=20&month=12&year=2010
“Earth’s stratosphere is as clear as it’s been in more than 50 years. University of Colorado climate scientist Richard Keen knows this because he’s been watching lunar eclipses”
Any excuse for the models not being right is OK except, of course, the truth.
Phobos says:
March 2, 2013 at 2:30 pm
The uncertainties lie in the *rest* of the calculation: aerosols, black soot, clouds, feedbacks, deep ocean dynamics. Except for the first two — which are negative feedbacks — there is little man can do about climate change unless CO2 is reduced, or scrubbed and sequestered. That’s the bottom line.
The problem with the models is that they give much more weight at the positive feedbacks than at the effect of CO2 itself. Physics show that a CO2 doubling (from 280 to 560 ppmv) gives an increase of temperature of some 0.9°C without feedbacks. That is all. The rest of the 1.5-4.5°C range of the models, according to the IPCC is from the feedbacks. In which case clouds are seen as a positive feedback, while cloud specialists all say that clouds are a negative feedback: more water vapour gives more (low level) clouds, thus more cooling. The other turn knob to tune models with reality are aerosols. While SO2 gives cooling aerosols, black/brown soot (as over large parts of India) gives warming aerosols. The full effect of the mixture of both may be cooling, warming or zero. But all models use aerosols as cooling, or they can’t explain the 1945-1975 cooler period. See the graphs at with my comment at #14.
Without the overblown feedbacks and the overblown impact of aerosols (both natural and human made) in the models, there is not the slightest reason to curb CO2 emissions for their effect on climate, even a doubling gives a mostly benign moderate warming…
Evan Bedford says:
March 2, 2013 at 7:35 pm
So, if it’s not CO2, then what mechanism best correlates with the rise in temps since the industrial revolution?
There have been other warm periods during the Holocene, the last one being the MWP, which was about .5C warmer. What do you suppose could have caused them?
The null hypothesis is and always has been that the warming is natural. Whatever slight warming effect man has had simply can not be distinguished amidst the climate noise. In addition, much of the recorded warming, perhaps as much as half, is due to a highly flawed system of temperature measurement.
So as it is now agreed that there has been no significant global warming for 15 years and we now have been given a solid reason for that being the case – the preceding claims of severe weather being caused by warming they now agree didn’t happen must be false.
Not at all. You see, roughly three or four years ago, when it became clear that there was a serious problem emerging with the AGW story they had been telling, specifically that there had been no warming since the 1997-1998 super ENSO and basically flat temperatures for some 8 years preceding that as well, they changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
Global warming (anthropogenic or not) is in a sense a falsifiable claim. If it fails to warm, it falsifies all predictions of warming whatever their collective cause was supposed to be. Climate change, OTOH, is impossible to falsify because the norm is for the climate to “change”, at least somewhere on the globe, all of the time. It is a dynamical system with chaos and nonlinearities and both slowly and rapidly varying drivers and feedbacks and multiple timescales. Physicists since Gleick have blamed storms like Sandy on the beating of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil, to the point where it is now something of a standing joke in human society. And silly as it is, blaming it on any specific human activity is precisely as reasonable an assessment of the situation as blaming it on a Brazillian Butterfly. I personally caused Sandy to occur when and how it did when I farted in third grade. You contributed to the cause when you belched in 1979 after dinner without covering your mouth. If we hadn’t done these things, the storm would never have happened where and when and how it did.
Of course some other storm, at some other time and place and with some other structure would have happened, because storms happen as the Earth gains summertime heat and starts to shed it in the fall, per hemisphere. And blaming it on Climate Change, where they have become especially subtle and left off the “Anthropogenic” bit because that is falsifiable at this point and besides, it is understood by all Greens and True Believers, is entirely safe. What does the claim even mean? That dynamical phenomena are caused by dynamics in a dynamical system, and that humans, as dynamical entities dynamically contributing dynamical perturbations that are far more powerful than any silly Butterfly, are a dynamical causal factor in the dynamical evolution of the Earth’s dynamical climate system?
Yeah, right. Falsify that!
Now, hand over your money you dynamical perturber you, because Sandy was your fault. Your mother told you to cover your mouth when you belch…
rgb
I suggest Anthony run a post on the differences in language used in press-releases promoting up-coming or recently published scientific articles, as compared to what the articles or even the abstracts actually say or are ‘interpreted’ as meaning. There is often a yawning chasm between the two.
In medical sciences, many know that a modestly interesting paper is often inappropriately described as a “break-through”. It is predictable to the point of being boring.
The hype will get found out by clinical trials, if it even gets that far.
Why does it take so long for the same realization to dawn in climate-change science. Discuss.
Show me where the IPCC or NASA have “Revise theory” on AGW?
Why do you think Co2 is a Satanic gas?
Your last bit which I have bolded makes you sound like a sceptic.
Here they are again:
“aerosols,
black soot,
clouds,
feedbacks,
deep ocean dynamics”
Isn’t this the problem with the models as you have stated there are “uncertainties”? It even baffles the experts.
Let’s take a closer look at CO2 the “satanic gas“.
Effects of higher C02 on crops:
Effects of co2 / climate change on the biosphere:
Earth’s biosphere is booming
Sahara Desert Greening
Sahel Greening
The authors claim that they have an empirical basis for their view:
“Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000… ”
I’m puzzled about why they use the word “suggest”. Did they figure that one out or not–but let that go. If there has been such an increase in the past dozen years it’s worth some study. Also puzzled about why they exonerate India and China. As many commenters here save “suggested” vulcanism has been rather constant, at least since Pinatubo, so one would be looking for new input, and that means, mostly, Asia.
There is a rich irony in that all those reports of organisms suffering from global warming in the past two decades must be wrong if not foolish, since there has been so little warming, but in principle there’s nothing wrong with looking at confounding variables (like sulfur dioxide) before tossing a promising theory.
vukcevic / March 3, 2013 at 12:50 am
You are wrong. They are de-trended data, as clearly stated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
——————————————–
I still do’t agree, the ”Monckton standstill” is not clearly visible in your graph;
son of mulder says: March 3, 2013 at 12:37 am:
“The next 10 years will be very interesting.”
I cannot agree more!
Martin van Etten says:
March 2, 2013 at 9:05 am
Ian W / March 2, 2013 at 6:06 am “And now we are told that the reason there has been NO global warming for 15 years is because of volcanic aerosols?”
I admit, its difficult to understand: global warming is allready 15 years on the highest level of modern times, in the same time, there seems to be no accelaration (increase) for the moment;
this misunderstanding is caused because peole like Monckton and Morano to name a few show only the years with standstill, and not what was before;
Actually, it is people not showing what went before 1750 that have a misunderstanding. Perhaps if the temperatures back to say 10,000 years ago were shown there would be less ‘misunderstanding’.
I would like to ask Martin van Etten exactly what it would take to falsify his belief in catastrophic AGW? [It must be ‘catastrophic’, because otherwise there is no point in arguing over a minuscule, inconsequential AGW effect.]
So, what are your exact numbers, van Etten? What would falsify your belief? Post your numbers here.
I think that van Etten’s belief system is completely emotion-based, and therefore it is unalterable: CO2 is an evil, Satanic gas, and no scientific evidence could possibly change Martin’s True Belief.
Prove me wrong, van Etten. Post your numbers here. What would it take to falsify your belief?
@Tom_R says: / March 2, 2013 at 6:01 pm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
“Martin, where is the severe drop in temperature between 1940′s and 1970′s in that graph?”
there is some decline visible in this graph, besides that, the coldest winter I remember, the winter of 1963 is the coldest point of that timeperiode;
I don’t think we expected a severe drop in temperature; since the fifties we expected a temperature rise (wich did not come until end of the seventies after the SO2 legislation was effectuated)
@ur momisugly D.B. Stealey says: / March 3, 2013 at 6:26 am
I would like to ask Martin van Etten exactly what it would take to falsify his belief in catastrophic AGW?
first answer my other questions;
Ian W / March 3, 2013 at 6:14 am
“Perhaps if the temperatures back to say 10,000 years ago were shown there would be less ‘misunderstanding’.
maybe I should remember you to the subject of this discussion: “Aerosols from Moderate Volcanos Now Blamed for Global Warming Hiatus” (headline of the article above)