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?
These studies are based on the hybridization of two “models”: WACCM and CARMA.
WACCM stands for “Wacked-Out Climate Model”
CARMA speaks for itself and suggests: The Warm-earthers and Carboxyphobes will one day face the Bad Karma generated by their ultimate contribution to the degradation of human life on the planet, most notably of those poor in developing countries who have faced and are suffering through a lower food supply (food is being converted inefficiently to fuel) and reduced energy caused by prohibition of varied efficient forms of energy generation in their countries.
Pox on both their houses! May their tribes and grants decrease!
D.B. Stealey / March 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm Yes, this is the internet’s “Best Science” site.
that indeed is an incredible but disturbing result;
van Etten says:
“first answer my other questions”
No. You keep dodging the question. The fact is that you cannot give an answer because you will be proven wrong. Stop playing your word games: what, specifically, would it take to falsify catastrophic AGW? Post your numbers here.
And regarding the fact that WUWT is the internet’s “Best Science” site, van Etten complains: “that indeed is an incredible but disturbing result”
It is not ‘incredible’, it is the plain truth. And it is only ‘disturbing’ to the scientifically illiterate.
These “studies” were funded by the following:
“The research for the new study was funded in part through a NOAA/ ESRL-CIRES Graduate Fellowship to Neely. The National Science Foundation and NASA also provided funding for the research project. The Janus supercomputer is supported by NSF and CU-Boulder and is a joint effort of CU-Boulder, CU Denver and NCAR.”
NASA and NOAA again. (not to cast any dispersion or derision [/sarc]). I also wonder to myself what if any “perks” have been offered by the People’s Republic of China?…Just sayin’ — not knowin’!
Martin van Etten says:
March 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm
wrote:
Well, I suggest that you study the NASA/GISS/Hansen plots some more.
The claim of global warming is based entirely on the assertion that the data processing output labelled “global average temperature” is known to with +/- 0.1C back in 1880 [or today for that matter].
@Martin van Etten:
Here ya go.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rose-_16yrs_hardcrut4.jpg
Do you see any warming there? If you do, you might want to get your vision checked. Of course, it helps to take off your Warmist goggles.
Just 2 points:
1) It is down to those who make the ‘theories’ to provide the evidence and defend their work / claim. Sceptics don’t have to explain, defend or provide any evidence – if they choose not to. Think about this example for a second. Someone puts in a paper for peer review. It is rejected due to a flaw. The researcher who submitted the paper then asks the reviewers can they think of a better explanation. Such a person will never be taken seriously again
2) Maybe Dr. James Hansen can help out with your question:
Helpful? The science is not settled.
Jimbo said:
Game, set and match.
Please don’t soil tennis in all of this. The ball is either in or its out. Aren’t some things sacred?
Phobos wrote:
March 2, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Climate models are not derived from first principles of physics, such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for blackbodies, but are rather mostly consist of curve fitting data + energy balance + transport.
Btw, a blackbody calculation gives that earth’s average global temperature as 6C.
Martin van Etten,
Can you give Stealey an answer. Ducking and diving makes you look bad. If it’s science then what would falsify AGW in your eyes. Example, 5 years of cooling, 100 years of cooling, just what would it take and give numbers. You can’t continue on this thread with any credibility if you fail to answer.
Here is another suggestion from Dr. James Hansen of NASA which might help. 😉
Helpful? The science is not settled. Look, I could go on and on causing you guys great confusion and stress but that would be inhumane. The problem is not with sceptics but in the models.
Jimbo:
I predict he will answer your challenge and give another good non-answer.
Theo Goodwin says:
“Hats off to Bofill, Wamron, Shaw, Stealey, and all you older guys who know who you are. Looks like there is no need for me to post any longer. That’s good. (Don’t spend too much time on the trolls.)”
Man! NOOOOOO! Dont dump the burden here I cant take it, I is only in me fifties!
However, I DO have a general “advisory” from my “older” opinion. It seems mostresponses to the trolls tend two ways: either abrupt dismissal in terms only symmetrically echoing the AGW folks themselves or getting into technical minutiae.
The first type of comment I understand and sometimes, I admit, add myself. But the second kind, the technically literate (I said technically LITERATE, not its opposite, though the result isthe same) kind is actually the more problematic. Why? Because it is only by engaging in an nfinite regression through layers of sub-tending technicality that pseudo-science can survive by its sophistry and wits rather than being exposed as unscientific. This much was explained by Imre Lakatosh in the Seventies.
To expose pseudo-science it is necessary to 1) refuse to be drawn into discussion of sub-tending sophistry of a technical nature and 2) keep pointing out the fundamental, generic flaws in the process of thought exhibited by the pseudo-scientist (or troll).
The problem is that so many of the commenters here are technically knowlledgeable and are drawn too easily into technical regression. YOU MUST STOP YOURSELF. Your knowledge is wasted in such discussion. In fact, it adds legitimacy to the other gangspseudo-science by drawing your input.
Just keep repeating the basic indisputable mantra: Nothing is “scienctific” that has no null hypothesis.
Most trolls aint the wit to understand squat. It doesnt matter, its the non-posting readers you need to think of.
Note all MARTIN VAN ETTEN
quoted one line of my earlier entry out of context to make it appear I approved of some twaddle that was exactly the opposite of what I wrote.
MARTIN VAN ETTEN…thats called traduction…its the nastiest, lowest, scummiest, vilest, ass-kicking warranting form of deception that it is possible to perpetrate. Its the sort of thing that in previous eras would warrant a duel.
MARTIN VAN ETTEN …would you care to have a meet!
Wamron says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:03 am
Very well said. Trolls are trying to become Tar Babies, though they might not be conscious of that. In practical terms, they are here to make noise and to distract from serious debate and conversation. Stay away from them. Heed the saying: Do not feed the trolls.
Your contributions have been very good. Just focus on your own material.
The concern over cooling was in the 1970’s, not around 1963. The decline in the GISS graph is less than 0.1 degree. Such a miniscule amount would not have anyone concerned about cooling. There was a real noticeable drop in global temperatures in the 1970’s. There is historical support for that. Yet it does not show up in the GISS plot of temperatures. Of course the values from GISS have been adjusted from the actual raw measurements. When the numbers after adjustment disagree with historical records, I have to conclude that the error is in the adjustments.
SO2 is pretty reactive and IMO, precipitates out as sulphate too quickly in the troposphere to be of much consequence. That’s why the really energetic volcanoes are the mechanism responsible for getting it to the stratosphere where it can be of some significance.
Something that is overlooked, and that I can’t find any emission ratios of, is Carbonyl Sulphide. (OCS). It has a really long stay time in the troposphere and can be carried around on the large scale circulation. When hit with 270 to 200 nm light, it dissociates and can then be converted to sulphate. I think this is how the background aerosol layer remains persistent. The only place that you find that 270 nm and 200 nm (UV-C) is up in the stratosphere.
Not trained in this stuff, and it’s just an opinion.
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?”
This is a loaded question, as it implicitly asserts that CO2 does correlate with the rise in temps since the industrial revolution. It does not.
Both increase, but the odds of both moving in the same direction are only 50/50. A coin toss. Other than that superficial similarity, there is no agreement between the series.
However, the rise in temps does correlate with acceleration in CO2. This relationship contradicts the hypothesis that CO2 is driving temperature. As a causative relationship, it would require that temperatures respond only to the rate of change of CO2, regardless of the absolute level of CO2,. which is, of course, absurd.
I hardly expect this to make an impression on you. As a journalist, it is likely enough that you have trouble with fractions, let alone any deeper mathematics. It is unlikely that calculus is even remotely within the realm of your experience. You are merely the court jester, playing the fool and cheering on your team while jeering at the opposition. It is a pathetic performance.
Tom_R says:
March 3, 2013 at 10:19 am
Are you saying that anthropogenic SO2 outcompetes or swamps all natural sulfur emissions from all the world’s tectonic boundary volcanic, sea algal, decay, forest fires, and anaerobic emissions, etc.? I would guess not even a tenth, maybe not a hundredth part. [notwithstanding myriad incestuously cited “reports” that say that human sources comprise 95% of atmospheric sulfur emissions, which I find patently absurd].
Of course, the paper’s position is not a testable hypothesis, reiterating one of Wamron’s many salient points. To restate another of his points—us “skeptics” (AKA, basic scientists) don’t need to carry the burden of scientific proof.
My suggestion for the authors of the paper: find a scientific control to compare the premise, by figuring a way to shut down volcanoes for a year or ten. Then turn them on again. Then measure. Presto! A real scientific paper. (The undersea vents may be a little more problematic, as well as all the other sources).
Martin van Etten says: (@vukcevic)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
I still don’t agree, the ”Monckton standstill” is not clearly visible in your graph;
And you are still wrong. It says Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and North Hemisphere (de-trended) Temperatures. Do you know what you are looking at? Go and plot the data 1880 to 2011, calculate and remove the trend, then you might reconsider accuracy of your statements.
Evan Bedford:
Hundreds of thousands of undersea volcanoes recently discovered. Scientists cannot even quantify their emissions, but since the oceans cover more than 70% of the planet, we can be certain that natural sulfer emissions far exceed anything that human activity can produce.
Why not publish this fact, and at least pretend to be something other than a demonizer of harmless, beneficial “carbon” [by which the alarmist cult means CO2, a tiny trace gas. <–You probably didn't know that].
Jimbo says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:04 am
“1) It is down to those who make the ‘theories’ to provide the evidence and defend their work / claim.
2) Maybe Dr. James Hansen can help out with your question:
Dr. James Hansen – NASA – June 16, 2000
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
“A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.” ”
I think the key word is “mainly”. Here is what Hanson also wrote in the paper:
“Forcings for specific GHGs differ by as much as several percent from values we estimated earlier: CO2 (−1%), CH4 (+2%), N2O (−3%), chlorofluorocarbon 11 (CFC-11) (+6%), and CFC-12 (+8%).”
I don’t see any reason for complacency.
As for the evidence for AGW, there is always the trapped bubbles in the ice, showing the relationship between cO2 and temps for many millenia. The warming may have come first, due to planetary perturbations, etc, but the feedback relationship is clearly present. So the question remains. The science for the last 187 years has put forth co2 as a significant greenhouse gas. There is plenty of evidence for it. So I’m still waiting to hear what — if not co2 — is responsible for all the warming over the last 150 years.
D.B. Stealey says:
March 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm
“Hundreds of thousands of undersea volcanoes recently discovered. Scientists cannot even quantify their emissions, but since the oceans cover more than 70% of the planet, we can be certain that natural sulfer emissions far exceed anything that human activity can produce.
Why not publish this fact, and at least pretend to be something other than a demonizer of harmless, beneficial “carbon” [by which the alarmist cult means CO2, a tiny trace gas. <–You probably didn't know that]."
Why don't you publish it, overturn the paradigm and win a Nobel Prize?
Bart says:
“I hardly expect this to make an impression on you. As a journalist, it is likely enough that you have trouble with fractions, let alone any deeper mathematics. It is unlikely that calculus is even remotely within the realm of your experience. You are merely the court jester, playing the fool and cheering on your team while jeering at the opposition. It is a pathetic performance.”
I’m hardly a journalist. I get paid $25 about once a month for the stuff I write, which works out to far less than minimum wage. I do, however, have a BSc in Forestry and a CET in Civil Engineering. So I know a bit about math. And if you have any problems with the numbers in my columns, you can always send me a polite e-mail to correct me.
Bubbagyro…I note your sarcasm but they dont even need to do that.
All they need to do is take these variables (SO2 or any other blather they might want to adduce) into account when proposing their hypothesis. If they fairly acknowledge and offer quantities for these variables in advance they will not have to blather retrospectively.
Of course, that poses two problems: Firstly it would not sell AGW well to declare a prediction that there will be a long cooling period (had they predicted this), whether because of SO2 or any other factor …they only want to say the heating will continue. Secondly, once they have incorporated these variables into their predictions and they STILL fail to predict actual events, then they will have no options to blather about retrospectively.
Of course, if they were confident that they were right…then they would not need to worry about the latter prospect. Their predictions would confirm their hypothesis and we would be forced to acknowledge this.
That they appear willing to forego that prospect of totally convicing “proof” offers an insight into “where they are at” in their “ideation”.