Researchers find models must account for volcanic eruptions to accurately predict climate change.
From:MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
By the late 1990s, scientists had observed more than two decades of rapid global warming, and expected the warming trend to continue. Instead, despite continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth’s surface temperatures have remained nearly flat for the last 15 years. The International Panel on Climate Change verified this recent warming “hiatus” in its latest report.
Researchers around the globe have been working to understand this puzzle — looking at heat going into the oceans, changes in wind patterns, and other factors to explain why temperatures have stayed nearly stable, while greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to rise. In a study published today in Nature Geoscience, a team of scientists from MIT and elsewhere around the U.S. report that volcanic eruptions have contributed to this recent cooling, and that most climate models have not accurately accounted for the effects of volcanic activity.
“This is the most comprehensive observational evaluation of the role of volcanic activity on climate in the early part of the 21st century,” says co-author Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT. “We assess the contributions of volcanoes on temperatures in the troposphere — the lowest layer of the atmosphere — and find they’ve certainly played some role in keeping the Earth cooler.”
There are many components of the Earth’s climate system that can increase or decrease the temperature of the globe. For example, while greenhouse gases cause warming, some types of small particles, known as aerosols, cause cooling. When volcanoes erupt explosively enough, they enhance these aerosols — a phenomenon referred to as “volcanic forcing.”
“The recent slowdown in observed surface and tropospheric warming is a fascinating detective story,” says Ben Santer, the lead author of the study and a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “There is not a single culprit, as some scientists have claimed. Multiple factors are implicated. The real scientific challenge is to obtain hard quantitative estimates of the contributions of each of these factors to the so-called slowdown.”
The researchers verified the cooling phenomenon by performing two different statistical tests to determine whether recent volcanic eruptions have cooling effects that can be distinguished from the intrinsic variability of the climate. The team found evidence for significant correlations between volcanic aerosol observations and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and sunlight reflected by the particles off the top of the atmosphere.
“What’s exciting in this work was that we could detect the influence of the volcanic aerosols in new ways. Using satellite observations confirmed the fact that the volcanic particles reflected a significant amount of the sun’s energy out to space, and of course losing energy means cooling — and the tropospheric temperatures show that too,” explains Solomon, who is also a researcher with MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “There are still uncertainties in exactly how big the effects are, so there is more work to do.”
Alan Robock, a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University and a leading expert on the impacts of volcanic eruptions on climate, says these findings are an important part of the larger climate picture. “This paper reminds us that there are multiple causes of climate change, both natural and anthropogenic, and that we need to consider all of them when interpreting past climate and predicting future climate.”
“Since none of the standard scenarios for evaluating future global warming include volcanic eruptions,” Robock adds, “this paper will help us quantify the impacts of future large and small eruptions when they happen, and thus better interpret the role of humans in causing climate change.”
This research was led by a team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and builds upon work Solomon conducted in 2011, finding that aerosols in an upper layer of the atmosphere — the stratosphere — are persistently variable and must be included in climate models to accurately depict climate changes.
The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
h/t to Roger Sowell
For reference, here is the associated paper; (h/t Greg)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Their blaming resourcefulness is becoming noticeably thin…
I wonder, when they will start blaming Jews for “hiatus in global warming”?
By the late 1990s, scientists had observed more than two decades of rapid global warming … despite continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth’s surface temperatures have remained nearly flat for the last 15 years … researchers around the globe have been working to understand this puzzle …
——————————————
It’s puzzling only if you cling desperately to the assumption that CO2 is the overwhelming post WW2 climate forcing factor.
Here’s another puzzle for them: the T linear trend c1910 – c1945 as CO2 went from ~ 300 – ~310 ppm is steeper than that c1975 – c2000 as CO2 went from ~330 – ~370 ppm (and now, of course, zero trend as CO2 goes from 370 – 395ppm).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2000/trend
So, according to this paper, if you can’t predict volcanoes you can’t predict climate.
Not a single climate scientists or climate model can accurately predict volcanoes. Not one. Which means that not a single climate scientist or climate model can predict climate.
And it is Ben Santer and Susan Solomon that have established this. Unless and until Climate Science can predict volcanoes, they cannot predict climate.
Clearly all the money spend on climate science should instead be spend on volcano science. Until we solve the problem in predicting volcanoes there can be no reliable predictions of climate. Which means any money we spend on climate prediction is simply wasted.
Clearly, Volcanoes, not CO2 drive the climate.
Glad you asked this! I’ve been in an email discussion with Dr. Brian May (PhD in astronomy & former guitarist of the band Queen) about various climate forcings, and he suggested the extraterrestrial debris (interplanetary dust) forcing, which I had never heard of:
Sure enough, with enough digging, there is some interesting information available, including the possibility of meteor dust contributing to noctilucent clouds: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/07aug_meteorsmoke/
To summarize…there are far more forcings in action that the Hockey Team care to admit, and I’m very skeptical that they didn’t even include volcanic aerosols in their models!
It’s global dimming all over again!!! LOL!
As Gavin said”we looked at the sun. It’s not the sun,then we looked at volcanoes,it’s not volcanoes. We looked at the orbit. It’s not the orbit. Then we looked at funding.”…………….
The global pause/cooling for the past 17 years is not a unique event. It is part of a cyclic pattern of 25-35 yr warming/cooling (60 yr full cycle) that has been going on for at least 500 years and probably longer. Because there is no corresponding volcanic cycle, the volcanic heat idea is a nonstarter. Sounds like grasping at straws–until evidence of a corresponding volcanic cycle is presented (and that is highly unlikely) this idea makes no sense at all.
This is garbage. Name one significant eruption in the last 15-years? Little ones
are always erupting(and how would we even know about them in the past). The
pause cannot be quantified. Multiple “Unknown ” Factors!!
‘The team found evidence for significant correlations between volcanic aerosol observations and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and sunlight reflected by the particles off the top of the atmosphere.’
Correlation = causation?
CRS, DrPH says:
February 23, 2014 at 9:58 pm
The link was quite amusing. Particularly enjoyed the bizarre nuclear chemistry where one carbon atom is converted to two oxygen atoms. So methane of all things is supposed to be responsible for noctilucent clouds? NLCs form over the poles. Is that where the methane is? Nope. Good try. Straws grasped at, but not caught.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2014 at 9:25 pm
For reference, here is the associated paper;
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html
=============
Anthony , could you put this link at the end of the article, which currently has no references.
Can you say KLUDGE ? Sure you can.
Wikipedia: A kludge is a workaround, quick-and-dirty solution, clumsy, inelegant, difficult to extend, hard to maintain yet effective and quick solution to a problem, and a rough synonym to the term “jury rig”.
Can you say kludge? Sure you can.
Wikipedia: A kludge (or kluge) is a workaround, quick-and-dirty solution, clumsy, inelegant, difficult to extend, hard to maintain yet effective and quick solution to a problem, and a rough synonym to the term “jury rig”.
What absolute one eyed nonsense.
Most live volcanoes are beneath the ocean, pumping heat and CO2 into the water and causing general warming. Especially warming glaciers in West Antarctica and Northern Greenland.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110715-undersea-volcanoes-antarctica-science-tsunamis/
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n7/abs/ngeo1473.html
http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Learning/Science-Topics/Ocean-Floor/Undersea-New-Zealand/Submarine-Volcanoes
Why don’t they mention these things? Only trouble is that it is difficult to blame the current heating hiatus on undersea volcanoes because they are probably the biggest factor on global warming.
If these volcanoes are still active, and of course the rate of activity is unlikely to have slowed, then why has global warming stopped? Can it be that all other factors are cooling the place down?
It’s all a smoke screen. Read my blog where I show how the UN Agenda 21 has crept into yours and my country while we have all been busy debating AGW!
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Wiki list of ‘large’ volcanic eruptions in 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ngeo2098-f1.jpg?w=550&h=500
Nice find , JustTheFacts.
One thing that is interesting in the lower panel where they have supposedly removed El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo, is that there is a notable bump throughout the 90s. and a very strong one just after the first eruption in the early 80s.
This is clear evidence that, far from under-estimating the effects of volcanism as this paper is
trying to suggest, they are already substantially over estimating it.
As my tentative assessment of the effects of major stratospheric erruptions shows there are notable differences between tropical and extra-tropical responses to volcanism.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=312
Tropics are almost totally oblivious to volcanism and even recover the lost heat and maintain a steady degree.day product (number of growth days) .
Santer has shown his credentials by altering the agreed science content of the chapter he was entrusted with in AR4. Anything he produces or is associated with must be regarded as propaganda, not science. You don’t get away with that sort of manipulation Santer, we know who you are now.
“The recent slowdown in observed surface and tropospheric warming is a fascinating detective story,” says Ben Santer…
You say ‘fascinating’ i say pot-boiler, even Darling Dame Agatha Christie would not resort to such absurd plot devices….get a bloody life – AND while you are at it benny boy, a real job…
Chris Riley said:
February 23, 2014 at 9:15 pm
“The very large Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 has been credited with causing a decline in global temperatures in 1992. It would seem appropriate to use the observed forcing from this event to calculate quantity of volcanic forcing that would be required to create the “hiatus” we are now experiencing. How many “Pinatubo” events are needed to explain the difference between the model predictions and the actual temperature record of the last 16 years? What percentage of the volcanic activity that would be necessary to create the “hiatus” has actually occurred ?”
Interesting questions Mr. Riley.
If you look at the following wikipedia page and associated links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
It looks like the 1991 Pinatubo and Hudson eruptions ejected over 4 times the total volume of all major eruptions that occurred since the 1998 warming ‘pause’. But that includes an eruption in 2014, whose effects have probably yet to show up in the climate trend data. Leaving out 2014, Pinatubo and Hudson 1991 eruptions are more than 7 times the total volume of eruptions during the pause.
Consider that the current global temp seems to be running about 0.6C below the model predictions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/20/a-must-read-why-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-is-flat-wrong-on-climate-change/
and also consider that the 1991 eruptions are credited with a global temperature drop in 1992 of about 0.4C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects
Ignoring all other factors and assuming a linear relationship between volcanic ejection mass and global temperature and assuming all volcanoes are equal (unrealistic assumptions to be sure), the quick ‘back of the envelope’ math says that the 2014 temperature deviation from prediction would require a cumulative volcanic ejection mass about 50% greater than the Pinatubo ’91 eruption. That would equate to over 6 times the actual amount of eruption material that has actually been ejected during the pause, or over 10 times if the 2014 eruption is considered to not yet be an influence in the temperature data.
Grossly over simplified to be sure and full of unknowns, but the ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude) guesstimate looks like the volcano notion is short by about an order of magnitude in accounting for the ‘pause’. The devil is always in the details, but this ‘volcano’ theory doesn’t smell right without a substantial amount of quantified data that contradicts the ‘common sense’ guesstimate.
Not a direct answer to your questions, but at first glance at least, seems like ManBearPig better go back to looking in the bottom of the sea for his missing heat monster.
Now, now. Let us look at the ACTUAL atmospheric clarity since .. oh, maybe .. 1958 or so.
You know, look at real data, instead of a model. Maybe, if we see signs that atmospheric clarity have been decreasing since 1997, then we can start looking for those specific volcanoes that actually erupted and sent that dirt and gasses and aerosols skyward.
Maybe we “should” actually “look” at the actual atmospheric clarity indexes, then see if any large volcanic eruptions in the past match changes in the atmosphere records. No, it might be hard to see any trends or spikes, but it just “might” be possible to find relationships. Surely, if volcanoes erupted in the past, they could be erupting now unseen and unheard but still contaminating the atmosphere without publicity or notice.
Surely, if Pinatubo had any effect in 1992, and if any volcano anywhere had an effect in – say, 1982 (El Chincon) or in 1963-64, we “might” be able see any “spike” or “jump” in levels that “might” have caused temperatures the past 17 years to stay steady (despite 17 years of increasing CO2 levels). Surely, if the atmosphere were getting so dirty that the entire planet is cooling off, we would be able to see it, right? /sarchasm – That gaping whole between the CAGW religion and reality.
Right? Everybody agree? If volcanoes in the past caused specific cooling events in the past at specific times in the past, and volcanoes are causing today’s looooooooooooong cooling trend right now in the present, then we should be able to see the same levels of atmospheric dirt and debris in the present, right?
Hmmmn. Let’s look at WUWT Solar Data page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif
Nope. Nothing. NOT EVEN A BLIP. They are now even lying to themselves. To the world.
So was there a dearth of volcanic activity during the warming period? Could it could equally be argued that this was the cause of the warming, nothing to do with CO2? 🙂
Yes,. of course, it’s the volcanoes, or the aerosols, or the Trade Winds, or the Polar Vortex, etc. The Warmistas are increasingly desperate to explain the complete failure of the CO2 models. When they get round to blaming the Jews, we will know that the end is at hand.
No. the long heating period from the mid-1650’s through 2000-2010 doesn’t match any long term change in volcanic activity.
why do i have nightmares that the CAGW crowd have a “book of everything” and they are ticking off one thing after another, with no end in sight, unfortunately.
more money wasted – the Christ Turney Exhibition:
24 Feb: Sydney Morning Herald: AAP: Antarctica cruise ship rescue cost $1.8 million
Australian Antarctic Division director Dr Tony Fleming said the rescue cost his division around $1.8 million and they were trying to recoup the bill.
“We’re having discussions with the insurance companies,” he told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Monday.
“It’s a complicated process.”
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/antarctica-cruise-ship-rescue-cost-18-million-20140224-33cdt.html
“To summarize…there are far more forcings in action that the Hockey Team care to admit, and I’m very skeptical that they didn’t even include volcanic aerosols in their models!”
I think it’s there as a parameter, so and so many eruption over a certain time period.?
I posted below in the Greenwich data WUWT. Perhaps it is worth repeating here.
Extra volcanic activity in the 21st C is new straw that the warmistas are grasping to explain the 21st C warming hiatus. But there is no precise record of volcanic eruptions over the last few centuries to prove whether or not there is a 21st Century increase in volcanic activity. However there are very good records on the incidence of great (Cat 8 plus) earthquakes since 1950 and any increase in their incidence in the 21st Century would suggest that there would be a knock-on effect of higher volcanic activity. There were 18 of these earthquakes from 1950 to 2000 and 19 from 2001 until now. This suggests that there has been a significant increase in incidence.
Japanese scientists have also directly linked the increase in galactic cosmic ray activity to increased volcanic activity. Overall galactic cosmic ray activity has been high so far in the 21st Century due to the concurrent low solar magnetic storm activity.
So the question that the warmistas don’t want asked is: if nature is overriding man’s efforts to warm the planet in the 21st C could it also have also had a significant role in the warming that occurred in the 20th Century?
So far this century there hasn’t been any significant eruptions of the Tambora type that occurred in 1815, but if the sun has gone into a grand minimum and this one is true to form then there could well be one or two in coming decades. There were 2 in the Dalton Minimum (unknown in 1809 and Tambora in Indonesia). These produced the coldest decade in 500 years. Laki in 1783/4 was also significant because of its latitude it only had throw matter 6 or 7 kilometers up to get it into the stratosphere. There were a number of large volcanic eruptions in the Maunder Minimum but none as big as Samalas (also in Indonesia) in 1257.