Ben Santer tries to explain 'the pause' in global warming

Add it to the list of over 50 excuses for the pause from climate science now on record…this time its small volcanoes.

Santa María Volcano is an active volcano in the western highlands of Guatemala

Santa María Volcano is an active volcano in the western highlands of Guatemala, which has been periodically producing small eruptions as shown above, However, the eruption of Santa María Volcano in 1902 (VEI 6) was one of the three largest eruptions of the 20th century, after the 1912 Novarupta and 1991 Pinatubo eruptions. It is also one of the five biggest eruptions of the past 200 (and probably 300) years.

Small volcanic eruptions partly explain ‘warming hiatus’

From DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

The “warming hiatus” that has occurred over the last 15 years has been partly caused by small volcanic eruptions.

Scientists have long known that volcanoes cool the atmosphere because of the sulfur dioxide that is expelled during eruptions. Droplets of sulfuric acid that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can persist for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures at the surface and in the lower atmosphere.

Previous research suggested that early 21st century eruptions might explain up to a third of the recent “warming hiatus.”

New research available online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) further identifies observational climate signals caused by recent volcanic activity. This new research complements an earlier GRL paper published in November, which relied on a combination of ground, air and satellite measurements, indicated that a series of small 21st century volcanic eruptions deflected substantially more solar radiation than previously estimated.

“This new work shows that the climate signals of late 20th and early 21st century volcanic activity can be detected in a variety of different observational data sets,” said Benjamin Santer, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist and lead author of the study.

The warmest year on record is 1998. After that, the steep climb in global surface temperatures observed over the 20th century appeared to level off. This “hiatus” received considerable attention, despite the fact that the full observational surface temperature record shows many instances of slowing and acceleration in warming rates. Scientists had previously suggested that factors such as weak solar activity and increased heat uptake by the oceans could be responsible for the recent lull in temperature increases. After publication of a 2011 paper in the journal Science by Susan Solomon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it was recognized that an uptick in volcanic activity might also be implicated in the “warming hiatus.”

Prior to the 2011 Science paper, the prevailing scientific thinking was that only very large eruptions – on the scale of the cataclysmic 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, which ejected an estimated 20 million metric tons (44 billion pounds) of sulfur – were capable of impacting global climate. This conventional wisdom was largely based on climate model simulations. But according to David Ridley, an atmospheric scientist at MIT and lead author of the November GRL paper, these simulations were missing an important component of volcanic activity.

Ridley and colleagues found the missing piece of the puzzle at the intersection of two atmospheric layers, the stratosphere and the troposphere – the lowest layer of the atmosphere, where all weather takes place. Those layers meet between 10 and 15 kilometers (six to nine miles) above the Earth.

Satellite measurements of the sulfuric acid droplets and aerosols produced by erupting volcanoes are generally restricted to above 15 km. Below 15 km, cirrus clouds can interfere with satellite aerosol measurements. This means that toward the poles, where the lower stratosphere can reach down to 10 km, the satellite measurements miss a significant chunk of the total volcanic aerosol loading.

To get around this problem, the study by Ridley and colleagues combined observations from ground-, air- and space-based instruments to better observe aerosols in the lower portion of the stratosphere. They used these improved estimates of total volcanic aerosols in a simple climate model, and estimated that volcanoes may have caused cooling of 0.05 degrees to 0.12 degrees Celsius since 2000.

The second Livermore-led study shows that the signals of these late 20th and early 21st eruptions can be positively identified in atmospheric temperature, moisture and the reflected solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. A vital step in detecting these volcanic signals is the removal of the “climate noise” caused by El Niños and La Niñas.

“The fact that these volcanic signatures are apparent in multiple independently measured climate variables really supports the idea that they are influencing climate in spite of their moderate size,” said Mark Zelinka, another Livermore author. “If we wish to accurately simulate recent climate change in models, we cannot neglect the ability of these smaller eruptions to reflect sunlight away from Earth.”

###

To see the full research, go to Geophysical Research Letters. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract?campaign=wlytk-41855.5282060185 and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL062366/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Wrong does not hold water.

Climate Researcher

The new website http://whyitsnotco2.com is now being visited at a rate of over 1,000 a week, because it has correct physics and valid evidence supporting that physics. The 21st century new paradigm shift in climate science is explained therein.

Jeff Alberts

Spam

dalyplanet

Doug Cotten

george e. smith

Smoke signals; that’s what they are !

ferd berple

so has the rate of small volcanic eruptions increased over the past 15 years? that hardly seems likely, unless there has been some change in the volcanic forcings. are we now to believe that CO2 causes volcanoes?
while large eruptions are less common, there are probably small eruptions occurring all the time, so why would they suddenly have an effect over the past 18 years, and not have an effect before then? what caused the change in the rate of eruptions, if indeed there was a change. maybe there was only a change in the satellite coverage to detect small volcanoes. or some other form of bias.

Ferd Berple
so has the rate of small volcanic eruptions increased over the past 15 years? that hardly seems likely, unless there has been some change in the volcanic forcings. are we now to believe that CO2 causes volcanoes?

See this image of the past 22 years of actual atmosphere clarity as measured in HI. (If one HI observatory can sample CO2 accurately for the whole world, obviously a single observatory at the same place can specify atmospheric clarity as well, right?)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif
There has been NO CHANGE in atmospheric clarity since Pinatubo. Anyone claiming “volcanoes” have caused today’s 18 year-long “pause” is lying.

looncraz

“The scientific concensus is that there has NOT been a recent increase in volcanic activity. ”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/has-there-been-increase-volcanic-activity-past-few-decades
However, the data sometimes seems to disagree:
http://breakfornews.com/anewspic3/wobble/volcanism.gif
http://www.preparingforthegreatshift.org/Volcanic%20Activity%201950%20to%202008.jpg
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthchanges/gallery/a_powerpoint_intro/volcanism_world_1875-2005.gif
And other times agrees:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/MeehlVolc.jpg
Okay, to be fair, that is the only one I saw that agreed with the claimed scientific consensus… but the consensus is still probably right – just a data collection signal akin to the tornado observation uptick.
But the eruptions as of late may be rather small compared to earlier times.
http://photos.mongabay.com/j/berkeley.earth.results.tempgraph.568.jpg
What I find interesting here is how the temperatures always seemed to have jumped in the 18th century to near modern temperature before plummeting… also that you can make out a growing warming trend all the way from 1750, with volcanoes interrupting the trend. When the volcanoes begin to have a reduced impact the trend increases. By the rules of CAGW theoreticians, this correlation is all the proof we would need to blame the reduced intensity of volcanic eruptions … if humans somehow caused a decrease in volcanic eruptions.

Don K

so has the rate of small volcanic eruptions increased over the past 15 years? that hardly seems likely, unless there has been some change in the volcanic forcings. are we now to believe that CO2 causes volcanoes?

Seems the only possible conclusion. We must act quickly to control CO2 emissions or we will all be up to our necks in red hot lava. Science marches on … (To the beat of a distinctly peculiar drummer)

RACookPE1978,
One observatory at Hawaii is enough to measure the global CO2 trend, as the 70+ other well situated stations (of which 10 owned by NOAA) show the same trends…
But there is definitively a difference in the spread of volcanic aerosols over the latitudes and between the hemispheres. For the large eruptions like Pinatubo, that makes hardly a difference.
Even the Pinatubo (VEI 6) had little, temporarily (1-2 years) influence on temperatures. As the VEI (volcanic explosion index) is logarithmic, you need a lot of small volcanoes to reach the same amount of SO2 and most of it doesn’t even reach the stratosphere for less explosive eruptions which makes that SO2 is washed out in a few days by rain or as “dry” deposit…
As already said by others, all what the researchers have done is adding some more SO2 to the calculations from a part of the atmosphere near the poles which wasn’t monitored. But nobody measured if there was a trend in total volcanic SO2 over the years…

“CO2 causes volcanoes?”
Sure.. When GAIA sees too much CO2 in her upper atmosphere, she sets off some small volcanoes to cool things down.

Robert of Ottawa

My point exactly Mr. Berple

Olaf Koenders

Somebody help me with this:
Recently there have been a rash of “documentaries” on Earth’s history bluntly stating that there was a rash of volcanic activity during the Permian that caused volumes of CO2 to overheat the atmosphere, causing the Permian extinction. Also, a rash of volcanism and resulting CO2 that caused the planet to exit snowball Earth.
But what we actually observe following major eruptions is cooling (Laki, Tambora, Cosiguina, Krakatoa, El Chichon, Pinatubo et.al.). So what’s the real truth? My money’s on these recent “documentaries” telling porkies.
Anyone?

latecommer2014

Why would anyone even read what Santer says…. He has zero credibility

Jimbo

So why has there been an ‘increase’ in small volcanic activity? Blame co2. Comedy gold!

UN-Scientific American – January 3, 2013
Climate Change May Increase Volcanic Eruptions
…..”Everybody knows that volcanoes have an impact on climate,” said study co-author Marion Jegen, a geophysicist at Geomar in Germany. “What we found was just the opposite.”…..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-may-increase/

Jimbo

Willis has nailed it. Dismiss the paper.
Small pre- and post-2000 volcanic eruptionscomment image
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again/

Gentle Tramp

Well, according to Prof. Thomas Stocker, a leading IPCC exponent, this small volcanic eruptions must have stopped quite suddenly after the “heat record” in 2014. In an interview with the swiss newspaper “Schweiz am Sonntag” (on the 28th of December) he says:
“I am glad about the heat record of 2014 because the term warming hiatus is now disproved” (my translation of ” froh über das Rekordjahr 2014, denn der Begriff Erwärmungspause ist nun vom Tisch “).
See! The hiatus is over now and small volcanos are not needed any longer… 🙂
Well, isn’t it funny that people like Stocker said the pause is not long enough to disprove AGW by CO2 but now claim the pause is over after only one and very questionable “record” year, given the contrary satellite data results and given the very tiny differences within the measuring error in the used “record” temperature datasets… ???

Steve from Rockwood

A Mosher driveby with Stokes timing. Excellent.

mebbe

And delivered by a sun-worshipper with an exotic, sacerdotal moniker!
Those other two need to up their game.

I am still learning about CAGW, but I do have one data point to add, which may be relevant. I was working in Spokane, WA in 1980, and Mt Saint Helens erupted on a Sunday. I believe it was May 20th. When the fallout reached Spokane around noon, it turned the day to pitch black night, because of the dust, which was like talcum powder in Spokane. The 2 inches of dust fallout continued to be stirred up during the rest of the year, and I do not believe the temperature ever approached the temperature on May 20th, before noon. This is all from memory, and as such it may be somewhat in error. There was a lot of fallout from this erruption and a very extensive fallout pattern.

Robert B

Wrong does not hold water.

but

This conventional wisdom was largely based on climate model simulations.

does?
Looks like we have moved on since the days of “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”
This conventional wisdom was largely based on garbage being put into climate model simulations – fixed.

dedaEda

Sounds like the Clean Air Act deprived atmosphere of needed sulphur dioxide which would have nullified effect of carbon dioxide, Law of unintended consequences indeed, ;0)

Village Idiot

Which pause is this? Or (silly me) you surely mean the slowdown

Idiot,
No, we’re discussing the ‘pause’, AKA: global warming stopping many years ago.
http://tiny.cc/3vo7rx
Even Ben Santer admits that global warming has stopped. Why can’t you?

Bill 2

Oh, an appeal to authority.

Village Idiot

Huh….Just me getting confused, what with 2014 weighing in as the warmest surface year

richardscourtney

Bill 2
No, there was no appeal to authority.
dbstealey asked a question and justified the question by saying he was asking why there was a disagreement.
There are far too many unfounded assertions of ad homs. and of appeals to authority on WUWT, and they reduce the importance of correct accusations of such logical fallacies.
Richard

James Abbott

dbstealey
What are you going to say if and when we get significantly warmer years than the last 12 – when agreed there has been a pause. You may need to get the excuses ready soon.

Duster

Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can download the data from several different sources and find the “pause.” They can even download free world class software like R and then plot and analize the “pause.” The learning curve is steep, but it stretches one’s mind, so a good thing generally. So, no it was not an appeal to authority. Instead the point made was that Santer, who is typically seated on the opposite side of the aisle is trying to work the “pause” into a world view where it doesn’t fit well at all.

Stephen Ricahrds

No Bill2. It’s an appeal to another idiot. If one idiot can see the problem than another might be able unless, of course, he is a bigger idiot than the original. See what I mean ?

Duster

James Abbott,
The really nice thing about a genuinely scientific view point is that one is not taken by surprise when nature acts naturally. There IS NO TIME SCALE at which you can point to either a trend or lack of one in climate data that does not terminate or reverse. We do not know what “normal” climate is in any sense but that of our own experience. There is not even evidence that such a thing as a “normal” climate, locally or globally, exists. At the very most, we observe temporary metastable periods during which our perceptions can convince us that this how things “are.” But they aren’t, they never were really, and they will change. Only the religious and the political will be taken by surprise.

ferd berple

There are far too many unfounded assertions
=========
that is an unfounded assertion.

Jimbo

Some call it a pause (hiatus – OED), some call it a plateau, I call it a standstill but we do know that it’s STOPPED. It is not kicking.

Village Idiot
January 9, 2015 at 11:54 am
Which pause is this? Or (silly me) you surely mean the slowdown

Ben Santer says:

Scientific American – November 1, 2013
Has Global Warming Paused?
“There’s this rich internal climate variability, so it’s easily possible to get a short 10- or 15-year period with little or no [surface] warming, even with human-released greenhouse gases,” Santer said.

Here are others on the matter.

Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
“Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
__________________
Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
__________________
Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
“…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”

Kevin Kane

James Abbott
..speaking of excuse’s, what does Ben Santer and his collegues use for an excuse when asked why they have been misleading the public and media for those 12 yrs. by claiming it was getting warmer? They get to claim warmer and warmer every year, now they can agree that there was a “pause” but no one in the media, or academia is questioning their flip flop

mebbe

Village intellectually impoverished person,
I feel your pain! All these pauses and hiatuses and cessations and ends; it’s hard to know what to make of it.
Especially when your main man, Ben, (yup, Benjamin Santer, the famous pugilist wannabe, denizen of dark alleys), calls it a STASIS.
After you’ve looked that word up in the dictionary, drop Ben a line and let him know how coming to a halt differs from slowing down.
Silly you!

….and the usual speculative language. “Previous research suggested that early 21st century eruptions might explain up to a third of the recent “warming hiatus.””. Note that they hold onto the “warming” aspect as well. Not “flat temperatures”, but “warming hiatus”, which “suggests” that it’s not over yet, folks.

Theo Barker

Once again: “If the natural forcings are enough to “cause a pause”, how are they not enough to cause the late 20th century “warming”?

Latitude

first they trick you into believing the LIA ended in 1850…………

Alx

Well it is a matter of faith.
Depending on your faith you will believe it is either God (due to the evilness of men), men (of their own doing with CO2), or natural forcing (evolution has its own game to play) that brings the world as we know it to an end.
What is unfortunate is that in Climate Science faith is so easily confused with science.

Volcanos heat the stratosphere as is clearly visible in the el chchon and pinatub events. The stratosphere has been cooling since pinatubo.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/images/santerfig.jpg

mpainter

Hans Erren:
You need to get up to speed on volcanoes.El
Chincon and Pinatubu were category 5.
None since Pinatubo have been category 5.
It takes a 5 volcano to eject aerosols into the stratosphere, where it lingers for a year or so.
Aerosols are quickly removed from the troposphere. Read up, Hans.

That is why the small volcano theory is busted

mpainter

Hans,
I mistook your comment. Please disregard mine.

Robert of Ottawa

Hans, so the small volcano excuse is used to avoid the stratosphere evidence? Again, my question: Has there been a marked increase in small volcano activity in the past 18 years?

Brandon Gates

Hans Erren,

Volcanos heat the stratosphere as is clearly visible in the el chchon and pinatub events.

Make sense, stratospheric volcanic aerosols abosrob incoming sunlight, thereby warming up the surrounding atmosphere.

The stratosphere has been cooling since pinatubo.

Consistent with rising CO2 levels in the stratosphere, yes?
mpainter then says, It takes a 5 volcano to eject aerosols into the stratosphere, where it lingers for a year or so. Aerosols are quickly removed from the troposphere.
to which you reply,

That is why the small volcano theory is busted.

However the cited paper is still talking about the stratosphere, not the troposphere. I’d also like to know where it’s written that VEI 5 or higher is required to get aerosols into the stratosphere, and why we’d be disposed to believe those citations but not the paper currently being discussed.
For the record, I’m not convinced the small volcano hypothesis has been either confirmed or busted. I do have my leanings of course.

By the look of that graph, the stratosphere seems to have a very slight warming trend since 1995. But global warming theory says the stratosphere will cool. If it doesn’t cool then CO2-induced warming theory is simply incorrect, yes?

Exactly!

Yes Big Jim, except when it doesn’t and then it is ignored.

Anything is possible

“Volcanos heat the stratosphere as is clearly visible in the el chchon and pinatub events.”
==========================================
Well,yes and no.
Yes, there is undoubtedly a short-term warming effect while the aerosols persist in the stratosphere, but look what happens when the aerosols clear out and return to their previous levels : The temperatures don’t follow all the way back up again, and there is a “step-down” cooling of about (eyeball test) 0.3C.
On that basis, you could reasonably argue that large-scale volcanic events actually cause longer-term stratospheric cooling. Which is interesting to say the least……….

mpainter

Anything:
Yes, the stepdown cooling of the stratosphere after El Chinchon and Pinatubo is significant and tells us something. Note also the lower troposphere warming that followed the initial cooling. Could be that the volcanic aerosols helped clear the stratosphere and increase insolation.
A chain of events like this:
V aerosols—>warm stratosphere/cool troposphere;
Then,
V aerosols remove previous aerosols increasing clarity of stratosphere, —>stratosphere cools/troposphere warms.
So possibly the volcanic aerosols somehow effectuated the removal of previous aerosols of the stratosphere.

Steve from Rockwood

Nice work Hans. And don’t worry. We’ll catch up to you.

Bill Illis

Here are the daily UAH temps for the lower stratosphere and the lower troposphere. There is no volcano signal either than Pinatubo and El Chicon. Note there is a step change down by 0.5C or so after the effects of the volcanoes dissipate. Ozone destruction is the reason and it appears to take up to 25 years or more for the Ozone to rebuild. Its a good thing the large volcanoes don’t happen very often because if there was more than 10 per century, there would be no Ozone layer.
http://s13.postimg.org/80nn8so8n/UAH_Daily_TLS_TLT_1978_2014.png
Santer is a faker. He was the lead author (along with all the heavy-weights in climate science) on a paper in 2011 that said a pause lasting more than 17 years in the lower troposphere would indicate there was little human-induced global warming. We are now at 18 years, 3 months.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf

Jeff Alberts

Hmm, seems everyone has trouble spelling Chichon.

Robert B

There is also a temporary drop in precipitation. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1212_figure_appell.jpg despite a slight jump in stratospheric humidity.http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/hurst_figure2.png. and no noticeable drop in tropospheric humidity.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3165/2969626920_2fb2aa74fd_z.jpg?zz=1
There is no change in O3 at the South Pole http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ozwv/graphs/ozwv.SPO.o3.12.none.discrete.all.png after 1992 and just a small change at the Arctic surface for a short time.
Its something to do with cloud formation rather than ozone.

joelobryan

The stratosphere has been cooling since 1980. The volcano events [are] blips.

joelobryan

are, not “at”.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

NO! It WAS cooling, but then it stopped cooling. The graph by Hans Erren clearly shows even a very slight warming since 1995. This explodes CO2-induced warming theory. For CO2 to warm the planet, the stratosphere must cool. It was doing so, but that cooling stopped 20 years ago!

mpainter

Clearly, the only cooling of the stratosphere is the stepdown cooling associated with the two big volcanoes.

Latitude

sulfur dioxide = acid rain = man’s fault
…damn I wish they would make up their minds
hiatus = ~15 years = China has increased sulfur dioxide emissions 50% since 1999
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/lu.pdf

onlyme

Paywalled.
I don’t see in the abstract that actual eruptions were counted during the study period or before, nor that outgassing measurements of these alleged increased eruptions were made and tabulated to back the models. Is this just not mentioned? Is this information available somewhere, especially from before the period of study so an evaluation can be made as to whether the modeled increase in volcanic aerosols is unprecedented or abnormal?

confusedphoton

How many more excuses will they come up with? It is so embarrassing reading all this pseudo-science.

Olaf Koenders

This is precisely why aliens won’t ever land here while this pathetic corruption is going on. There’s a big “No parking” sign in orbit somewhere.

Jeff Alberts

They only hit trailer parks anyway.

Greg

This one is so lame I can’t poke fun. It would be like kicking a mentally challenged kid.

1saveenergy

I know it’s not PC, but go ahead….you know you want to !!

Paul

” It would be like kicking a mentally challenged kid.”
Not even close, the kid has no say in the matter.

Alberta Slim

I say that Ben S is mentally challenged if he believes that BS.

Yes, except that the mentally challenged kid is making policy for everyone.

cnxtim

Every time these warmists open their mouths or graphing software, rather than using accepted scientific rules, they commence with their patent belief in the fallacious theory of AGW. BTW what has happened to the 97% “consensus” is that still being heard around the pulpits?

Christopher Hanley

Metaphorically adding more epicycles.

Vermont Governor used it yesterday at 1st legislative meeting of 2015 and declared, actually quite a loud desperate voice, “We have to go forward with renewables and implement carbon taxes”. I think too many of our Dems have fallen for the bait and switch or, and I do wonder about this, are they just too ignorant to get it? In fairness, although I’m not feeling particularly fair and have just submitted my latest climate bomb to local paper – which has the decency to publish them – the idiots are not qualified to learn about this. Not in their educational toolkit, but don’t get me started on that.
Obfuscated by the truth that much of this is very complex – chaos doesn’t mean the same thing to us and them – and their advice comes from an interim dean of the College of Environmental Science, of course wanting to become pertinent, from University of Vermont who has a degree in economics.
Of course this is the home of three fifty dot org and they seek that scientific advice too.

PiperPaul

I listened to that broadcast; it seemed like half of his address was Climate Change Catastrophe Cash Campaigning.

Yup, the fix is in. Discouraging, but Rud has agreed to help me with some attempts at compelling communications about climate reality.
Unfortunately, and I’ve learned the hard way, logic and facts cannot sway beliefs. Requires a religious like conversion. Going to try anyway, but also contemplating moving.

Alx

There is no such thing as a “carbon” tax, there are just “new” taxes.
The problem with new taxes is that they need a rational and a victim to target the taxes towards. The rational is save the planet, the targets are fossil fuel companies. The political thinking is who does not want to be responsible to their environment, and fossil fuel companies are making too much money in supplying the energy that supports 99% of civilization.
The problem is many people can tell the difference between laws that prevent local rivers from being polluted and hair brained schemes to save the planet a century from now. Many also recognize any hurt put on energy companies trickles down to them hurting them individually.

Cam_S

Models prove that the GW pause is caused by volcanoes… so you know it has to be true.

cnxtim,
It appears as if the ‘97%’ nonsense has been beaten into submission by facts and logic. Some folks still cling to it, but you’re right. They aren’t preaching it like they used to.

not yet universal and logic and facts aren’t working here – look above for my comment

Alx

“97%” is like an urban myth, it will never die, hopefully though it will stop being used in scientific circles.

mpainter

” They used these improved estimates of total volcanic aerosols in a simple climate model”
#####
and got more estimates. Where is the comparison with the past?
Without that, this is just more garbage.
Here is another item on the intelligence test.
It may be concluded that this is meant to hoodwink the gullible. Let’s see who shows up to defend this.

My only question: how could this hypothesis be disproved?

richardscourtney

dangerdad
The improbable hypothesis does not need to be disproved.
Even if the hupothesis were true then the model only manages to explain a third of the so-called “pause”: there still remains no explanation for two thirds of the AGW which was predicted but has not happened.
So long as most of the “pause” remains unexplained then an explanation for a bit of the “pause” can be ignored until AGW is forgotten.
Richard

I should have stated, how is this falsifiable? Typical of non-science, this stuff is just “hey, I bet this works — plug these numbers from my ass into an algorithm from someone else’s ass and boom! proven”

“up to one third” includes zero doesn’t it?

Easily disproved by tracking past temperature records vs volcanic activity. WIllis E has already done it here. Little if any correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/volcanoes-erupt-again/

Alx

Yes we have moved past causation to way past correlation is not causation, to if I can think it, it must be.

Quick we need to start burning more coal, to raise atmospheric sulphate aerosol levels! 🙂

joelobryan

Sulphur is bad. No 2 ways about that. HF (hydrogen-fluoride) is also very bad. Both quite acidic and very detrimental to life.
But, CO2 though is good. Feeds our plants, which feeds us. Makes the wheat and barley which makes my beer… even better. CO2 is our friend.

Alx

Sulphur is not bad. Sulphur like many acids are a component of life and has it’s uses. CO2 is essential to life, but I wouldn’t want to be locked in an airtight room with the only thing to breath being CO2. Labeling various components as good or bad is gross generalization by selectively picking out negative properties of those components.
Life is a dance of life and death.

Wrong! (Channeling smoosher here)

Latitude

LOL…………

I detect some insincerity here.
LOL

mebbe

How did it feel to do that?
I dare you to do Willis.

My reading must be running together because I swore this was already one of the 52. Guess I read it elsewhere (and I apologize for not bringing it up).
But the important part is that he DOES recognize the pause. Which makes some of the fruit bats posting around who deny it outliers even on their own team.

Um… So I should infer from this that small scale eruptions never happened until the late 20th century?
Oh. Wait. Someone did make that claim. So nasty humans made global warming that triggered volcanoes that stopped global warming… except cooling anthropogenic sulfur dioxide should have countered the warming anthropogenic CO2, preventing the warming that caused the cooling that…
If they weren’t hell-bent of destroying civilization, it would be hilarious.

‘Pause’ was suppose to be 18 years long, but NOAA’s land temperatures (ocean’s are far too uncertain) for either hemisphere or global, shows no such thing. ( just sayin’ )
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NOAAlandNSGt.gif

richardscourtney

vukcevic
No. You are not “just saying”: you are just cherry picking.
The data sets show a cessation to warming.
You have chosen parts of the data sets which show warming.
The other parts show cooling.
Saying the parts you have not cherry-picked “are far too uncertain” does not cut it. I think the complete data sets are far too uncertain, but one accepts them or rejects them. Choosing the parts of a data set which fits an argument is not acceptable.
My point has especial importance when discussing an analysis by Ben Santer. In the 1990s he claimed to have found a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW but his claim was soon rejected because the ‘fingerprint’ was determined to be an effect of his having selected a part of a data set and not the entire data set.
Richard

Hi Mr. Courtney
Nice to see you are back, I always read your very informative CO2 comments. I did indeed ‘cherry pick’ on purpose:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image002.png
Most of the indicators I look at (solar, Arctic atmospheric pressure, N. Atlantic tectonics) imply that the land temperatures should be falling already. My ‘explanation’ is that the ocean’s inertia is keeping land temperatures up, but that appears not to be the case. Since land is only 25% of the global surface, the land’s rise may be ‘swamped’ by the longer term ‘constancy’ of the oceans, but that can’t be correct either, since in the previous decades oceans’ temps were rising at a rate similar to the land’s.
My comment in a sense was ‘provocative’ with a purpose, perhaps someone might come up with a plausible explanation of above (as I see it) dichotomy.

rakman

if that graph is correct, shouldn’t 1998 be much higher than the rest of the temperatures?

Yes, global temperatures did peak in 1998 ( I added GT to the graph), but not for land, so it must be the oceans. Question is why oceans would go high in a single year but not the land, which is far more responsive (i.e. land has far less inertia)

Jeff Alberts

If there were a global temperature you might be correct. There isn’t, so you’re not.

By far the largest temperature excursions are seasonal i.e. summer to winter, and since there is no global summer or winter, global temperature is nonstarter.
In same way annual temperatures are also statistical sludgepool, clearly shown by case of the CET, with no summer warming whatsoever for whole of its 350 year long record. (see HERE )

joelobryan

The black line is all that matters.

Whoa!
The “warming hiatus” that has occurred over the last 15 years…
There you have it, it is a “hiatus” (Dictionary dot com – “a break or interruption in the continuity…”).
Global Warming will resume, so sayith Santer.
That is good to know since it has been getting awfully cold around here lately.

ren

He’ll be back in the summer.

rgbatduke

Simply wrong AFAICT. I’ve spent personal energy — as has Willis IIRC — trying to find a climate signal in “notable” volcanic activity. The scale is VEI (volcanic explosivity index) which is a log scale, so each number is another power of ten. I’ve compared to both Mauna Loa atmospheric transparency, where really large volcanoes do indeed produce a signal, and to the climate record looking for thermal bobbles in association with volcanoes large and small.
There isn’t the slightest trace for VEI <= 4. VEI 5 events — things like El Chichon and Mt. St. Helens, major explosions — produce a tiny visible effect in Mauna Loa data and a tiny, tiny signal in the temperature record, one that isn't even terribly consistent and that has a very short lifetime. VEI 6 — Mt. Pinatubo — has a clear effect in transmission at Mauna Loa and still has a barely discernible influence on temperature, one that lasted about two years and was still not really discriminable from the background of natural fluctuation and change.
It takes 100 VEI 4 events to equal one VEI 6 event, and from 1800 to the present there have been only 129 recorded events 4 or higher. It takes 1000 VEI 3 events to equal one Pinatubo, and there are thought to be only around 500 active volcanoes worldwide, and the vast majority of them sputter along at VEI-almost-nothing.
So this fails the common sense test. The numbers just don’t add up. In fact, volcanoes are a major null factor in the climate in general — if you try to actually fit events as a function of their VEI as CORRECTIONS to any sort of general background behavior of T, the best fit sucks and suggests that (as I said) under VEI 5 you are wasting your time, there is a tiny effect of VEI 5 volcanoes larger or smaller in sync with their sulfur content, and VEI 6 volcanoes still only produce a SMALL effect. Maybe Mt Tambora (the only 7 event of the last 200+ years) would have a noticeable effect, but HADCRUT4 doesn’t really get there. Krakatoa, like Pinatubo, is almost nothing, a 1-2 year dip no larger than natural fluctuations on the same timescale.
So Santer is probably off by a factor of 100 to 1000 in what would be needed to explain “the pause”. And if you look directly at the Mauna Loa transmission data, it just isn’t there. ML is all but flat over the last 15 years — noise and tiny spikes uncorrelated with temperature drops.
rgb

Paul

Could it be that smaller VEI events don’t directly affect temperature, but affect something that does have some temperature authority? Clouds, rain, other?

Duster

If volcanism were the driving factor in the pause or hiatus, then, contrary to the Smithsonian’s, USGS’s, and other efforts to measure global volcanic activity, the rate of volcanic events had to have increased since the early ’90s. I can’t find any data to support that.

Right. See my referenced post below.

Dave in Canmore

from the abstract: “A vital step in detecting these volcanic signals is the removal of the “climate noise”
That’s what set off my BS detector!

jorgekafkazar

As soon as I saw who the lead author was, I immediately thought, “That’s BS!”

PiperPaul

I agree about removing the climate noise.

Mac the Knife

rgb,
Thanks for the clear summary!
Mac

Perhaps you should read this paper which showed that the AOD (Aerosol Optical Depth- mostly due to volcanoes) was an important contributor to the variability of the temperature record.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

William Handler

They did not say this caused the pause, I read it that they said it was yet another thing that has been neglected by climate modelling.

richardscourtney

William Handler
Whatever you think, the press release quoted above begins

From DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
The “warming hiatus” that has occurred over the last 15 years has been partly caused by small volcanic eruptions.

Richard

Colin

If they are claiming that small volcanoes are causing the pause (or the lack of man-made warming) do they have data showing that the number of “small” volcanoes is now much more than the number of “small” volcanoes (or volcanoes of any size) during the period where there was actual warming. Or cooling (when global cooling was the latest hysterical rage)?

Jtom

I think the best response is just to state flat-out that the number of small volcanoes per year has not changed in recorded history, then let them dig up any evidence otherwise. Let them do the nitty-gritty research on what the actual record shows, which is what they needed to do to begin with.

This study suggests that there were no small volcanoes before the ozone hole was created. Now there’s an exciting new line of research…..

The climate models are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. This approach is a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.
The entire UNFCCC -IPCC circus is a farce- based, as it is, on the CAGW scenarios of the IPCC models which do not have even heuristic value. The earth is entering a cooling trend which will possibly last for 600 years. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend.
For the cooling forecasts and methods see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The entire UNFCCC -IPCC circus is a farce- based, as it is, on the CAGW scenarios of the IPCC models which do not have even heuristic value.

Mike M

The question now is how many more years Santer thinks he can get away with adding onto his 17 year “rule”?

joelobryan

The question is how long will DOE keep getting funding to run Santer’s LLNL supercomputer and modelling group?
As long as he has funding to make garbage-out model runs, he will do so.
Time to de-fund the groups. IMO. Let them go work in finance or hedge funds on the private equity dime.

old44

As long as the money keeps rolling in, he will keep trying.

This is Susan Solomon and Ben Santer’s group third bite at the same apple. And it is still wrong for the same reasons as previously, just like other non Solomon/Santer papers supposedly showing the same thing. (Pause cause aerosols.)
All eruptions are tracked by the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program. There are an average of 66 per year, with a surprisingly small variance. There has been neither an increase in eruption frequency nor in eruption VEI since 2000 compared to 1979-1999. And small eruptions (<VEI 4) do not have sufficient force for ejecta to reach the tropopause, let alone enter the stratosphere. (Even some VEI 5 do not, for example Mount St. Helens.) Ejecta are about 95% washed out within 3 months even in high latitude (lower tropopause) VEI 4. (peer reviewed result from Sarychev, the only such since 2000.) All covered with illustrations and references in essay Blowing Smoke in ebook of same name (but for different reasons).

AndyG55

“There has been neither an increase in eruption frequency nor in eruption VEI since 2000 compared to 1979-1999.”
And that puts the whole Santer argument well and truly in the dustbin where it belongs.

Yup. And all one has to do is to look at the Smithsonian GVP website, one click away.
So one gets the sense of increasing warmunist (essay Climatastrosophistry) desparation.

Rud, I know this is O/T but I haven’t seen you here since other night when you recommended a commenter use his vote and his voice. You may read my post at 2:02 above that I have been using my voice. Preaching to the choir is easy, but we have works in progress that are up to entrenched legislators in VT and I struggle with how to effectively communicate with them. Doubt I’d keep their attention very long with difficult concepts. I try to keep simple, but not working and a lot of press won’t publish what I write.
Would you be willing to help with effective climate communications? Maybe there’s a place for that I haven’t found?
One Crimson convict to another . . .

Bubba, ‘Crimson convict’, sure. Of course. Absolutely. (Now you have three legally binding commitments…HLS joke, maybe.) But VT? Oh dear, up against hard core CAGW irrationality.
AW has my various co-ordinates, as does most definitly Judith Curry. Plus I am on LinkedIn (but using some filters). Check out ‘Crimson convict’ class of 1972, fellow convict. You can find your way to me, and I will be glad to be of whatever communication service possible beyond my books.

I’ll find you. Thanks.
Yes, this is the test bed for effective climate communication given that we trail by decades of propaganda and, I think Bernie, former friend to people, has gone quite mad. Hoping he’ll run for POTUS.
There is some sanity over here in Northeast Kingdom, but they try best to ignore us.
Did the college back in 1970 so lacking grad jokes, plus was kind of a blur or what I used to tell my students before retired = best six or seven years of my life. Not really, but might have made a point?
60s in Cambridge was astounding and included real bad gas – tear kind. Stories, for sure.

Bubba, I have bequeathed my roughly 500 35mm Kodak colored slides of the SDS occupation of Mem Hall, taken from my roof top balcony freshman year at adjacent Weld Hall, to HU.
The bittersweet part you did not know is that I was there on a full Army scholarship, the alternative being a Supers appointment to West Point.
CAGW is worse. And I have learned how to fight better. Will help you, promise.

500! Yikes! That is a boatload of 35mm
I’m one of the guys who brought John Wayne to town in the tank for the Pudding. We threw snowballs back and forth. In tough times with war and assassinations, we somehow managed a sense of humor.
Got drafted – had taken a year away – but won the lottery while living in Kirkland.
CAGW is not funny in VT – only here, where it is ridiculous.
I just can’t believe some of the junk and unfathomable language masquerading as science and even more insane to me is what must be happening in graduate education that produces these loonies, grows those academic departments, absurd grants – it is as if reason has abandoned the building. Elvis had the decency to just leave. I’ve been traveling the wonderful world for better than a decade and I return to a devastated landscape.
Gary Trudeau was a student of mine at WSU – I will write him to urge him to finish his book and return to his cartoon series of myfacts.com where you could log in with your opinion and they’d create the facts to support it. Feel like I am in that cartoon.

MattN

Grasping at straws.

Y Rick Off

Just two words: ‘better estimates’
priceless

I understand why those with a clear case of ‘Save the World Syndrome’ and long term career worries write this type of BS, but are they so ashamed of its contents that they have to hide it behind paywalls?

Stephen Ricahrds

It’s wonderful how the l&ér Santer tries hard not to sat plateaued, stopped and then reduces the period by rounding down to 15yrs. This halt in AGW is really sticking in their craw.

Anything is possible

“They used these improved estimates of total volcanic aerosols in a simple climate model, and estimated that volcanoes may have caused cooling of 0.05 degrees to 0.12 degrees Celsius since 2000.”
===============================================
My Google BS to English app translates this as :
“We didn’t actually have any real-world data to support this, but we were able to play with our model until it supplied the answer we needed to back up our theory.”

Not a theory, since easily debunked. A pal reviewed paper from a junior member seeking admittance to their priesthood.

Gunga Din

Small volcanic eruptions partly explain ‘warming hiatus’
From DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
The “warming hiatus” that has occurred over the last 15 years has been partly caused by small volcanic eruptions.

More funding is needed to show that small volcanic eruptions are caused by Anthropomorphic Global Warming…..

Gunga Din

OOPS!
Forgot the sarc tag!

Admad

OK Ben, prove to me that there has been a significant-enough INCREASE in small volcano activity to QUANTIFY this allegation. With DATA, not models. What’s that you say? There isn’t any data? What, none that proves this half-arsed hypothesis?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Another Deus ex machina gambit. Eventually, even the opiated masses will begin to wonder whether the real fault is in the models. I think the bet is that warming will resume before that point and “the pause” will be re-titled “the burp”, and all the same old doomsayers will be back in business forecasting thermageddon to large adoring audiences.
Paul Ehrlich has made an entire career out of failed prophecies of doom.

ferd berple

Paul Ehrlich has made an entire career out of failed prophecies of doom.
==========

Retired Engineer

“… these simulations were missing an important component of volcanic activity.” Yet another physical mechanism that has, heretofore, been missing from the precious models. How many other mechanisms are missing? How many of them may actually be important?

Gunga Din

The missing mechanisms are only important when they can be used to explain why the climate models failed and therefore can be trusted.
As Maxwell Smart would say, “Missed it by that much.”

But according to Obummer, the science was long since settled. Does that make Santer yet another ‘flat earther’?

Jeff Alberts

Flat Climater. He thinks temperatures everywhere were nice and flat before nasty ole fossil fuels showed up, then everything went haywire.

It looks very much like hand-waving from people who are drowning.

rakman

So once again, the 1998 “man made” revision of 1998 vs 1932 being the hottest year. How can “historical” temperature change? Who do the voodoo?

William Everett

How does this “study” account for the 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 pauses in temperature increase?

Mike H

What pause?!?!? All the warmist bloggers keep telling me “The Pause” has been debunked. We just experienced the warmest year EVAH!! The last decade is the warmest decade EVAH!!! Now this guys comes along and tells me “The Pause” which didn’t exist was caused by volcanic eruptions. I’m sooooo confused!! It’s Friday. I’m going to go play hockey then have a amber beauty. It will all be be good then. 🙂

The Gods of History

Ben, growing ever more desperate and despondent, grasps desperately at any and very passing straw man of an idea in his increasing futile attempts to delay his eventual moment of realization that he was just plain frik’n, dumbass wrong and has wasted an entire career on vanity science.
The only question now is how much smaller his chapter will be compared to the A Listers like Mann, Schmidt or Trenberth’s write-ups when the definitive book on the Great Global Warming Con, Scam Scheme & Swindle is eventually written.
Because he knows that day is coming.

Robert of Ottawa

Confession: I haven’t yet read this but does this paper present evidence that there has been an increase in volcanism over the past 18 years?

AndyG55

Robert… See post by Rud Istvan January 9, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Thank you for the small recognition concerning 2 years of research and writing.

jorgekafkazar

The B.S. hypothesis is that these are teeny-tiny or “rotten” volcanoes, too small to detect under normal conditions. Only real smart sciency illuminati guys can see them. How they can do this despite their epidemic proctocraniosis, no one knows.

Please explain. I’m biomedical and trying to learn.

The posted graphic (without explanation) is one of many ‘tropical troposphere hot spot’ GCM model refutations. For a simple laymans explanation, see several essays in Blowing Smoke.

I know the hot spot deal and thought that was what I was looking at. Thanks and I think I sent you a message through Google Hangouts, but who knows?

ren
ren

“A new Maunder Minimum will not necessarily affect the Earth in the same way it did during the 17th Century,” Giuliana de Toma of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s High Altitude Observatory told HuffPost in an email. “Volcanic eruptions (that have a short-term cooling effect) also played a role in the cold weather observed during the 17th century. Plus we are starting from a warmer Earth.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/John-Casey-climate-change-fraud/2014/12/17/id/613663/

Steve

Or maybe the models are just plain wrong?

William Everett

The last decade may be the warmest since modern temperature records began in 1880 but it still is a decade of no temperature rise from beginning to end.

There has been no temperature rise over the last ~millenium. But the hiatus has been going for even longer than that, around 8,000 years.

Sweet Old Bob

One might think that the Climate Flockers would try to stop the…. bleating…..
It’s becoming quite obvious……that they are becoming …desperate…

TRM

So they’ve given up waiting for a big one to save their pet theory and now are trying to add a bunch of little ones up to say it’s the same thing. Bardarbunga just didn’t do what they wanted. Sort of like the temperatures over the last 14-18 years. Bummer for them.

James Abbott

Duster
Your theory:
“The really nice thing about a genuinely scientific view point is that one is not taken by surprise when nature acts naturally. There IS NO TIME SCALE at which you can point to either a trend or lack of one in climate data that does not terminate or reverse. We do not know what “normal” climate is in any sense but that of our own experience. There is not even evidence that such a thing as a “normal” climate, locally or globally, exists. At the very most, we observe temporary metastable periods during which our perceptions can convince us that this how things “are.” But they aren’t, they never were really, and they will change. Only the religious and the political will be taken by surprise.”
might apply to a world where scientific enquiry was in its infancy and we lived in ignorance.
However we actually have a pretty good handle on what “normal” is and was, both in the climate and biosphere and what mechanisms produce it – as we can measure them either directly or through proxies. So for example we can tell through archaeology what people were eating thousands of years ago and so reconstruct their environment and the climate where they were. We can use oxygen isotope ratios to reconstruct past temperatures. We can look at ancient shorelines to measure sea level. We can do hundreds of these things which put contraints on what past normal was and what current normal is and how that relates to the ice ages cycles and modern changes. These lines of enquiry also tells us that your theory that normal can lurch around randomly without cause is (obviously) completely wrong.

Gunga Din

These lines of enquiry also tells us that your theory that normal can lurch around randomly without cause is (obviously) completely wrong.

The cause of “normal”? Do we know that? Do we even know what “normal” is? “Average” over a given time, maybe, but “normal”? The “random” enters in because we don’t know. We make our best (hopefully) educated guess but we don’t actually know what is “normal”.
The problem today is that some are claiming what is happening is “abnormal” and they know the cause and (given enough cash and control) can return us to the undefined “normal”.

Gunga Din

I agree with the last bit – a good dollop of scepticism is a good thing. However, you need cause.

Cause of what? An undefined “abnormal”?
Please define what is “normal”.

Theo Barker

James, your confidence level is way too high. RGBatDuke would likely have something to say about the certainty with which you make your assertions. You need to replace “measure” and “reconstruct” with “estimate by inference”, and “we can tell” with “we can make a reasonable guess”. Your use of “normal” reinforces the implication that you might just be a “true believer”. You might try a healthy dose of skepticism in all aspects of your life… I have found it a bit freeing, myself.

James Abbott

I agree with the last bit – a good dollop of scepticism is a good thing. However, you need cause. Just disbelieving everything around and randomly grabbing at alternatives is delusional. One of the strongest features of good science is the matching of conclusions from more than one line of enquiry. So we can reconstruct (with uncertainty bars of course) past climates from many lines of enquiry – and if they point to a similar conclusion for a given time period, that’s strong evidence.
I was at a meeting last year where a guy standing to be a member of parliament stated to the audience that palm trees grew on Greenland 2,000 years ago (as his evidence that the climate jumped around naturally). I asked him where he got that from and he said “I saw it on Sky TV”. That is an example of random disbelief – there was no cause because it is clearly tosh and completely at odds with all the credible scientific evidence.

Theo Barker

James Abbot, again I would suggest that the certainty with which you assert exceeds the certainty of your underlying support. You seem very sure that you have everyone’s understanding categorized.
I suggest that you search (google/DuckDuckGo/yahoo/bing…) “rgbatduke site:wattsupwiththat.com” and read all of what he has to say before responding further. While Dr. Brown does not have all of the answers, he’s certainly asking some very pertinent questions.

GeeJam

Theo. January 9, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Thank you for your search tip on Google to find “rgbatduke”. Intrigued, I typed GeeJam:wattsupwiththat.com. It reveals every comment I’ve ever made on WUWT – but also shows other sites (such as ‘Hot Whopper) that have copied and published a specific comment..
I’ve learnt something today. You can’t hide. Frightening Really.

TRM

This is probably the link you are thinking of. It summarizes Dr Brown’s thoughts on the subject plus a great post he made on slashdot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Normal? Cold with ice covering a lot of the northern hemisphere, ocean levels hundreds of feet lower. There that covers 90% of the time. The other 10% is our lovely little garden planet. Enjoy it while it lasts folks. No amount of CO2 will stop the next glaciation.

xyzzy11

So please tell us what is normal. AFAIK, global temperatures have varied by 10-15 C over the past 400000 years. Can you point to the “normal” period please?

James Abbott

The answer is in your question. 400,000 years pre-dates modern humans ! It covers several ice age cycles – so clearly over such a long period there is not a “normal” in the context of the period over which modern human civilisation has developed.

xyzzy11

Just a cop-out then – how about last 100000 or 50000 or 10000 years then. My point was that there is no “normal”. We don’t get to choose (or seriously affect) climate – but we can adapt. Modern humans (Homo Sapiens) have existed through the last glacial period as well as the Holocene optimum and other warm periods.
In all probability, warmer is better than colder. Otherwise we would all be living in Canada or Greenland.

Jtom

James Abbot: why on earth would you limit what is ‘normal’ wrt earth’s temperature to that period over which modern human civilization has developed? What would earth’s ‘normal’ temperature be if we had the life span of a housefly? Just what does OUR history have to do with what is ‘normal’ for earth’s history? SMH.

sirra

JA, Duster’s words don’t comprise a theory; they are a commentary about the mismatch between expectation and scientific reality. And what he/she argues still has validity. ‘Normal’ is a perceptive term related to human experience; what people tend to expect their local seasons to do for as long as they live. It’s independent of what actually happens in the long term. Trend reversals occur eventually. Whatever we expect or prefer, the climate will do its own thing and we must adapt. ‘Normal’ is a fiction in that sense.
You are using ‘normal’ differently, to describe actual past climate performance within constraining limits and the mechanisms involved. That’s not being disputed here. However, bear in mind that since archaelogy and various proxies provide a fairly broad brush, low-res view of past climate with respect to the narrow time intervals we prefer today, the constraints on climate trends can’t in every case be measured accurately. More importantly, nor can they be used to accurately predict how they might behave in the future. We can’t even extrapolate the CET with a comparable level of detail back to say the year 1100, even if we have a broad idea of what the climate was like in those days. Uncertainty will always be with us, and no-one knows what the ‘ideal’ climate should be at any coordinate set on the globe.
At any rate, Duster did not say that “normal can lurch around randomly without cause.” AFAICT he/she implies that one people’s perception of the expected climate trends in their location may differ markedly once a few centuries have passed. People get used to the ‘big wet’ if it lasts decades. Then similarly droughts, if they endure. Each is perceived as ‘normal’ once people adapt over long time scales. Sure, there’s a cause behind changing trends; that wasn’t being challenged.

James Abbott

I am using “normal “as in what we can measure, not what people “feel” about their environment.
Anyway, you repeat exactly the same throw-away philosophy:
“Whatever we expect or prefer, the climate will do its own thing and we must adapt”.
No it will not, it is not a random system at the macro level. It is a physical system, linked to the biosphere. Now I would agree that the interplay of the many inputs and responses is complex, but that does not mean we cannot work towards understanding it – as we are.
Its obvious why sceptics like the random argument – they can dismiss the warming of recent decades as “natural” – part of nature’s ramblings. Science says it could be, but its highly unlikely to be, and far more likely is that the rising level of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere is substantially the cause of the warming.

mpainter

See wapoo quote below James, the propaganda mill cranks up on a suspect “warmist evah”.
This is what you are a part of. You embrace it and your delight is to proclaim it.
You reject the satellite data because it is not grist for the propaganda mill.

pat

Michael Mann to Ben Santer!
6 Jan: WaPoo: Chris Mooney: 2014 may set a new temperature record. So can we please stop claiming global warming has “stopped”?
So much for any “pause” in global warming…
The strange idea that global warming has paused…
The weakness of the “pause” argument …
I asked several prominent climate scientists this question. “The record-breaking temperatures should put to rest once and for all the silly claim by contrarians that climate change has somehow stopped or stalled,” observed climate researcher Michael Mann from Penn State. “In fact, the warming of the globe continues unabated as we continue to burn fossil fuels and increase concentrations of planet-warming greenhouse gases.”…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/06/2014-may-set-a-new-temperature-record-so-can-we-please-stop-claiming-global-warming-has-stopped/
Mooney uses a preliminary assessment (to November) by the Japan Meteorological Agency, on 2014 temps, to make his claims, while simultaneously writing about the “weakness” – not falsity – of the “pause” argument! go figure.

jorgekafkazar

Careful not step on WaPoo.

Berényi Péter

Satellite measurements of the sulfuric acid droplets and aerosols produced by erupting volcanoes are generally restricted to above 15 km. Below 15 km, cirrus clouds can interfere with satellite aerosol measurements. This means that toward the poles, where the lower stratosphere can reach down to 10 km, the satellite measurements miss a significant chunk of the total volcanic aerosol loading.

This is from NAPS (Environment Canada – National Air Pollution Surveillance Program)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/5C0D33CF-B92B-41BF-BB74-0812341380A0/SO2graph_historical.jpg
As we all know, Canada is located as far away from the pole, as possible, wedged inconveniently between a furnace and a hot place, while its surface stations are located in the stratosphere. What is more, Canadian air never mixes with global air, so any sign of the early 21st century sulphur loading upsurge, produced by a plethora of small volcanoes elsewhere, is completely missing from measurement records of this abysmal country, who dared to vote conservative.
An incredibly credible story, is it not?

Will Nelson

I would believe you completely but you seem to be glossing over the fact that Canadian air is transported across the border all the time in trains, planes and automobiles. Only rarely have I been searched and forced to throw away perfectly good Canadian air after leaving this great not hot and yet not tropical country.

clipe

I worked at Air Canada for 35yrs. You have no idea of the smuggling and laundering of air that goes on at YYZ. The Jamaican gangs smuggled in heat disguised as yams. The Nova Scotians sent cold disguised as lobsters.

Jeff Alberts

All I know is that the roads up there SUCK! I went on a cycling tour of PEI about 13 years back, and the roads tried to kill me!!

Just an engineer

I believe they are hiding in the deep ocean with the missing heat. That is the only place we haven’t searched.
/sarc for the intellectually challenged