Add it to the list of over 50 excuses for the pause from climate science now on record…this time its small volcanoes.
Small volcanic eruptions partly explain ‘warming hiatus’
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/
Wrong does not hold water.
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.
Spam
Doug Cotten
Smoke signals; that’s what they are !
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.
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.
“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.
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.
My point exactly Mr. Berple
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?
Why would anyone even read what Santer says…. He has zero credibility
So why has there been an ‘increase’ in small volcanic activity? Blame co2. Comedy gold!
Willis has nailed it. Dismiss the paper.
Small pre- and post-2000 volcanic eruptions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again/
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… ???
A Mosher driveby with Stokes timing. Excellent.
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.
but
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.
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)
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?
Oh, an appeal to authority.
Huh….Just me getting confused, what with 2014 weighing in as the warmest surface year
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
There are far too many unfounded assertions
=========
that is an unfounded assertion.
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.
Ben Santer says:
Here are others on the matter.
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
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.
Once again: “If the natural forcings are enough to “cause a pause”, how are they not enough to cause the late 20th century “warming”?
first they trick you into believing the LIA ended in 1850…………
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
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
Hans,
I mistook your comment. Please disregard mine.
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?
Hans Erren,
Make sense, stratospheric volcanic aerosols abosrob incoming sunlight, thereby warming up the surrounding atmosphere.
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,
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.
“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……….
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.
Nice work Hans. And don’t worry. We’ll catch up to you.
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
Hmm, seems everyone has trouble spelling Chichon.
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.
The stratosphere has been cooling since 1980. The volcano events [are] blips.
are, not “at”.
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!
Clearly, the only cooling of the stratosphere is the stepdown cooling associated with the two big volcanoes.
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
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?
How many more excuses will they come up with? It is so embarrassing reading all this pseudo-science.
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.
They only hit trailer parks anyway.
This one is so lame I can’t poke fun. It would be like kicking a mentally challenged kid.
I know it’s not PC, but go ahead….you know you want to !!
” It would be like kicking a mentally challenged kid.”
Not even close, the kid has no say in the matter.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
“97%” is like an urban myth, it will never die, hopefully though it will stop being used in scientific circles.
” 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?
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/
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! 🙂
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.
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)
LOL…………
I detect some insincerity here.
LOL
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
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.
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)
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 )
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.
He’ll be back in the summer.
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
Could it be that smaller VEI events don’t directly affect temperature, but affect something that does have some temperature authority? Clouds, rain, other?
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.
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!
As soon as I saw who the lead author was, I immediately thought, “That’s BS!”
I agree about removing the climate noise.
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
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.
William Handler
Whatever you think, the press release quoted above begins
Richard
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)?
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.
The question now is how many more years Santer thinks he can get away with adding onto his 17 year “rule”?
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.
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).
“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.
Grasping at straws.
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?
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.
“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.
More funding is needed to show that small volcanic eruptions are caused by Anthropomorphic Global Warming…..
OOPS!
Forgot the sarc tag!
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?
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.
Paul Ehrlich has made an entire career out of failed prophecies of doom.
==========
“… 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?
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’?
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.
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?
How does this “study” account for the 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 pauses in temperature increase?
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. 🙂
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.
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?
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.
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.
It’s not volcanoes.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif
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?
It is also not a volcano. Height of 45 km.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.gif
“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/
Or maybe the models are just plain wrong?
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.
One might think that the Climate Flockers would try to stop the…. bleating…..
It’s becoming quite obvious……that they are becoming …desperate…
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.
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.
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”.
Cause of what? An undefined “abnormal”?
Please define what is “normal”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Careful not step on WaPoo.
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?
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.
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.
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!!
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
tried to read source but could only get vague abstract – paywall
I’m fairly new here, but maybe you’ve discussed this:
When they say things like may explain up to some amount, what does explain mean? Pretty sure it is not variance of something???
Bubba, paywall is a problem. There are three solutions.
1. pay
2. Search around for a preprint. Most academics are so proud to have been accepted by peer review in whatever journal, that they post an unofficial ‘preprint’ version on their University website.
3. Read my books since I have researched both plus lots more.
My advice is to try #2 first.
Your book is on my list as I am not really that interested in their stuff.
I am curious about methods and decisions in this strange (to me) field.
I wrote to you above too with another question.
Rud, I looked for a preprint, no dice. And JGR paywalls the references so I can’t look for related research either.
It’s worse than we thought. Only more boiling, sulphurous molten lava spewing out of volcanoes is gunna stop us all from burning in Hell but even with lots more grants where are we gunna find enough virgins for the task?
Stay tuned folks for the next nail-biting episode of Calamitous Climatology Capers and will fracking ironically save the planet?
If there are more volcanoes, there is more CO2 being emitted. There’s a video out regarding Mt. Nyiragongo, a volcanic peak towering above Goma City, by Lake Kivu in the D.R. of Congo. It has the largest pool of lava in the world, 282 million cubic feet, lava that flows up to 60 mph. Fast-moving flows have already killed over 1,000 people, not counting those few who have wandered into surface depressions and been asphyxiated by accumulated CO2.
Gas seeps near the city measure as high as 60% CO2. Geologists suspect that some of the seeps enter the bottom of Lake Kivu, possibly presenting a hazard far worse than the Lake Nyos disaster, which killed only 1,700 people. There are about 2,000,000 people in the vicinity of Lake Kivu. Media are faced with a dilemma: publicize the danger (and admit that volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2) or keep it secret and risk looking complicit when Lake Kivu turns over. Have you heard about Nyiragongo in your favorite newspaper? TV nework news? Anywhere?
goggled it, pics and lava, no CO2, but Virunga – right out of Crichton Congo and, I think not his best.
Have read about Lake Nyos.
Will look further.
Spent last summer at Yellowstone NP and listened to rangers speak to what disasters await the blast of that caldera. I’m convinced that huge park creates its own weather. Hailed on 5 times in July in evening when was 95F during day and only relief was standing in the river.
Santer et al sound like they are discussing this in a bar over a pint where they don’t have access to actual volcano data and are just guessing at stuff in the absence of being able to just check. Hard to believe this could get published when it appears they haven’t done some very basic fact checking.
If the climate science community had more funding for faster supercomputers to run their models they would have predicted all 50 of the causes of ‘the pause’ in advance, unfortunately their computers are too slow and their ‘predictions’ are lagging behind reality which can give the impression that they’re making it up as they go along.
The pause will continue until about 2028 because the 60-year cycle is declining whilst the 934-year cycle is still increasing until about 2058. These cycles are determined and regulated by planetary orbits. Water vapour and carbon dioxide cool.
Did he bother looking at the 2+ decades of SurfRAD data that should clearly show his volcano impact on solar radiation? It has massive problems but should show the deltas he’s trying to insinuate. If so, why have the all been screaming we’re going to fry if they had all the data for their models but all the extra energy is being attenuated in the upper atmosphere? Why do they always manage to “prove” themselves wrong? Inquiring minds want to know.
Philjourdan, I thought the last number I saw was around 58 or so over at Climate Depot. Haven’t looked around for a while and assumed we were easily in the 60’s for the
WAGsexplanations about the ongoing plateau.@Nielszoo – when it gets to 100, sell! 😉
The Models and Historical Temperature Adjustments (which cause GW) vs. 50+ excuses (which cause buffering of GW) seem to be in perfect tension. Be prepared; if the excuses get any better we will be heading for global cooling.
Hi Jimbo,
Do you have any relevant list on this matter?
Thanks, Anthony. Good reporting.
“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.”
No, it did not appear to level off; global warming stopped in each and every temperature data base. This demonstrates that at the very least CO2 does not dominate Earth’s climate.
…”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.”…
========================
Why convert an already unimaginable number, “20 million metric tons”, into one even more so, “44 billion pounds”.
It reads like a sales prospective.
♪♫ “Oh, ya got trouble, trouble, trouble…” ♪♫
There is no doubt that winters have been getting colder in most parts of the world. There is some evidence that the trend of NORTHERN HEMISPHERE LAND ONLY WINTER TEMPERATUREANOMALIES have actually been declining since 1995 or 20 years at (–0.18C/decade) . Since 1998 the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES have declined more rapidly at (- 0.35C /decade.) So winters have been cooling in the Northern Hemisphere for 2 decades already, but not word about this from IPCC or NOAA.
Globally, the trend of GLOBAL WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES declined at (-0.22C/decade.)
Why are winter temperatures so important?
Because very cold winters lead to cold spring and fall and if sustained over several years, to cold summers and lower annual temperatures as we have seen during 2014.
This pattern of declining temperature anomalies in every season of the year has been quite evident over the last several decades in the Northern Hemisphere. We mentioned previously that the trend of NH Land winter temperature anomalies showed a decline of (-0.18 C /decade) since 1995. By 1998, the trend of NH Land winter temperature anomaly was declining at (-0.35 C/decade). Since 2002 it is (-0.54C/decade) and since 2007 it is (- 0.81C/decade). The decline is steadily increasing.
Since 2000, the NH spring land temperature anomaly also stopped rising and went flat between 2000 and 2007 after which it also started to decline at (-0.08 C/decade)
Since 2005, the trend of the NH fall land temperature anomaly stopped rising and has been declining at (-0.05C/decade)
Finally the trend of the NH summer land temperature anomaly stopped rising in 1998, was flat from 1998 to 2010 and has been declining since 2010 at (-0.7C/decade)
This pattern has led to a 17 year pause in the rise of global temperatures and could lead to 2-3 decades more of colder global temperatures.
Rutgers University record of Northern Hemisphere snow extend since 1967, clearly shows and an increasing snow extent, especially since 1998
So a clue to the global pause — cooling temperatures in Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic SST has stopped rising and the SST is in fact levelling off and may likely start to decline
I find the tone of the press release to be quite telling. One could approach the very same issue with a view that reduced eruptions prior to 1998 caused warming and we’ve now returned to a more normal eruption pattern which has stopped the warming. The fact this thought never entered their minds tells us more about climate science than the poor paper itself.
Hotheads and data definitely have a “Fifty Shades Of Grey” relationship.
Eugene WR Gallun
The supposed ace card of The Pause? The one that no one but d*s are bringing up as though it were a thing? Go to any place of science and it’s a non-issue just as much as Roswell.
Yeah all that or CO2 isn’t the primary driver but then that would be a grant and narrative killer.
I have yet to see a paper that established an increase in small volcanic eruptions which is needed to have this paper be relevant.
Presumably, if we take this paper at face value, the warming was due to a lack of small eruptions, not CO2.
The msm keeps perpetuating the CAGW hoax, so proponents like Santer just need to stoke the dying fire occasionally to keep the federal funds flowing. Want to get an idea of the scope of the bIllions involved? Visit the Green Corruption File.
It’s billions of microscopic volcanoes smaller than the eye can see.
Since the late 1990’s, there has been very little warming, let’s say the past 15 years. For 30 years prior to the late 1970’s, there was slight global cooling.
So, what we have that really stands out is a period of warming (with prior cooling and followed by a warming “haitus”) from the late 70’s to the late 90’s.
Why are we looking for dozens of reasons for why the warming stopped????
Instead, we should be looking for the reasons for why it warmed in the 1980’s/90’s and not before or after!
If we never had that 20 years of accelerated warming, CAGW would not exist today in the form that it does. Why are we not focused on that warming as being unique and exceptional, since it was?
Instead, the assumption is that those 20 years of warming were/is expected and there needs to some unusual explanation/mechanism, an aberration, that is offsetting the expected.
Maybe 1946-78 and 1998-2015 are the expected and the period 1978-1998 is the aberration. What happened to cause the warming from 1978-1998 is what we should want to know.
We also warmed for 30 years prior to the mid 40’s. Should we not be looking at what was unique to that period?
Yes, we are holding the heat that increased during those warming periods. Maybe some of this is from increasing CO2 but we should also look at the problem, not just as what is stopping CO2 from warming the earth as it should be but what was causing it to warm more than it should be at times(under lower sensitivity)
Mike Maguire
Sorry, but you are missing the point.
Global cooling existed through the 1970s and scaremongers claimed the cooling was dangerous and caused by sulphur dioxide from fossil-fueled power stations. Clearly, use of fossil fuels should be constrained.
Global warming existed in the 1970s and scaremongers claimed the warming was dangerous and caused by carbon dioxide from fossil-fueled power stations. Clearly, use of fossil fuels should be constrained.
This switch was possible because most people don’t know the difference between sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide; both are ‘chemicals’ so must be bad.
There has been no global warming or global cooling detectable at 95% confidence through the last decade. When either global cooling resumes or global warming resumes we will know which reason to constrain use of fossil fuels will re-adopted. Until then, nonsense papers (such as that being discussed in this thread) are being published as ‘holding action’; they purport to blame nature for masking the dangerous effect of fossil fuel usage but are each so weak that ones which become inconvenient can be rebutted when warming or cooling resumes.
Please note the lack of sarc tags because I am completely serious about this.
Richard
OOPs Sorry I intended
Global warming existed in the 1980s and …
I apologise for the serious misprint.
Richard
Well said Richard. Alarmism summed up in a few paragraphs. Thank you.
Richard,
No, the point I made is that it did cool a bit up before the 80’s/90’s, warmed in the 80’/90’s, then stopped warming. Instead of just looking for why it stopped warming after the 80’s/90’s based on the assumption of CO2 having 2X amount of warming, that has been offset by something new, we should be looking at the problem as CO2 having just X amount of warming or X/2 amount of warming and something in the 80’s/90’s was present to magnify it………………not that all of the missing factors coming from something in the 2000’s that offset the 2x of warming that “would have” occurred, just like it did in the 80’s/90’s.
Richard:
Your phrase “holding action” is a pretty good characterization of this type of science.
Mike Maguire
Thanks for the clarification, but I understood what you were saying.
If you check you will see that my interest in the AGW-scare is because of my revulsion at the damage it is doing to science. Clearly, I wish the investigations were of the causes (if any) of the periods of recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) including the most recent.
But my point was that the paper under discussion is not about scientific understanding: it is part of a ‘holding action’ by scaremongers until the present lack of global warming or cooling ends.
Richard
This paper is not for non-believers. It’s for the run of the mill John/Jane Doe. Pause, (no pun or sarc) and reflect; every volcano that has so much as burped has been reported, on the internet.
They see little volcanoes going off right and left. And along comes a paper…
Let’s see if it’s picked up on the msm news. They are once again relying on the population’s lack of good science education.
Yeah, this is preaching to the most gullible choir members.
Santa, you were late. 😉
Will someone please post a chart of active volcanism verses CO2 rises along with a table of geochemical average exhalation gas compositions measured from active volcanoes (every geochem text of the past 50 years has one).
Occam’s razor is selling Amway due to unemployment or something?
I should add, ipso-facto, obviously this does not mean CO2 from volcanoes has warmed earth.
It is my opinion that Santor knows that the claims of this paper would be destroyed by WUWT and other real science. The paper was really just red meat for his believers and to divert them from the data which shows that there has not been any warming for circa 18 years. It is just to perpetrate the myth of CAGW and to support the dumb things the EPA and the Administration want to push like controlling CO2 emissions.
It is like the phony 97% claim which the president still quotes along with the MSM folks like Bob Beckel who has made a career out of spin and is reportedly worth $10 million dollars doing so. Facts don’t matter
perpetuate!!
Well this is a lot of fun. On a previous thread we’ve got people saying that increased volcanic activity is significantly contributing to rising CO2 levels. On this thread folks are saying that increased volcanic activity cannot possibly be responsible for increasing stratospheric aerosol optical depth.
What a difference a few short hours makes.
Brandon Gates
Having failed to apologise for your blatant lies on another thread you now write here
Please state anywhere on WUWT that anyone has claimed increased volcanic activity which releases sulphur to the atmosphere has had any effect on rising CO2 levels.
It seems that nothing makes a difference to your lack of veracity.
Richard
richardscourtney,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/
Brandon Gates
Your link shows that WUWT reported a paper. It does NOT show as you falsely asserted
In reality (which, of course, rarely affects your assertions) the discussion in that thread was of sulphur release to the oceans from undersea volcanism with resulting change to ocean surface layer pH which induces change (possibly decades or centuries later) to the equilibrium CO2 concentrations between air and ocean.
This thread is about sulphur release to the atmosphere from volcanism with resulting almost immediate change to stratospheric opacity.
The discussion in the other thread originated from this post where I linked to a more full explanation but wrote
Almost all the CO2 circulating in the carbon cycle is dissolved in the oceans.
As usual, your lack of veracity is causing (deliberate?) confusion.
Richard
richardscourtney,
As stated in the body text of the article, Dr. Hovland’s main thesis is: Because of the highly tectonized seafloor also underlying the Emperor CO2-hotspot, it is speculated that there is excess CO2 given off by the ocean also in this area.
My question was, and is, excess compared to what baseline?
Quite.
Thank you, now I see my misunderstanding of your particular position. Let me restate the argument just to be sure I’ve got it. Increased underwater volcanic activity would not be expected to release sulphur aerosols into the atmosphere, but would be expected to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations. On the other hand, increased surface volcanism might be expected to do both.
Your argument is that it is not inconsistent to argue against the increase in aerosols due to surface activity simultaneous with arguing for increased underwater activity as a CO2 driver.
Brandon Gates
Feel free to count your angels on a pin while the rest of us consider the subjects of the threads.
Richard
PS You have still overlooked providing the needed apology for your blatant lies on another thread.
richardscourtney,
I don’t apologize for things I find myself falsely accused of doing. I’ve copped to misunderstanding your actual position and believe I have corrected my error. If you wish to continue looking like a thin-skinned self-important arse, be my guest.
Brandon Gates
I would object to your misrepresentation of the sulphur:pH:CO2 equilibria hypothesis if I thought you had the intellectual capacity to understand it. But the other thread where you blatantly lied demonstrates that you lack sufficient intellect and knowledge to understand it.
And your claim that you “insisted” I provide references was a blatant lie. I profferedf them as part of an attempt to get you to admit the stomata data refute an untrue comment which you made about past atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I see no purpose in debating with an unrepentant liar who doesn’t understand the issues you cut&paste from elsewhere as a method to troll threads.
Richard
richardscourtney,
So I’m too stupid to understand your argument, but I’m a liar for misrepresenting your position. Credit where credit is due; that makes a lot more sense than most of your drivel.
Brandon Gates
You write
NO!
You have demonstrated you are too stupid to understand the hypothesis unless, of course your having misrepresented it is merely another of your lies.
You are an unrepentant liar because you refuse to apologise for your claiming you “insisted” on my providing references which you did not request but I offered as part of my campaign to get you to acknowledge the stomata data on another thread.
Compounding your lies with more lies adds to the shredding of your credibility.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Well make up your mind already, both those things cannot be true as you have presented them. Then kindly prove that your choice is correct. Regardless, since one of those things must be wrong you are by your own standards a liar and owe me an apology. Not that I require one of course, I find your buffoonery far more entertaining than insulting. Ta.
Brandon Gates
I see you are now proclaiming you are too stupid to understand the word “unless”.
Please stop wasting space on this thread with your nonsense. If you feel compelled to write then provide an apology for your lies on the other thread.
Richard
richardscourtney,
conjunction: unless
except if (used to introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid).
You have asserted two things about me:
1) You have demonstrated you are too stupid to understand the hypothesis …
2) … unless, of course your having misrepresented it is merely another of your lies.
Logically both statements cannot be true since the conjunction “unless” makes them mutually exclusive. Therefore one statement must be false, meaning that you have said at least one untrue thing about me. I am patiently waiting for you to decide which is true, and provide evidence supporting your conclusion.
In the meantime, unless your dictionary defines “unless” differently, quite clearly you are also mistaken about my understanding of the meaning of the word, bringing the tally up to at least two untrue things about me.
Yet somehow you insist I am the one in need of apologizing to you for my “compounding lies”. Good show, sir, brilliantly done.
Brandon Gates
You are an unrepentant liar. Apologise for your lies on the other thread.
Your childish whining on this thread is a nuisance which only serves to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity while wasting space on the thread apparently in an attempt to bother me (it doesn’t because I find your childishness amusing).
I don’t know how I could be more clear.
Richard
richardscourtney,
You could start with responding to calls for citations the first time they are requested, and ratcheting down the arrogant pomposity.
Brandon Gates
I always provide citations when asked and often – as with you – when not asked.
Your lies achieve nothing.
Richar
richardscourtney,
[cough cough hack gargle]:
Your post from January 2, 2015 at 11:31 am: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1827045
Richard (quoting me): Ok, for starters, show me a CO2 proxy reconstruction for the Holocene you trust. Or we can just go with the instrumental CO2 record. For the “volcanoes is wot dunnit” argument to be not unfounded, I’ll be needing to see some peer-reviewed literature showing a comparable uptick in such activity.
Richard: OK. That response fails to mention the fact that YOUR ASSERTION IS PLAIN WRONG but attempts to change the subject to two other – and irrelevant – matters.
You were saying about “always”? Or is this one of those “always … unless” scenarios …
Brandon Gates
I ASK EVERYONE TO USE YOUR LINK AND TO FOLLOW THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION.
To assist that, I copy your link which is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1827045
Everybody can see that you – again – had attempted to change the subject as a method to pretend your untrue assertion was not plain wrong, and I refused to change the subject. Your attempt consisted of asking me to “show” you something irrelevant and I saw no reason to.
That is NOT refusing to provide a citation: it is refusal to feed a troll.
Subsequently, I offered you citation and link which showed your untrue assertion is wrong.
Incidentally, your demand for me to change subject assumed there is “a CO2 proxy reconstruction for the Holocene [I] trust”. That is yet another of your assertions without evidence.
I repeat, your lies achieve nothing.
Richard
Brandon, this blog is about anthropogenic global warming (or the lack of it). Increased volcanic activity cannot possibly be responsible for increasing stratospheric aerosol optical depth, because there isn’t any.That’s pretty simple; I think you can almost grasp the concept. Conversely, if more CO2 is coming from volcanoes than recognized, then the anthropogenic part of global warming falls. All clear now?
jorgekafkazar,
Pretty much the lack of it by my readings over the years.
I grasp that your argument is simply circular.
No it isn’t clear at all. The major contention of this blog is that AGW has already failed no matter where the CO2 is coming from. Secondly, it’s long been explicitly recognized by the IPCC that natural sources of CO2 flux are some 35 times greater than anthropogenic emissions, so by your logic again AGW has already failed. Thirdly, volcanic activity is presently estimated to account for about a tenth of a percent of total natural CO2 flux. Finally, the fossil fuel industry keeps very good records on production and use of their products, and fairly basic math allows us to reliable estimate how much CO2 results from their combustion. The increase in our use of fossil fuel offers by far the best correlation to observed CO2 levels.
It takes a serious amount of mental gymnastics to be acquainted with all these facts and attempt to explain away human contributions to the increase. The Sky Dragon Slayer arguments are more difficult to rebut than this one. Oy vey.
Eruptions clearly do both, in continually varying degree (no pun).
If you were around when Pinatubo exploded you would have seen the following two years of vivid salmon-pink sunsets in the tropics within both hemispheres, so we know the optical properties are altered by BIG eruptions.
http://travelcie.com/media/Mount-Pinatubo-201.jpg
http://www.dewbow.co.uk/glows/set15m.jpg
Volcanism also represents a secular input of CO2, with punctuated major transient inputs from major eruptions, (many of which are submarine, so unseen and on a much larger scale/area, and in far greater numbers than those occurring above the waves).
The questions are:
1) Does increasing CO2 cause warming? (which apparently is very far from unambiguous in real world contexts, especially the past 18 years, which should give EVERY government substantial pause to reconsider it AGW policies)
2) Are SMALL LOW-ENERGY eruptions able to loft aerosols to altitudes sufficient to be suspended and persistent and impart substantial climatically significant radiative response?
Firstly, the evidence for (1) contradicts every climate model so far published. Regarding (2), there are no high altitude pink salmon sunsets occurring today (generally), so no, there’s no such substantial optical effect evident at dusk or dawn, nor unambiguously substantiated via remote sensing.
So there is no fig-leaf allegedly covering or explaining away 1/3rd the temp rise’s presumed ‘Hiatus’?
Unmentionable,
I discovered that the supplemental materials for this study are not paywalled:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014GL061541/asset/supinfo/grl52300-sup-0002-documentS2.pdf?v=1&s=99bde4cd51578c3255475d461dcc56abada8a74c
See especially figure Fig. S2, p. 12 of the .pdf. I have not quite deciphered it all yet, and as well, my general impression of the paper’s argument is that no, there are not Pinatubo-level aerosols being kicked into the stratosphere. Which is too bad, I love salmon-pink sunsets. And since stratospheric aerosols cool things off, I’d argue the more the better save for the acid rain issues ….
OK, Mr. Gates, thank you for that, seems a dead-end approach at this point, for a partial explanation of on-going temp stability.
Back to the drawing board.
Unmentionable,
The system is the sum of its parts, so partial explanations are to be expected. Whether this one holds water or not I cannot say at this point. Chalk me up as skeptical but not dubious.
The Journal(s) that continue to publish this type of AGW drivel are putting their future on the line
George Will puts climate change into perspective in his Washington Post article.
Read the entire article at the URL below. If accurate It provides an historical perspective on past climate change since the 1300’s that few individuals are aware of, including past challenging climate (especially during extreme cold periods) and other more friendly periods and how life improved during the medieval warm period. I am thankful that we have fossil fuels should such extreme cold conditions ever return, I assume that Santer, et. al. are aware of this history:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-climate-changes-instructive-past/2015/01/07/2ae70ee6-95d2-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html
So call me dumb, but doesn’t this volcanic activity go on all the time and would that not act a a permmanent brake on warming? Assuming he’s right of course, which I suspect he is not
David Harrington,
My thoughts exactly. Santer should be showing warming when small volcanoes have a hiatus of their own – if they ever have one.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
So the models were wrong? I’ll buy that. What we need is proof that the new models are right.
That’s circular logic right there. If all it takes is inventing new models to keep what is really just a conjecture afloat, what does that say about the “science” supporting said conjecture? When are Climatists going to face the fact that their cherished manmade warming/climate change/disruption/chaos/extreme weather ideology is total nonsense?
“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.”
“ESTIMATES” & “SIMPLE MODEL”: I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, if you want to save science you have to eliminate the Federal funding of science, until then all we will get is this sort of GIGO.
Perhaps the SKS kids need to revise their argument that reduced volcanic activity of LARGE eruptions cannot explain the warming. Maybe they should include SMALL eruptions too.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm
Well if this study and others are accurate then thank goodness that humanity is warming the planet, since with these volcanoes, and the seas sucking up warmth, and the 48 1/2 other cooling factors and heat sinks, we’d be in the ice age.
Too bad this is just more hokey science, but if it is insisted to be true then the message or headline should read:
The dog ate my homework, the dingo ate her baby, and now the volcanoes are eating our global warming… we just can’t win!
Indeed, the desperation and straw-grasping by those frantically trying to save the Warmist ideology has reached epic proportions. As long as governments continue to fund that CAGW gravy train though, nothing short of an ice age would seem to derail it.
I suppose the hidden heat inside the ocean depths is getting old.
Damnit, just when I thought the science was settled.
What PAUSE?
Botanists have been stunned by the results of their annual hunt for plants in flower on New Year’s Day.
They say according to textbooks there should be between 20 and 30 species in flower. This year there were 368 in bloom.
“Human influence on the climate is likely to have substantially increased the chance of breaking the UK and CET temperature records. Estimates from the Met Office suggest that it has become about 10 times more likely for the UK record to be broken as a result of human influence on the climate.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30754443
He he, you didn’t notice that Roger is leaving out a few important details,as explained by Paul Homewood in his blog entry: More Nonsense From The BBC’s Harrabin https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/more-nonsense-from-the-bbcs-harrabin/
It was only the FOURTH year of the event!
‘And that December 2014 only ranked a very ordinary 46th warmest. The hottest December was as long ago as 1934’ if so,how come. I haven’t had to switch the central heating on this year?
Hot flashes.
Ah, Jo Nova’s troll comes a calling! Or did Flashman just forget to change his name before posting?
The issue of “noise” caused by ENSO conditions needs to be re-thought. The error is thinking these conditions have only immediate affect with no long term echoes. Not true. The degree to which solar insolation at the equatorial band ocean surface is allowed or reflected away has echoes into the future as more or less heated water rides global currents. In addition to this global distribution, our own Bob Tisdale recently identified a piece of subsurface warmed water that recycled back into another Kelvin wave working its way West to East in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
The point is that equatorial more warming or less warming of oceans (which occurs in the Pacific and Atlantic) has long term affects as these waters spread out and belch or retain that warmth on a global scale.
My beef? The present studies removed immediate ENSO affects. Epic fail.
“The warmest year on record is 1998.” Somebody didn’t get the memo that the warmest year on record is 2014.
Ben Santer
The sulfate aerosols you see in the atmosphere are not from volcanoes. The sulfur dioxide comes from coal plants in China, US and other countries. China’s emission has increased by 27% since 2000. Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 emitted 20 million tons of SO2. China alone emits 23 million tons every year.
BTW global sulfur dioxide emissions decreased from 1975 to 2000. By Santer’s hypothesis, this should have caused global warming and indeed there was warming during that period. It’s a double-edged sword Ben. Your aerosols can cause both cooling and warming.
This is the most expensive claim in world history, yet there is no public debate, it has never been on any election agenda. The warming policy is proceeding without any consent from the people.
The apparent levelling of the temperature curve can be easily explained by having reached a maximum period in the multi-decadal oceanic oscillations (e.g. AMO).
It explains also the apparent levelling between the mid 40s and the mid 60s, and also the net temperature rise in between.
http://climate.mr-int.ch/images/graphs/Taobs-and-amo.png
Why look for sophisticated things when obvious patterns with high correlation are at hand?
Is it because of the eternal [American] pleasure for useless Monday morning quarterbacking?
So I would expect that Mr. Santer will want to beat up anyone who disagrees with his conclusions…?
So if all the small eruptions are contributing to higher levels of SO2 in the atmosphere are reflecting sunlight thus leading to the hiatus, then could it not also be deduced that the reduction in SO2 emissions through the Clean Air Act has led to some warming due to a reduction in aerosols?
You are not the only one to recognize this seeming coincidence. Right when emissions start getting cleaned up the temperature began to warm. Further, catalytic convertors turn exhaust into CO2, so a correlated increase in CO2 would be expected. To add a little extra to the equation, that CO2 is also emitted at several hundred degrees…
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]