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/
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]