Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research claims that global warming will impede the ability of volcanoes to push sulphur compounds into the stratosphere, which will in turn reduce the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions.
Climate change may prevent volcanoes from cooling the planet
…
When an eruption is powerful enough, volcanoes spew sulfur gasses high into the atmosphere, reaching a layer called the stratosphere, about 10 to 15 kilometres above Earth’s surface. Here, gasses react with water to form aerosol particles that linger in the stratosphere for one or two years, reflecting sunlight and heat from the sun, and cooling the planet. On average, there are anywhere from three to five eruptions that reach the stratosphere every year.
Previous research has shown that as the planet warms, the lower layers of the atmosphere will expand, making it much harder for the gasses to reach the stratosphere. At lower levels, in the troposphere, the gasses quickly get turned into aerosols and clouds and precipitate back down to earth as rain or snow.
“Volcanic eruptions tend to counteract global warming but as the planet heats up and our atmosphere changes, we’ve found that fewer eruptions will be able to reflect the sun’s radiation,” said Thomas Aubry, a PhD student studying climate and volcanoes. “It will be harder for the volcanic gasses to reach high enough into atmosphere to help cool the planet.”
…
Read more: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161116114217.htm
The abstract of the study;
Impact of global warming on the rise of volcanic plumes and implications for future volcanic aerosol forcing
Authors
Thomas J. Aubry ,A. Mark Jellinek, Wim Degruyter, Costanza Bonadonna, Valentina Radić, Margot Clyne, Adjoa Quainoo
Volcanic eruptions have a significant impact on climate when they inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere. The dynamics of eruption plumes is also affected by climate itself, as atmospheric stratification impacts plumes height. We use an integral plume model to assess changes in volcanic plume maximum rise heights as a consequence of global warming, with atmospheric conditions from an ensemble of global climate models (GCM), using three representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios. Predicted changes in atmospheric temperature profiles decrease the heights of tropospheric and lowermost stratospheric volcanic plumes and increase the tropopause height, for the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios in the coming three centuries. Consequently, the critical mass eruption rate required to cross the tropopause increases by up to a factor 3 for tropical regions, and up to 2 for high-latitude regions. A number of recent lower stratospheric plumes, mostly in the tropics (e.g., Merapi, 2010), would be expected to not cross the tropopause starting from the late 21st century, under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenario. This effect could result in a ≃5 − 25% decrease in the average SO2 flux into the stratosphere carried by small plumes, which frequency is larger than the rate of decay of volcanic stratospheric aerosol, and a ≃2 − 12% decrease of the total flux. Our results suggest the existence of a positive feedback between climate and volcanic aerosol forcing. Such feedback may have minor implications for global warming rate but can prove to be important to understand the long-term evolution of volcanic atmospheric inputs.
Read more (paywalled): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD025405/full
I don’t have access to the full study, but the obvious question – why did the researchers base their study on a model?
Why not send a few weather balloons through volcanic plumes at different latitudes and different times of year, to actually measure the impact of different atmospheric conditions on the formation of volcanic stratospheric aerosols?
The atmosphere is much thicker at the equator than at the poles – the troposphere is only around 4 miles thick at the poles during winter, but reaches 12 miles thick in equatorial regions.
Oh ya…”I cannot see a problem using models to predict climate of the future…” How have those models been working for you lately – say over the last couple thousand years. Right – past performance does not necessarily predict future results – a motto from the financial industry now being applied to the climate change industry.
Volcanic sulfate emissions make iron oxide available to plankton, which in turn sequester carbon via photosynthesis. Look at Dr. John Martin’s work on iron seeding.
Now to my hypothesis: All carbon was at one time in the atmosphere. Then came the oxygen catastrophe and most was sequestered out..as carbonate minerals. Life finds a way, just like Ian Malcolm (fiction but based on fact) deduced and there is no possibility of returning to pre oxygen catastrophe era.
The elephant in the room is missing carbon, a topic swept under the rug by CAGW faithful. Yes, it is an accounting error arising from incomplete understanding of the carbon cycle. The ripest low hanging fruit in the missing carbon quandry are clatherates, that strange methane trapping ice which unlike even frozen sea water, is negatively buoyant.
How much carbon exists in clatherates? Twice as much as all known petroleum, natural gas and coal.
Are you talking about elemental carbon or carbon dioxide?
Carbon in clathrates is in methane, one carbon and four hydrogen atoms.
Indeed, the Tropospheric Warm Zone does not exist.
The Global-Warming-from-CO2 “theory” is falsified.
All further discussion on this topic is moot.
“Volcanoes failing to cool the Earth”
This is a problem?
Give me a break
Time to discuss the weather and not the climate.
If the modelled tropical tropospheric hot spot did exist, it would be from warming of tropical waters, and from decreased wet adiabatic lapse rate due to higher concentration of water vapor. Its failure to occur is from tropical oceans warming less than the models predicted. The models are poorly tuned apparently because they were tuned to consider the rapid warming from the mid 1970s to shortly after 2000 as all manmade, while a natural multidecadal cycle (including AMO, likely also multi-year-smoothed ENSO which may be loosely linked) probably accounts for about .2-.22 degree C of that warming. And the CMIP5 models only have up to 2005 being history/hindcast – after that is their forecast – beginning shortly after AMO (and around when multiyear-smoothed ENSO) turned a corner.
In any case, of the model-forecast tropical tropospheric hotspot and the model-forecast greater surface warming both did exist, convection to the tropopause would still occur at least as easily as it did before.
Thanks Sir.
As I understand it, The Tropo warm zone was theorized to be caused by a positive feedback from water vapor and clouds.
It’s not there so – No positive water feedback, so – no global warming from CO2.
Observations of temps would suggest a negative feedback (a stabilizer) is present.
CO2 up of late, yet no coincidental warming.
Earth’s atmosphere is a stable system.
Please note that average CMIP5 model hindcasts of the early 21st Century still ran hot. Modelers had to do that or CAGW was in real jeopardy. Even to the IPCC AR5 boys that disconnect was so incredulous that they had to use “expert judgement” to cool off the early prediction years. The out-years were still CAGW, naturally.
The water vapor and cloud albedo feedbacks seem positive to me, but less so than usually modeled. I think the sum of these two should be close to or a little less than the feedback figure for the water vapor feedback alone calculated for constant relative humidity. Positive feedback does not necessarily make the climate unstable.
“Still, the simulations themselves must be based on real observations and measurements to make them as accurate as possible…”
That’s a bold assumption and not something I’d put money on
First of all the BASIS for AGW theory is wrong . Secondly major volcanic activity has been non existent since 1992 and if/when it does commence which should be sooner or later AGW which does not exist to begin with will do nothing to stop cooling for that source.
Everything this theory has predicted from a +AO evolving over time to a lower tropospheric hot spot , to decreasing OLR has failed to come about. If the BASICS a theory is based on are wrong it follows the theory is wrong .
The distribution of warm and cold temperatures across the globe is wrong as well as the magnitude of the rise as called for by this theory. In addition the decline in global temperatures has now set in and will be accelerating gong forward putting an end to this theory.
In addition this period of time in the climate is in no way unique.
My theory (in a nutshell) is 1000x better then AGW theory . My theory is based on the following: Which is weak solar/geomagnetic fields when in sync IF the degree of duration and magnitude of change is long/strong enough will push the terrestrial items that govern the climate into a cooling mode.
Terrestrial items
sea surface temperatures
major volcanic activity
global cloud coverage
global snow coverage
global sea ice coverage
atmospheric circulation pattern changes
oceanic current changes
Before this decade is out this trash theory will be trashed.
“In addition the decline in global temperatures has now set in and will be accelerating gong forward putting an end to this theory.”
I’m sorry but it appears you haven’t been paying attention. Firstly it isn’t a theory and please don’t promote a failed hypothesis up to the dizzy heights of theory. Secondly there are enough gaping fissures and failed predictions in the hypothesis already to completely and forever bury it and yet that has had no effect whatsoever. All that has happened is that the mountebanks have changed the branding to the forever unfalsifiable and unscientific ‘climate change’. I really don’t know what makes you think that a simple thing like global cooling is going to make them admit defeat.
They cannot admit that they were wrong. Never. It doesn’t matter if the ice sheets are grinding up 5th Avenue because that will be caused by human co2 too and that’s settled science and an end of the debate. The climate is changing and they said it would change and therefore what we observe is entirely consistent with cagw.
With apologies to the Christians amongst you it’s like the old scenario where someone invents a time machine, goes back to Judea in the time of Christ and finds that Jesus was just some guy who annoyed the Romans. On returning with his evidence it would not make the slightest difference to present day Christianity.
Please do not think that there is any physical evidence which will deflect this carbon religion by so much as a nanometer. All we can hope for is that the public completely lose interest and the authorities stop funding it so that it eventually becomes just some obscure cult but they will never, ever in this world admit that it isn’t true and that they were wrong.
In Hollywood, computer model outputs are called computer-generated animations, such as superheros that can fly through the air with only a thought, etc.
Fantasies that entertain from computer outputs, that all this is too.
This study is begging us to believe that the upper atmosphere (stratisphere) has some sort of control of the lower zones. And as everyone seems to believe that they used some sort of data to produce it.
Lets assume that they have used some of their own assumptions (maybe they know something that we don’t)
After monitoring this sort of stuff for sometimes now, i can see that there must be some sort of interaction between that “way up place” where it is hard to obtain data. Maybe some speculations are in order. What ifs.
Let say that we were able to inject carbon dioxide into that “way up space” of our atmosphere where the sun is bearing down 24/7. And let us assume that that carbon dioxide provides that boost in temperature way up there. Would it by any definition cause the ground level atmosphere to change in pressure, temperature, and relative humidity?
Now, lets say they have conducted experiments way up there and they are 97% confident that by doing so have seen that by injecting carbon dioxide “way up there” it someway causes the enormous amount of volcanic arisols to not block the sun as it would have.
I would really like to know if they have conducted these experiments. Other wise, it is just weather anomolies that are triggered by sun anomolies. I can see that their goal to prove that models are better than experiments.
Me think they are grabbing straws, invisible ones at that.
I hope they get Trumped.
As the world warms, the troposphere will expand, and the tropopause will move to a higher altitude. But the surface will warm and increased greenhouse gases will make the tropopause cooler. If convective storms increase, then convection to the tropopause is occurring more easily despite higher altitude of the tropopause. If convective storms stay the same, then ease of convection to the tropopause is staying the same. If those saying climate change will make hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms worse, but make it more difficult for a volcanic plume to reach the stratosphere, then I think they are trying to have things both ways.
Not so fast there..IF less than ideal gases ( like carbon dioxide) are more efficient insulators, the temperature gradient should increase. So would lapse rate which is the governing definition of the troposphere.
So-called greenhouse gases do not inhibit radiative heat transfer EXCEPT at the surface. The reason for the three primary layers of the atmosphere is the non linearity of heat transfer with respect to altitude.
Best negotiate an accord limiting volcanic activity to night time.
Most volcanic cones extend several thousand feet high. This would seem to avoid the worst part of this potential problem. In addition, since the stratosphere is suppose to cool, any aerosols making it that high should have an easier time going higher. This would extend the time it takes for them to precipitate out. In essence, a smaller effect but over a longer time.
Now add in the fact that only tropical volcanic eruptions appear to have global effects and significant cooling. Isn’t the Tropics already warmer? Isn’t this area suppose to warm the least?
Don’t know if any of these factors were included in their model but I doubt it.
“Why not send a few weather balloons through volcanic plumes at different latitudes and different times of year, to actually measure the impact of different atmospheric conditions on the formation of volcanic stratospheric aerosols?”
Because with real data, the CAGW theme goes down the tubes? Nah. LIV’s/indoctrinated kids will call the facts BS and carry on believing in pixie dust and unicorn farts. Kill all the unicorns!!!! Oh,wait.
> why did the researchers base their study on a model?
Because it’s cheaper and quicker. Models have become so popular because they are a means to and end: mass-producing meaningless papers that nevertheless are published and score points in academia anyway.
All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
The models used by CAGW acolytes are data swamps fit to a predisposed conclusion from assumptions of positive feedback loops. This is contrary to observed logic on the basis of relative stability necessary for life and evolution. IOW, catastrophic change would prevent evolution. Evolution is faster for extant species than climate change. Or evolution was too slow for extinct species barring external catastrophic events like K-T…
To make a dynamic model, one must know the mechanics. As in Keppler-Copercinus solar system model. What the CAGW acolytes are doing is parallel to the complex earth centered solar system model. Almost as bad as flat earthists.
A more honest, practical study would be ‘How much more likely am I to receive funding and get published if I use the words Global Warming or Climate Change in the title’.
Why is there no research/development on how to inject aerosols into the atmosphere? Let’s have an antidote ready if global warming becomes a concern.
“Why is there no research/development on how to inject aerosols into the atmosphere”
We used to.
Then it got blamed for causing acid rain so we stopped.
CO2, the magical gas. Is there anything it can’t do?
CAGW is a promotion, as defined by the saying from the old and dreadful Vancouver Stock Exchange.
“In the beginning the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”
Oh look, another positive feedback “found” in the models. Armchair model science is easy-peazy.
So, will CO2 save us from the next glacial advance? I wish…
I thought that global cooling would raise the air pressure and thus prevent volcanic eruptions altogether…/sarc
Desperation makes scientists do and say unusual things
It strikes me that this is another example of a ‘study’ that mutates a possibility into a probability, without benefit of real-world measurements or even a thought experiment as a sanity check. If what they are proposing (a positive feedback loop) were likely, then at some point in the past 4.5 billion years when the world was much warmer, then a so-called Tipping Point would have been reached and we wouldn’t be around to throw stones at the idea. As an example, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum the temperatures were higher than what is forecast for AGW in the next 100 years. It was followed by a period of extensive volcanism, especially in the Sierra Nevada, and by their thesis, should have been incapable of cooling the Earth. Yet, it cooled! I think that they need to tweak their computer model some more.
“Why not send a few weather balloons through volcanic plumes at different latitudes and different times of year, to actually measure the impact of different atmospheric conditions on the formation of volcanic stratospheric aerosols?”
Because there are very few volcanoes that put significant material into the stratosphere, perhaps one every decade. Most eruptions don’t put anything into the stratosphere.
The more the fantastic claims derived from computer models fail to materialize in the real world, the more climate scientists have to exaggerate their message to get anyone to pay attention. It’s kind of like volcanoes having to exert more force to push sulfur compounds into the stratosphere. Climate scientist can only wish to get their message to remain in circulation for a year or two. But it precipitates out almost as soon as they shoot it into the blogosphere. Because of a dismal track record, even the most dire message falls flat and is soon forgotten, just as the conclusions of this paper soon will be.
Just speed reading it, but it looks like it’s based on multiple models. Their own models of volcanos and 3 CMIP5 GCMs such as: BCC-CSM1.1, CanESM2, MPI-ESM-LR. Their justification for these GCMs is
I pleased to see they have a time machine able to look 3 centuries into the future. I’m displeased they were not able to put it to better use. It’s a long paper: 68 pages.
PS: Why do they call GCM: global climate models (paper abstract). I thought they were general circulation models, according to the lit. crit. army of climate PC-police. Oh, I see Wikipedia now conflates one with the other. But wait: general circulation model is only one kind of global climate model. They can’t be conflated.