Climate change to make volcanoes more climate disruptive

From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH and the “It’s models, all the way down” department.

Future volcanic eruptions could cause more climate disruption

Climate change reduces oceans’ ability to buffer impacts

BOULDER, Colo. — Major volcanic eruptions in the future have the potential to affect global temperatures and precipitation more dramatically than in the past because of climate change, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study authors focused on the cataclysmic eruption of Indonesia’s Mount Tambora in April 1815, which is thought to have triggered the so-called “year without a summer” in 1816. They found that if a similar eruption occurred in the year 2085, temperatures would plunge more deeply, although not enough to offset the future warming associated with climate change. The increased cooling after a future eruption would also disrupt the water cycle more severely, decreasing the amount of precipitation that falls globally.

The reason for the difference in climate response between 1815 and 2085 is tied to the oceans, which are expected to become more stratified as the planet warms, and therefore less able to moderate the climate impacts caused by volcanic eruptions.

“We discovered that the oceans play a very large role in moderating, while also lengthening, the surface cooling induced by the 1815 eruption,” said NCAR scientist John Fasullo, lead author of the new study. “The volcanic kick is just that — it’s a cooling kick that lasts for a year or so. But the oceans change the timescale. They act to not only dampen the initial cooling but also to spread it out over several years.”

The research will be published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature Communications. The work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor. Other funders include NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy. The study co-authors are Robert Tomas, Samantha Stevenson, Bette Otto-Bliesner, and Esther Brady, all of NCAR, as well as Eugene Wahl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

—A detailed look at a deadly past—

Mount Tambora’s eruption, the largest in the past several centuries, spewed a huge amount of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, where it turned into sulfate particles called aerosols. The layer of light-reflecting aerosols cooled Earth, setting in motion a chain of reactions that led to an extremely cold summer in 1816, especially across Europe and the northeast of North America. The “year without a summer” is blamed for widespread crop failure and disease, causing more than 100,000 deaths globally.

To better understand and quantify the climate effects of Mount Tambora’s eruption, and to explore how those effects might differ for a future eruption if climate change continues on its current trajectory, the research team turned to a sophisticated computer model developed by scientists from NCAR and the broader community.

The scientists looked at two sets of simulations from the Community Earth System Model. The first was taken from the CESM Last Millennium Ensemble Project, which simulates Earth’s climate from the year 850 through 2005, including volcanic eruptions in the historic record. The second set, which assumes that greenhouse gas emission continue unabated, was created by running CESM forward and repeating a hypothetical Mount Tambora eruption in 2085.

The historical model simulations revealed that two countervailing processes helped regulate Earth’s temperature after Tambora’s eruption. As aerosols in the stratosphere began blocking some of the Sun’s heat, this cooling was intensified by an increase in the amount of land covered by snow and ice, which reflected heat back to space. At the same time, the oceans served as an important counterbalance. As the surface of the oceans cooled, the colder water sank, allowing warmer water to rise and release more heat into the atmosphere.

By the time the oceans themselves had cooled substantially, the aerosol layer had begun to dissipate, allowing more of the Sun’s heat to again reach Earth’s surface. At that point, the ocean took on the opposite role, keeping the atmosphere cooler, since the oceans take much longer to warm back up than land.

“In our model runs, we found that Earth actually reached its minimum temperature the following year, when the aerosols were almost gone,” Fasullo said. “It turns out the aerosols did not need to stick around for an entire year to still have a year without a summer in 1816, since by then the oceans had cooled substantially.”

—The oceans in a changed climate—

When the scientists studied how the climate in 2085 would respond to a hypothetical eruption that mimicked Mount Tambora’s, they found that Earth would experience a similar increase in land area covered by snow and ice.

However, the ocean’s ability to moderate the cooling would be diminished substantially in 2085. As a result, the magnitude of Earth’s surface cooling could be as much as 40 percent greater in the future. The scientists caution, however, that the exact magnitude is difficult to quantify, since they had only a relatively small number of simulations of the future eruption.

The reason for the change has to do with a more stratified ocean. As the climate warms, sea surface temperatures increase. The warmer water at the ocean’s surface is then less able to mix with the colder, denser water below.

In the model runs, this increase in ocean stratification meant that the water that was cooled after the volcanic eruption became trapped at the surface instead of mixing deeper into the ocean, reducing the heat released into the atmosphere.

The scientists also found that the future eruption would have a larger effect on rainfall than the historical eruption of Mount Tambora. Cooler sea surface temperatures decrease the amount of water that evaporates into the atmosphere and, therefore, also decrease global average precipitation.

Though the study found that Earth’s response to a Tambora-like eruption would be more acute in the future than in the past, the scientists note that the average surface cooling caused by the 2085 eruption (about 1.1 degrees Celsius) would not be nearly enough to offset the warming caused by human-induced climate change (about 4.2 degrees Celsius by 2085).

Study co-author Otto-Bliesner said, “The response of the climate system to the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mount Tambora gives us a perspective on potential surprises for the future, but with the twist that our climate system may respond much differently.”

###

The paper (open access): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01302-z

The amplifying influence of increased ocean stratification on a future year without a summer

  • J. T. Fasullo, R. Tomas, S. Stevenson, B. Otto-Bliesner, E. Brady & E. Wahl

Abstract

In 1816, the coldest summer of the past two centuries was observed over northeastern North America and western Europe. This so-called Year Without a Summer (YWAS) has been widely attributed to the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora and was concurrent with agricultural failures and famines worldwide. To understand the potential impacts of a similar future eruption, a thorough physical understanding of the YWAS is crucial. Climate model simulations of both the 1815 Tambora eruption and a hypothetical analogous future eruption are examined, the latter occurring in 2085 assuming a business-as-usual climate scenario. Here, we show that the 1815 eruption drove strong responses in both the ocean and cryosphere that were fundamental to driving the YWAS. Through modulation of ocean stratification and near-surface winds, global warming contributes to an amplified surface climate response. Limitations in using major volcanic eruptions as a constraint on cloud feedbacks are also found.

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “Climate change to make volcanoes more climate disruptive

  1. These maroons at NCAR really think like that? Amazing.

    Volcanos (their aerosols and stratospheric dust) do cool. No one questions that. The Biosphere suffers, as in reduced crop production due to early fall frosts, late spring freezes. A year without summer and all that hype due to volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere. And more CO2 makes plants more resilient to these transitory perturbations in weather.

    And do they really think that a fraction of degree C different in deep upwelling waters really has the impact they want to believe it does? Only in their fervent “simulation” fantasies.

    Now these maroons need a narrative that covers cooling by volcanos. They want it both ways. They need all possible outcomes “predicted” by their pet theory.

    Junk science on so many levels.

    • note: “maroon” is the Bugs Bunny-version of a pejorative term for a low IQ person that can pass WP filters.

      • Making volcanic effects variable over time is a cool way to add yet another unconstrained fudge factor to the models.

        they desperately need a stronger volcanic cooling to “explain” the lack of warming relative to model predictions since the end of the millennium. They had manufactured a nice balance of exaggerated GHE and volcanic cooling by tweaking model parameters to fit 1960-2000 warming. Unfortunately this no longer works with post Pinatubo lack of any major stratospheric events.

        The obvious conclusion is that they over-estimated climate sensitivity to both volcanic forcing and GHG.

        But to avoid admitting that they now want to make volcanic forcing depend, not only on volcanic activity but some other malleable fudge factor. They “know” what the right answer is, they just need a few more free variables to make it work.

      • Greg,

        I have a theory that the late 20th century warming coincided with the removal of sulfur from the atmosphere caused by the clean air act and that the plateau was the Earth finally reaching quasi-equilibrium with that new low sulfur state. All the rest of this is because the watermelons weren’t able to gain complete control of the economy after the legitimate pollution problems of the 1960s and 70s were largely fixed.

        I believe (but don’t have proof) that the unadulterated temperature record using only raw data from long term pristine stations would show exactly that with maybe a very slow warming as rebound from the little ice age as the only result.

      • More to the point: They don’t want the right answer.

        The right answer is that it’s all natural climate variability, i.e. the null hypothesis that can’t be rejected.

        Natural climate variability is not the answer their political masters (at least recent-past masters) want to hear.
        Vice President Al Gore made sure during the 90’s that the career ranks of government climate researchers and their grant-beholden academic contemporaries understood their paycheck depended on producing PC answer. Those that didn’t were like Judith Curry who became skeptics (or even voiced caution in interpretations like Roger Pielke Jr), they were run out of the profession by non-renewal of grant submissions and/or press demagoguery.

      • “Greg October 31, 2017 at 12:18 pm

        The obvious conclusion is that they over-estimated climate sensitivity to both volcanic forcing and GHG.
        … ”

        Yes, but more importantly they vastly overestimate ocean warming sufficient to strongly stratify the oceans.

        Making it a most unusual thermodynamic Earth model they’re using. In their caca cAGW fantasy land.

      • OweninGA: now, that is a theory that holds a lot more water than the standard “It’s yooman-produced CO2 wot dunnit.” I think I shall pick that up and run with it.

    • To better understand… the research team turned to a sophisticated computer model developed by scientists from NCAR…”

      ZZZ…

      Two questions:
      1. Since when have climate models helped anyone better understand the Earth’s climate?
      2. “Scientists” from NCAR?! Who at NCAR follows the scientific method?

    • Hey, it is Halloween after all. It’s the season of fright and horror for the masses to eat up their ridiculous alarmism.

      Of course, there is about 35% of the US population that forms their hard-core faithful congregation who eat-up this kind of stuff. That results in their writing letters to Congresspersons, letters to editor, and all that urging that we must “Act and Act now”, because their priest class demands sacrifices and salvation from our carbon sins.

  2. This paper apparently is based on the flawed assumption that CO2 causes warming that will continue for the rest of the century, despite the lack of any warming for ~20 years and we have just entered a cool period.

    • “would not be nearly enough to offset the warming caused by human-induced climate change (about 4.2 degrees Celsius by 2085).”

      And how does 4.2 deg C by 2085 relate to reality? Only in the unrealistic RCP 8.5 phantasmagorical fantasies of Alarmists in need of further funding increases and tenure… that’s where.

  3. It’s really models all the way down. As the current models do not accurately depict current net weather conditions, it is an act of faith to believe that they can depict perturbations to a future situation.

  4. would not be nearly enough to offset the warming caused by human-induced climate change (about 4.2 degrees Celsius by 2085).

    We’re at 400 ppm CO2 now, going up by 2 ppm per year. So in 59 years we’d be at about 518. CO2 being logarithmic, and doing very rough guestimate in my head which hasn’t done real math in decades, we’d need a sensitivity on the order of 17 deg C per doubling of CO2 to get to +4.2 by 2085. They’s have to be assuming that we start burning several TIMES as much fossil fuel world wide as we are now, starting TOMORROW to get that kind of a number.

    Never mind that they’re using models which even the IPCC has admitted are inaccurate, they’ve modeled against a scenario so unlikely as to be absurd.

    • These NCAR charlatan hucksters have to go to the most extreme part of the IPCC assessment to get there to create their alarmist rhetoric:

      “The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under RCP8.5.”

      (from page 10 of
      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf)
      .

      • The NCAR climate maroons are nothing but a bunch of charlatans posing as science researchers.

        – They use the not just the well-known erroneous emission assumptions of the deeply flawed “busines-as-usual” RCP8.5 pathway that produces an envelope of climate T response, but they go off into the twilight zone of pseudoscience to use the extreme upper edge of the envelope to make their claims.

        From AR5 Synthesis Report, page 11 is this graph.

        To get 4.2 deg C by 2085, it is easily seen that you have to select not just the worst case scenario (RCP 8.5), but you must use the extreme edge of the likelihood envelope for that already quite unrealistic scenario.

        No real scientist would publish a paper with findings that depend on such junk. But these aren’t real scientists, they are government-paid climate scientists.

    • David you are out of date ? The latest in the New Zealand news media lat night and this morning pushed by Greenpeace the greenblob is that 2016 had the highest increase in C)2 ever at 3.3 ppm .I had been looking at the Mauna Loa CO2 record and I went back to it .
      What I found was that from 1st January 2016 the level was about 402.5 ppm and at 1st January 2017 the level was 405 ppm .I then checked the latest level for 30th October 2017 which is 404.16 and the level for 30th October 2016 which is around 402 ppm but some of you clever fellows can find the exact number .The numbers they are quoting must be from a different site in the northern hemisphere. I thought that Mauna Loa was the gold standard .You will probably be bombarded with this propaganda soon .Can some of you who know much more than I do please comment

    • Not really. This subject here is about short-term volcanic cooling and whether their assumed CC mitigates or exacerbates the climate system response to that aerosol-driven perturbation.

      That paper you referenced, the authors are trying to shoe-horn into a model a causative role for CO2 in the glacial cycles. So many bad or questionable assumptions in that paper, one scarcely knows where to begin critiquing it.

  5. This type of thing has all happened before. There have always been volcanic erruptions. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels and no one was there to stop the volcanoes from errupting yet our ancestors survived. Based upon the paleoclimate record and the computer simulation that has been performed, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Apparently volcanic erruptions can have some effect on climate because of a change in albedo but to date, Mankind has no control over volcanic erruptions. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of sceintific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. I am sure that there are plenty of other phenomena that could affect the Earth’s climate about which we are doing nothing. For example a super nova of the sun that vaporized the Earth would also have an adverse effect on our climate for a long period of time yet no one is taking any action to prevent the sun from blowing up. Mother Nature is the culprit here but what effective action can we take to force Mother Nature to abide by Mankind’s wishes?

    • It is a Progressive’s first instinct to blame a man-made thing in order to claim the need to control that thing. In this case that thing is CO2.

      The Progressives Socialists know they can’t argue the need to control volcanos or the sun or the ocean currents. And all honesty, it really isn’t CO2 they really want to control, it’s the world’s economic output. CO2 gives them the means to control world energy. And energy is the key to economic output. And the cheapest form of energy that has enabled economic growth and the industrial revolution are fossil fuels that produce CO2 and water vapor as byproducts.

      Mainstream climate science has become a bunch of pseudoscientists. They are all riding the gravy train their political masters control. As long as they produce junk research like this one, they all expect the train to keep on providing.

      • Joelobryan: that is the most succinct, comprehensive summation of this entire farce that I have yet seen. Please allow me to nick it (meh… don’t bother… I’m going to nick it, anyway. I just wanted to let you know).

  6. I say we demand that the computers be turned off to save electricity and prevent further carbon dioxide emissions. Can you imagine their reaction. I went to school in the SE and in Florida. From first through twelve grades we never had air conditioning. In a legislative budget committee meeting I once suggested one way to save money in the educational budget, now a huge portion of the state budget, was to turn off the A/C. Similarly the universities could turn off the air-conditioning both to save money and in the eyes and minds of modern academia save the planet.

    • Here, and I suspect in most parts of the country, and likely in much of the developed world, there is extravagant use of lighting, as well as heating and cooling, in the “public” sector. In summer I go for long walks well after dark, even after midnight, because the summer heat is less intense then. A few blocks away is a high school that covers more than 3/4 of a city block. Buildings are scattered here and there, there are a variety of kinds of sports fields, courts, etc. As soon as it gets dark a huge array of light come on. Several parking lots, All the basketball, tennis and other facilities, and even the open fields, as well as the inside of many buildings, are brightly lit. There are rows of bright lights on poles fronting every buildings and between every row of buildings.

      Quite independent of this, many of the streets I walk are very well lighted by many streetlights.

      There are occasional “public service” message from utilities and agencies urging the citizenry to be more energy usage conscious (i.e. use less electricity) and frequent messages from the utilities on how to be more efficient in lighting, heating, and cooling. I strongly suspect that school, which is surely only one example of very many, uses more electricity each night than I use in a month.

    • “I once suggested one way to save money in the educational budget, now a huge portion of the state budget, was to turn off the A/C.”

      So that’s why you’re known locally as “Mr. Popularity”?

  7. “This so-called Year Without a Summer (YWAS) has been widely attributed to the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora and was concurrent with agricultural failures and famines worldwide.”

    Cold is worse than hot. Who woulda thunk.

  8. “…by then the oceans had cooled substantially.” What is “substantially?” You have to realize that it started snowing in New England in July, and the snow stayed on the ground until next Spring. That means temperatures were consistently well below freezing! If the surface of the oceans were to decrease 5 deg F, I doubt that would have much influence either way on interior continental temperatures that were at least 50 deg F lower than usual.

    What I’m saying is that once the dominant effect of the aerosols was removed, oceans with surfaces a little cooler than usual might lead to slightly (i.e. measureable) cooler subsequent years, but it seems unlikely that it would be of much consequence, despite what the models might predict. Those land masses adjacent to upwelling zones probably wouldn’t be any different from usual.

  9. Didn’t Willis E shows in one of his posts that global temps drop BEFORE a major eruption. Like CO2, cause and effect is not always obvious.

    We know from the ice core records that temperatures drop when CO2 is highest, and temperatures rise when CO2 is lowest, and have done so for hundreds of thousands of years. The exact opposite of what is predicted by GHG theory.

  10. So it seems when a volcano goes off, it’s my fault. Sorry, I had no idea. I’ll get right on that.

    • We must pay sacrifices for our carbon sins. The climate priest-class will be more than happy to skim a little off-the-top of those sacrifices to pay for our enlightenment.

  11. “…where it turned into sulfate particles called aerosols.” An anyone enlighten me with just what is meant by “sulfate particles?” Is it sulfuric acid, calcium sulfate, sulfate ions, or what?

    • All three usually (the sulfate ions normally in solution in small water drops). Though sulfuric acid isn’t really a sulfate.

    • Probably won’t know exactly how or what sulfate species form in the stratosphere until the next major tropical eruption presents an opportunity to study it again.

  12. “We discovered that” Uhh no, you guys didn’t discover jack sh!t. Anyone confusing scientific discovery with model results should never receive a grant ever again.

  13. ” In the model runs, this increase in ocean stratification meant that the water that was cooled after the volcanic eruption became trapped at the surface instead of mixing deeper into the ocean, reducing the heat released into the atmosphere.”

    This means that the surface water must be colder, and thus denser, than the deeper layers. Otherwise the heat flow would not decrease. It would be extremely interesting to get an explanation how global warming manages to cancel out gravity.

    By the way the “heat-is-disappearing-into-the-deep-ocean” explanation for the absence of surface warming necessarily implies that stratification is decreasing, not increasing.

    • Amazing isn’t it? The heat hiding in the deep ocean AND increased stratification, the coriolis effect and gravity play second fiddle to the all powerful CO2 molecule.

    • tty,
      Yes, I would expect overturning if the surface was colder. Maybe their models aren’t sophisticated enough to simulate overturning.

    • The historical model simulations revealed that two countervailing processes helped regulate Earth’s temperature after Tambora’s eruption. As aerosols in the stratosphere began blocking some of the Sun’s heat, this cooling was intensified by an increase in the amount of land covered by snow and ice, which reflected heat back to space. At the same time, the oceans served as an important counterbalance. As the surface of the oceans cooled, the colder water sank, allowing warmer water (beneath) to rise and release more heat into the atmosphere.

      By the time the oceans themselves had cooled substantially, the aerosol layer had begun to dissipate, allowing more of the Sun’s heat to again reach Earth’s surface. At that point, the ocean took on the opposite role, keeping the atmosphere cooler, since the oceans take much longer to warm back up than land.

      “In our model runs, we found that Earth actually reached its minimum temperature the following year, when the aerosols were almost gone,” Fasullo said. “It turns out the aerosols did not need to stick around for an entire year to still have a year without a summer in 1816, since by then the oceans had cooled substantially.”

      —The oceans in a changed climate—

      When the scientists studied how the climate in 2085 would respond to a hypothetical eruption that mimicked Mount Tambora’s, they found that Earth would experience a similar increase in land area covered by snow and ice.

      However, the ocean’s ability to moderate the cooling would be diminished substantially in 2085. As a result, the magnitude of Earth’s surface cooling could be as much as 40 percent greater in the future. The scientists caution, however, that the exact magnitude is difficult to quantify, since they had only a relatively small number of simulations of the future eruption.

      The reason for the change has to do with a more stratified ocean. As the climate warms, sea surface temperatures increase. The warmer water at the ocean’s surface is then less able to mix with the colder, denser water below.

      In the model runs, this increase in ocean stratification meant that the water that was cooled after the volcanic eruption became trapped at the surface instead of mixing deeper into the ocean, reducing the heat released into the atmosphere.

      Confusing??
      Tambora event 1815/6 cools ocean surface then the oceans are slowly warmed by the warmer layer beneth the cold surface
      Model Run 2085 cools the surface but can’t be gradually rewarmed by the warmer layer benath the cold surface.
      HEADLINE…”CO2 Stops Cooled Ocen Surface Waters from Mixing with Warmer Layers Below”

      • Such surface cooling would lead to less stratification. And More mixing.
        But hey, this is post-normal science from a group of psuedoscientists being paid with tax dollars.
        It’s climate science, which to say it is junk.

      • Thanks Bryan A. These caught my attention similarly. The CO2 causality claims are getting confusing to epic proportions in my opinion e.g. for the following reason:

        Fresh water is at its densest at +4 °C, which means both warmer and cooler water are lighter and persist on the surface. The effect is powerful enough to explain the observed biannual overturning of dimictic lakes.

        Theoretically, +4 °C is also the likely temperature in the stratified deep ocean layers. The observed 0 – +3 °C is logical taking into account the effect of salinity and pressure of the oceans. If the cooler ocean surface temperature prevents overturning of stratified oceans, as the article seems to claim, then the surface temperature must persist below it.

      • Oceans don’t “overturn” like lakes because salt water does not have a density maximum, it just becomes denser and denser unbtil it freezes.

  14. The alarmists much think and think (imagine the gears spinning in their heads) about how to spin CAGW theory in new ways, leave no stone unturned, my gosh the perversion of weather to try to bring about Marxism faster, shameless.

  15. Quoting from the article: “Cooler sea surface temperatures decrease the amount of water that evaporates into the atmosphere and, therefore, also decrease global average precipitation.”

    Hmmm… wouldn’t that mean: Warmer sea surface temperatures increase the amount of water that evaporates into the atmosphere and, therefore, also increase global average precipitation.

    If you want less droughts, make it warmer!

    • And then there is the whole deal that if there is less precipitation than the aerosols stay airborne longer since they don’t rain out as acid rain which makes the ocean surface even cooler which prolongs the persistence times, ad infinitum. I never like self-licking ice cream cones – I want the ice cream for myself!

  16. As the climate warms, sea surface temperatures increase. The warmer water at the ocean’s surface is then less able to mix with the colder, denser water below.

    In the model runs, this increase in ocean stratification meant that the water that was cooled after the volcanic eruption became trapped at the surface instead of mixing deeper into the ocean, reducing the heat released into the atmosphere.

    Let me get this straight:
    So warmer water is less able to counteract volcanic cooling.
    Therefor:
    Cooler water is more able to counteract volcanic cooling.
    Got it!

    That is scary, as appropriate for today.
    Today is one of two days of the year when:
    Correlation Proves Causation.
    All kinds of scary things are possible.
    (Bonus points for the other day of the year this is true.)

  17. The “funny” thing is I think these climate “scientists” used to believe in this baloney. Now it’s just a bunch of cya till they can draw a pension.

    This crap is getting less believable year after year. It hasn’t been scientific for a long time.

  18. They just can’t let go of that whole ‘climate change’ thingy, can they?

    So are they counting on a massive eruption in 2085? Will it be an eruption so violent, gassy and dust-laden that the clouds of ejecta will be dense enough to block out the sun for prolonged periods of time, like maybe – oh, say on year? Are they going to include Pinatubo’s memorable burping session a few years back?

    I’m just trying to understand here, that’s all. I hope someone will be patient enough and kind enough to explain exactly what it is these mopes are trying to say. It appears to me that it’s one or more of the following:

    1 – We can’t really control the climate or the weather or anything else, but we want money.
    2 – We don’t really know what’s going to happen by 2085, but we want money.
    3 – We want money.

    Any help here?

    • Like all of us adults here, none of them (or us) will likely be alive in ’85.

      All of climate pseudoscientists have learned the hard way, not to make climate predictions that can be tested/are testable within the span of their professional careers.

  19. “The increased cooling after a future eruption would also disrupt the water cycle more severely, decreasing the amount of precipitation that falls globally.”

    lol. Claims are getting more outrageous by the day. Not even most global warmers pretend the models can say anything useful about the water cycle. It is probably the biggest single reason why model temperature predictions are so mournfully bad.

  20. Oh noes! Now we’ll be roasted, toasted and grilled, and freeze at the same time! We’re definitely doomed!

      • No me. I’m gonna zip around the galaxy on my 0.95c rocket ship for a few years (my years, your decades), and come back after this climate change lunacy has collapsed. And I’m taking my dog with me.

      • >>
        . . . on my 0.95c rocket ship for a few years.
        <<

        At 0.95c, you’ll get a time dilation of about 3:1 or about 10 years for every 3 years of travel. You might want to up your speed to at least 0.986c and get a factor of about 6:1. Unfortunately, the way things are going, that might not be long enough.

        Jim

      • joelobryan, count me in on that, but get your warp engine built first. Shouldn’t take long.

        I also cook.

  21. So in summary the warmer the world the more volcanic eruptions will cool it. And global warming or whatever it is called this week will disappear. The climate of the earth is self correcting.

    And to think they programmed all that into their models. Did I get that right?

  22. From my “$mart A$$ remarks” file:

    Left-wing Liberal Democrats and the Main Stream media have no sense of numbers, science and reality.
    That’s why they think we can power the world’s economy on wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.

    …and why they think Global Warming/Climate Change affects volcanoes.

  23. From the article: “As the climate warms,”

    What if the climate doesn’t warm? What if it cools like it did from the 1940’s to the 1970’s? Why do you assume the temperature will go up instead of down?

    All these studies are based on a false premise: That CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate. There is no evidence this is the case. In fact, increased CO2 follows warming, it doesn’t cause warming, going by the historical record.

    There is no runaway greenhouse effect in all of Earth’s history, and at times, the CO2 levels were much higher than today, and much higher than humans can increase it today, no matter how much fossil fuel they burn.

    This not science, it is pure speculation.

  24. Climate change to shorten the horns of unicorns 🦄
    Climate change to lengthen the migration routes of flying pigs 🐖
    Climate change to increase the population of little green men on the moon 🌑

  25. What a profound waste of time, effort, and taxpayer monies!
    “Author affiliations include the Dr. Fasullo’s participation in this work, which was supported through NSF Award ID AGS 1243107, NASA Award Number NNH11ZDA001N, and DOE Award ID DE-SC0012711.”

  26. Why does the climate change?
    Fluctuations in:
    the albedo, i.e. more albedo = less heat and cooler, less albedo = more heat and warmer,
    a 92 W/m^2 ToA variation from perihelion to aphelion due to the elliptical orbit,
    a 700 +/- W/m^2 ToA variation from summer to winter due to the tilted axis.
    The W/m^2 contribution of GHGs RGHE “theory” amounts to little more than a rounding error.
    And mankind can neither cause nor cure it.

  27. Really now! We are suppose to believe more climate models? The previous models have performed poorly and this particular climate model is better in its predictive power? I doubt it. More speculation and frankly junk science. They ought to spend more time examining the climate past, so perhaps possibly we might be able to understand the future.

  28. More “stratified” Is another word for El Niño and that myth has already proven to be snake oil.

  29. The only way to get them (Cli-Sci guys) to shut and go away is cut off the gravy train. Cruel, but effective. I think their rockstar status era may be winding down. Looks like we’re seeing the start of winter in the northern hemisphere already.

    Sorry, can’t resist this one:

    Throw another log on the fire
    Fix me up some bacon and some beans
    Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tires
    Wash my sock and sew my old blue jeans
    C’mon, honey-baby!
    Fill my pipe and then go fetch my slippers
    And boil me up another pot of tea
    Then put another log on the fire babe
    And come and tell me why you’re leaving me
    “Put Another Log on the Fire” – Jim Reeves

  30. This needs to go under the title model musings.

    At the surface, however, a future eruption’s peak response in both global mean temperature and rainfall is simulated to be approximately 40% greater than in 1815 (Fig. 7a), though the uncertainty associated with the ensemble spread is also considerable and limits a precise quantitative estimation of the increase.

    Then lots of hand waving about ocean stratification and circulation changes predicted by the model blah blah blah.

    So you get a spike which with no confidence you think might spike faster and spread faster than historically and after 2 years is gone …. that is it doesn’t change anything about climate change.

    When you measure the increased spike from after a volcano publish a paper not before until then it’s a thought bubble. It reminds me of the rather funny Emanuel Derman quote from Models.Behaving.Badly

    “… I began to believe it was possible to apply the methods of physics successfully to economics and finance, perhaps even to build a grand unified theory of securities.”

    One can apply physics models to anything as long as you don’t ask to many questions, and really answers :-)

  31. Climate change make volcano more disruptive
    CC make tornado more horny
    CC make hurricane more slimy
    CC make mollusk more clammy
    CC make electric vehicle more climatey
    CC make ice unpleasantly surprisy
    CC make neighbor nosy
    CC make kids less happy
    CC make cubic centimeter jealous
    CC make fish more apelike

  32. Pinatubo aerosols generated strong El Nino conditions 1815-1816, driving a strong AMO warm pulse, hence the loss of Arctic sea ice 1815-1817. Warmer SST’s globally would not diminish that kind of response.

Comments are closed.