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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
michael hart
October 31, 2017 1:06 pm

“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.

Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 1:37 pm

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

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 1:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 2:23 pm

>>
. . . 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

Sara
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 5:07 pm

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

I also cook.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 7:10 pm

No time dilation with warp engines.

October 31, 2017 2:15 pm

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.

TA
October 31, 2017 2:43 pm

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.

October 31, 2017 2:53 pm

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 🌑

AndyG55
October 31, 2017 3:04 pm

Which of the climate trolls do y’all think will come forth to defend this load of utter carp ????

J Mac
Reply to  AndyG55
October 31, 2017 3:13 pm

A reallyskeptical simple simon like ‘Grifter’?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  AndyG55
October 31, 2017 3:16 pm

They probably have other fish to fry.

J Mac
October 31, 2017 3:10 pm

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.”

October 31, 2017 3:17 pm

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.

AJB
October 31, 2017 4:42 pm

What a load of old cobblers. Completely ignores the very obvious effect of 1809/10 eruption of unknown origin per Dai et al 1991.
comment image

http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/publications/Dai_et_al_J_Geophys_Res_1991.pdf

October 31, 2017 4:46 pm

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.

Tim
Reply to  George Taylor
October 31, 2017 5:10 pm

Results of the programmer, by the programmer, for the programmer

Pamela Gray
October 31, 2017 5:00 pm

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

Sara
October 31, 2017 5:14 pm

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

tom0mason
October 31, 2017 7:28 pm

And with a small tweak they can have the climate models whistlin’ Dixie…

Reply to  tom0mason
October 31, 2017 11:53 pm

The models are their own worst enemy. Nearer My God To Thee is more like it

LdB
November 1, 2017 1:52 am

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 🙂

Hocus Locus
November 1, 2017 3:29 pm

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

Yogi Bear
November 2, 2017 8:05 am

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.