Stacking Up Volcanoes

 

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See Update at end]

As readers of my posts know, I’ve held for many years that there are a variety of emergent phenomena that regulate the earth’s temperature. See my posts The Thermostat Hypothesis and Emergent Climate Phenomena for an overview of my hypothesis.

One of the predictions derivable from my hypothesis is that the earth should be relatively insensitive to small changes in forcing. According to my hypothesis, if the total energy entering the system changes in such a manner that the global temperatures start to drop, inter alia the system responds through changes in the time and strength of the daily emergence of the tropical cumulus field and the associated thunderstorms. This allows more sunlight to enter the system and decreases the thunderstorm-caused surface heat losses, balancing out the energy lost elsewhere and maintaining the temperature.

In this regard, I got to thinking about the Berkeley Earth Land Temperature dataset. It is the longest observational global temperature dataset, stretching back to 1750. This gives me the opportunity to test my hypothesis against the volcanic eruptions that have occurred since 1750.

Now, the general belief is that volcanic eruptions cool the globe … but me, I don’t believe much of anything until I run the numbers myself. And I’ve run the numbers on the eruptions a number of times. I list my previous posts on the subject in the endnotes. But I’ve never looked at the Berkeley Earth record, so let me do that. Remember, if my hypothesis is correct, the volcanic eruptions should not cause a noticeable drop in the temperature.

Let me start with the Berkeley Earth land temperatures. Here is that dataset, along with a Gaussian average to show the underlying variations.

berkeley earth global land temps plus eruptions.png

Figure 1. Berkeley Earth global average land temperature (gray lines) and 10-month full width at half maximum (FWHM) Gaussian average (black line). Vertical lines show the 24 largest eruptions, those with a Volcanic Eruptive Index (VEI) of 5 or above. Heavy dark lines show the six largest eruptions, those with a VEI of 6 or 7.

Now, to get the average response to an eruption, what we need to do is to “stack” the eruptions. This means that for each eruption, we look at say the three years before and the three years after the eruption. We stack up this data and average it to find out the average change from before the eruptions to after the eruptions. Figure 2 shows that result for the 24 largest eruptions since 1750. I’ve used the Gaussian average shown in Figure 1 to reduce the amount of noise in the data.

Figure 2. Stacked 24 largest eruptions since 1750. The black and yellow line shows the average of all 24 eruptions. All values are 10-month FWHM Gaussian averages.

As you can see, the prediction from my hypothesis is completely verified. On average there is no global temperature response to the 24 largest eruptions.

But wait, I hear you thinking, maybe it’s only the biggest ones that cause such a response. So I looked at the six largest eruptions shown in Figure 1 above, those with a volcanic explosivity index (VEI) of 6 or larger. Figure 3 shows that result.

Figure 3. Stacked 6 largest eruptions since 1750. The black and yellow line shows the average of all 6 eruptions. The blue line shows the only VEI 7 eruption in the group, Tambora in 1815.

Once again, the prediction from my hypothesis is confirmed. Even the largest six eruptions since 1750 do not result in any measurable global cooling.

The largest eruption, the VEI 7 eruption of Tambora in 1815 (blue line) is widely believed to be responsible for something called a “year without a summer” … but there is little sign of that in the Berkeley Earth dataset. It was just as cold thirty months or so before the Tambora eruption as it was after the eruption. I discussed this in a post called Missing the Missing Summer.

Conclusions?

Well, I’d say that this is very strong evidence that the global temperature is not at the mercy of changes in forcing as is generally believed. Volcanic eruptions clearly and measurably reduce the incoming sunlight due to volcanic aerosols both reflecting and absorbing solar energy.

However, this does not cause a corresponding reduction in global average temperature. Instead, the climate system responds to reductions in forcing from eruptions by increasing the amount of energy entering the system, as well as by reducing the heat loss from the surface, in order to stabilize and maintain the surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th century).

UPDATE: People in the comments said no, you’re not looking at the right volcanoes. You need to look at only volcanoes that put significant amounts of sulfates into the atmosphere … well, we are nothing if not a full-service website, so here’s that graph. I got ice core SO2 data from a paper called Variability of sulfate signal in ice core records based on five replicate cores. Here are all of the peaks that they identified since 1750 …

As you can see, even the high-sulfate eruptions don’t affect the global land temperature.


It’s a foggy morning here on the California coast. Two days ago it was blazing hot both here and in the California Central Valley, 108°F (42°C) in Sacramento. When that happens, the hot air rises, drawing the “marine layer” of cool air in off of the Pacific and causing today’s cool foggy weather at our house … the system responds to moderate the changes.

Best of sunshine, fog, weather, and climate to everyone,

w.

NOTE 1: When you comment quote the exact words you are referring to, so we can all understand your precise subject.

NOTE 2: Data Sources. The Berkeley Earth data is here. The volcanic eruption data is from the Smithsonian. Enjoy.

NOTE 3: Some of my previous posts on volcanoes:

Volcanoes: Active, Inactive, and Retroactive 2013-05-22

Anthony put up a post titled “Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors” The paper in question is “Energy budget constraints on climate response” (free registration required), supplementary online information (SOI) here, by Otto et alia, sixteen…

The Eruption Over the IPCC AR5 2013-09-22

In the leaked version of the upcoming United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Chapter 1, we find the following claims regarding volcanoes. The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for some years after volcanic eruptions. Several…

Overshoot and Undershoot 2010-11-29

Today I thought I’d discuss my research into what is put forward as one of the key pieces of evidence that GCMs (global climate models) are able to accurately reproduce the climate. This is the claim that the GCMs are able to reproduce the effects of volcanoes on the climate.…

Eruptions and Ocean Heat Content 2014-04-06

I was out trolling for science the other day at the AGW Observer site. It’s a great place, they list lots and lots of science including the good, the bad, and the ugly, like for example all the references from the UN IPCC AR5. The beauty part is that the…

Prediction is hard, especially of the future. 2010-12-29

[UPDATE]: I have added a discussion of the size of the model error at the end of this post. Over at Judith Curry’s climate blog, the NASA climate scientist Dr. Andrew Lacis has been providing some comments. He was asked: Please provide 5- 10 recent ‘proof points’ which you would…

Volcanoes Erupt Again 2014-02-24

I see that Susan Solomon and her climate police have rounded up the usual suspects, which in this case are volcanic eruptions, in their desperation to explain the so-called “pause” in global warming that’s stretching towards two decades now. Their problem is that for a long while the climate alarmists…

Volcanic Disruptions 2012-03-16

The claim is often made that volcanoes support the theory that forcing rules temperature. The aerosols from the eruptions are injected into the stratosphere. This reflects additional sunlight, and cuts the amount of sunshine that strikes the surface. As a result of this reduction in forcing, the biggest volcanic eruptions…

Dronning Maud Meets the Little Ice Age 2012-04-13

I have to learn to keep my blood pressure down … this new paper, “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks“, hereinafter M2012, has me shaking my head. It has gotten favorable reports in the scientific blogs … I don’t see it at…

New Data, Old Claims About Volcanoes 2012-07-30

Richard Muller and the good folks over at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project have released their temperature analysis back to 1750, and are making their usual unsupportable claims. I don’t mean his risible statements that the temperature changes are due to CO2 because the curves look alike—that joke has…

Volcanic Corroboration 2012-09-10

Back in 2010, I wrote a post called “Prediction is hard, especially of the future“. It turned out to be the first of a series of posts that I ended up writing on the inability of climate models to successfully replicate the effects of volcanoes. It was an investigation occasioned…

Volcanoes and Drought In Asia 2014-08-09

There’s a recent study in AGU Atmospheres entitled “Proxy evidence for China’s monsoon precipitation response to volcanic aerosols over the past seven centuries”, by Zhou et al, paywalled here. The study was highlighted by Anthony here. It makes the claim that volcanic eruptions cause droughts in China. Is this possible?…

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

OK.
But maybe it’s the volcanoes that are under the Gulf stream winds that have an impact?
The volcanoes on the equator will not spread the dust so far.

Felix

For the same SO2 output it is indeed true that high latitude eruptions have a disproportionate effect.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-high-latitude-volcanic-eruptions-global-impact.html

However tropical eruptions can affect the ENSO:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171003111101.htm

ATheoK

Another Felix specious claim, no observations, no proof; all theory and estimates.

From USGS:

Sarychev: “The eruption is considered to have a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 4.”

An lower energy eruption than those graphed by Willis, yet Felix wants people to believe the eruption had impacts.
Impacts that were theorized by the research he links to, not measured.

Tom Halla

I did expect a notable cooling effect, but by that database, there was no clear effect.

Mike the Morlock

You may have a typo I think April 1815 was the date

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Tambora

michael

don k

Thanks. I was wondering about that. The “year without a Summer” was in fact 1816. I remember this because of the curious fact that the last Frost Fair on the frozen Thames was held in 1814. A year before Tambora. Two years before the YWAS. It’s all a bit odd.

Richard from Brooklyn (south)

Just a possible thought about frost fairs. They need a frozen Thames. Once the old old London bridge was demolished in 1831 (the one with shops on it and over 18 piers to support the short low tech spans), the Thames was able to flow faster and this might have reduced the ability to freeze. So temperature may not be the only significant factor.
Climate and its effects are never simple (except for the ulterior motivated).

Felix

Banking the river also has had an effect.

And diversions upstream.

Not to mention rainfall.

D. J. Hawkins

@Richard;
Removing the piers would not make the Thames flow faster. In fact, at the bridge location it would now flow more slowly for a given volumetric flow. If the free area of the river’s cross section at the bridge is reduced by 50% because of the piers, the flow rate through the remaining open area must double. The only way that doesn’t happen is if you accumulate the water some where in a dam or catchment. The effect on ice formation will be most noticeable on the downstream side.

It is possible that the piers could have acted to corral ice flows forming upstream and encouraged ice formation that way, but I’m not sure of that.

Here’s an article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25862141

Excerpt:

It was colder in those days. The frost fairs took place during the Little Ice Age, roughly between 1350-1850.

George Adamson, historical climatologist at King’s College London, says that 1814 was the third coldest January since 1659, when the Central England Temperature records began. The reason was low sun spot activity and the North Atlantic Oscillation sucking in weather from Siberia, he says.

The average temperature for January 1814 was -2.9C. Today the world is gradually warming. The recent cold January of 2010 averaged 1.4C.

But even more important than climate now is the architecture of the Thames. A new London Bridge was built in 1831 with fewer arches, allowing more water from the sea to pass up river unencumbered. Saltier water means a lower freezing point. And the construction of the Embankment later in the 19th Century narrowed the Thames making it flow faster, another factor making freezing less likely.

“I’d be surprised if it froze again to the extent where we’d be able to allow large numbers of people on the Thames,” says Adamson.

Sam C Cogar

With the old, old London bridge having over 18 piers to support its short “low tech” spans over the Thames River, the outflow water from underneath the bridge would have been far more turbulent, thus causing significant “mixing” of the water column, thus retarding or even inhibiting the “freezing” of the surface water for some distance “downstream” from the bridge piers.

ironicman

Its a Gleissberg Minimum.

ATheoK

Willis lists the Tambora eruption as 1815, repeatedly.

MarkW

I’ve read that it is the amount of aerosols entering the stratosphere that makes the biggest difference.
Now the size of the eruption may be related to the amount of aerosols entering the stratosphere, but I doubt it’s a perfect relationship.
Doesn’t the height of the stratosphere increase as you get closer to the equator?
Also, the geology of the individual volcano will influence what it tosses into the air.
There may also be a hemispherical affect, such that northern hemisphere volcanoes impact norther hemisphere temperatures more than southern hemisphere temperatures

ATheoK

“Now the size of the eruption may be related to the amount of aerosols entering the stratosphere, but I doubt it’s a perfect relationship.”

MarkW:
The size and energy of the eruption are paramount. Lower atmosphere sulfate emissions are quickly washed out of the atmosphere.
Powerful eruptions inject sulfates into the middle stratosphere, well above clouds.

e.g. A Pinatubo eruption column description:

“”Eruption columns reached 40 kilometers in altitude and placed a giant umbrella cloud in the middle to lower stratosphere that injected about 17 megatons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), slightly more than twice the amount yielded by the 1982 eruption of El Chichón, Mexico. The SO2 formed sulfate aerosols that produced the largest perturbation to the stratospheric aerosol layer since the eruption of Krakatau [a volcanic island] in 1883,” Diamond said.”

e.g. 2 Tungurahua’s Volcanic eruptions 2006-2008 generated columns that reached heights of a maximum 14,750 meters.

For atmospheric reference:
http://www.team5ge.yolasite.com/resources/cloud_summ_schem.jpg?

It is not all volcanos that is where the mistake is. In order for volcanos to have a climatic effect they have to be major explosive eruptions with tons of SO2.

Those are the ones that have had and will have a climatic impact and correlate to very low prolonged solar minimum periods of time.

Felix

You seem to be missing the two VEI 6 eruptions in Iceland in 1783-84. A “volcanic winter” is blamed on SO2 from Laki and Grímsvötn.

It appears that these are your other instances:

The 1808 ice core event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808/1809_mystery_eruption

Krakatoa, Indonesia, 1883.

Santa Maria, Guatemala, 1902.

Novarupta, AK, 1912.

Pinatubo, PI, 1991.

Clusters of VEI 5s can add large amounts of SO2 to the air in a short time.

Where the eruptions occur also affects their effects on temperature and other weather phenomena.

Felix

I’ve already said that BEST isn’t fit for purpose, but there does seem to be a pronounced cooling around the time of the Icelandic eruptions.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/laki-iceland-1783

It is estimated that 80 Mt of sulfuric acid aerosol was released by the eruption (4 times more than El Chichon and 80 times more than Mount St. Helens).

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/education/gases/pics/gas2.jpg

The climatic effects of the Laki eruption are impressive. In the eastern United States, the winter average temperature was 4.8 degrees C below the 225 year average. The estimate for the temperature decrease of the entire Northern Hemisphere is about 1 degree C. The top graph shows change in acidity in micro equivalents H+ per kg in the Greenland icecap. The bottom graph represents the winter temperature records in the eastern United States. From Sigurdsson (1982).

The Laki eruption illustrates that low energy, large volume, long duration basaltic eruptions can have climatic impacts greater than large volume explosive silica-rich eruptions. The sulfur contents of basaltic magmas are 10-100 times higher than silica-rich magmas (Palais and Sigurdsson, 1989)

philo

Could very well be that this Best dataset is not useful for this. Best is known for using rather complicated homogenization techniques to insert unrecorded data points, adjust “breakpoints” in a record, and other techniques that would very likely affect sudden changes over short periods, such as volcanoes.
They seem to be more interested in modelling(after a fashion) temperature data to make it more useful for global climate models.

InterZonKomizar

Hi Felix. The German annual temperature record I gave a link to before starts in 1760. It shows a greater than 2 degree C drop about 1783. Of course it’s closer and this is a regional effect but it does show in their record.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Felix

Thanks. I agree that unjiggered, raw local to hemispheric readings over a short time period, so that apples might be compared with apples, would be the way to go.

As a PNW wheat rancher, I know that Pinatubo affected us. The Midwest growers were, too.

One last comment which is volcanos definitely impact the climate and the thermostat climatic hypothesis does not exist.

D. J. Hawkins

@Salvatore Del Prete [June 25, 2018 12:48 pm]
Thank you for providing such detailed graphics and database sources in your rebuttal. Oh, wait…

/sarc, just in case.

Ok, Willis.
You are absolutely right in general terms but it is not just a matter of the tropical response above water surfaces as described in your thunderstorm hypothesis.
As I have told you multiple times in multiple threads the only way to keep the gases of the atmosphere suspended off the surface indefinitely is to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium within the atmosphere whatever destabilising influences such as volcanic activity (or changes in greenhouse gases) throw at it.
To maintain hydrostatic equilibrium requires energy and that energy is derived from conduction plus convection and not radiative gases at all.
It is implicit in your rather limited thunderstorm hypothesis that convective changes neutralise radiative imbalances and that is a long accepted basic scientific principle.
Convection is a result of uneven surface heating plus consequent density differentials in the horizontal plane around a sphere lit by a point source of irradiation such as a sun.
The truth is that the only scenario that fits your observations and your thunderstorm hypothesis is that the surface temperature enhancement above the purely radiative S-B expectation is due to conduction and convection and NOT radiative capability within the atmosphere.
Please read this carefully:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/

and explain to me how you think (if that be the case) my proposition is not simply a more comprehensive explanation of your observations than anything else you or anyone else has yet come up with.

Toto

What does Figure 2 look like without the Gaussian averages?

HenryP

You are now not far of agreeing with me that a little bit more CO2 cannot cause any warming?

It is a pretense to use Berkeley Earth or any other surface temperature record before, say, the end of WWI with any level of confidence for anything — no less testing a hypothesis about a self-regulating Earth climate system (which, I think, is correct in many, but not all, ways).
If BEST is to be believed, it is quite possible that the last 100 years of the Little Ice Age was warmer than temperatures since 2000. With that much uncertainty, looking for tiny changes due to volcanic activity in the 18th and 19th Centuries, or even the early 20th Century, is hard to support.

Felix

BEST is not fit for any purpose, but to show how corrupt is “climate science”.

Latitude

“BEST is not fit for any purpose”….sorta like believing the gas mileage on the manf’s sticker

You said ‘tiny changes’. I thin you have proven Willis correct. We are told that volcanoes can create a year without summer, but in fact they can only produce ‘tiny changes’.

Kip Hansen

Jeff ==> I think the Year Without a Summer is an historical fact — at least for Europe. The question is if the historical temperature record for Global Average Surface Temperature is up to verifying the anecdotally valid evidence. I think probably not.

MarkW

Or that a world wide “average” is the right measure to detect what may have only impacted the northern hemisphere.

Felix

Also for North America.

Fit for purpose would be looking at regional temperature records.

Anecdotal records can be 100% accurate and still be statistically insignificant.

David ==> If you’re still following, see my piece

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/22/mcid-minimal-climatically-important-difference/

Even if it doesn’t show at all in the GAST, it may well be a MCID.

Jeff Alberts

Presenting anything as a “global temperature” is not fit for purpose.

Alan Tomalty

Clouds are still king or queen if you like.

Willis you often mention that cloudy nights in deserts are warmer than cloudless nights. How many clouds does a desert ever get if it hardly ever rains? I realize that the air is rarely ever close to being saturated, but does a desert get the same amount of clouds as a non desert?

MarkW

Not raining much and not having many clouds are not the same thing.
It can be cloudy every day, yet never rain, and still be a desert.
Many deserts are dry most of the year yet still have seasonal rains.

Felix

The Atacama Desert, driest place on Earth, is often cloudy, or just off shore, thanks to the cold Humboldt Current.

Where I live is dry, but not a desert. The difference in night time T is notable between cloudless and cloudy nights.

Jeff Alberts

I thought Antarctica was the driest place on earth.

Felix

I think that it snows more often in parts of Antarctica with reporting stations than it rains on the Atacama, but I could be wrong about that. There may well be parts of Antarctica with less precipitation than the Atacama. The continent isn’t well surveyed.

GISS, HadCRU, BEST, etc have to make up “data” for most of it.

As for continents, it’s for sure the driest.

tty

The Atacama is probably the driest place on Earth, even in Central East Antarctica it does snow a little occasionally, while in Atacama it literally never rains.

ripshin

I guess it’s the closest literal thing to splitting hairs, but at least one website lists Antarctica as the driest…
https://www.livescience.com/30627-10-driest-places-on-earth.html

rip

noaaprogrammer

There’s a difference between average annual precipitation and average humidity. I would guess that although the average annual precipitation for Antarctica is more than the Atacama Desert, the average humidity in Antarctica is lower than the Atacama Desert.

Felix

“Driest place” refers to precipitation.

tty

“It can be cloudy every day, yet never rain, and still be a desert.”

A very good description of the Namib desert.

John F. Hultquist

This doesn’t answer your question, but we see a lot of Virga

We are on the east slope of the Cascade Range in central Washington State. We get about 9 inches of precipitation annually; there is less to our south and east.

Felix

I’m wast of you, around Pullman.

Felix

West. Didn’t edit in time.

Sunsettommy

I am at the bottom of the state of Washington.

It is even drier where I am at 7 1/2 inches a year.

Felix

Must be the bottom of the Columbia Basin.

We thank you for all the ice-ground basalt which has blown onto our uplands, making for one of the greatest loess topsoil regions on the planet.

John F. Hultquist

East

DonM

(E)ast?

… didn’t edit correctly?

“Because of atmospheric circulation patterns, eruptions in the tropics can have an effect on the climate in both hemispheres while eruptions at mid or high latitudes only have impact the hemisphere they are within.”

https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate

Javier

The only thing that this study demonstrates is that volcanic sulfate effect on temperature cannot be found in BEST, not that it doesn’t have an effect on temperature. And as Salvatore has pointed above, VEI is not the way to go, as there is no relation between VEI and sulfate.

“While the 1963 Agung (Indonesia) and 1982 El Chichón (Mexico) eruptions, both VEI 5, had measurable climatic impacts, the 1980 Mount St. Helens (Washington, USA) eruption, also VEI 5, did not (Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981; Robock, 1981), because it injected very little sulfur into the stratosphere, and did not create a sulfate aerosol cloud. Without explicit information about sulfate, the VEI is an imperfect proxy for climate effect.”

An imperfect proxy on an imperfect dataset. Difficult to draw any conclusion. And then the effect on temperature of volcanic stratospheric sulfate is a well studied phenomenon, well measured after El Chichón and Pinatubo.

Felix

True, as I note above, Laki in 1783 released massive amounts of SO2 and flood basalt, but relatively little tephra (although still a lot), so it’s rated only a VEI 6, based upon volume of ejecta. It also lasted for six months.

Robert of Texas

I think of your hypothesis as atmospheric buffering…that is as a system it actively buffers against some amount of change, or at least slows it down. It is also quite likely that it can be overcome if too much energy change occurs over a short time, hence things like “The Little Ice Age” can occur.

What is clever about this is it seems “tuned” to a specific range that is good for mankind. Such special behavior would normally raise a red flag, but in the case of humans (and animals and plants), they evolved to the specific range of conditions; the range didn’t change to make humans more comfortable. So again, it makes sense.

Without this climate-control system, it is possible that specie die-offs (extinctions) would be more frequent and severe, and that complex life forms would have trouble getting started. So such a climate control system may be a requirement of finding intelligent life in the universe.

Phil Rae

I think your use of the term “atmospheric buffering” is appropriate and analogous to the term’s meaning in chemistry. Changes that upset the equilibrium are partially compensated by the system components (by dissociation/re-association in the case of chemical buffers) within a specific range. Only when excessive changes occur that exceed the buffering capacity (Milankovic-type orbital changes, etc) does the system move beyond its equilibrium range to establish a new equilibrium as, for example, the onset of an ice age.

Water would seem to be the essential component in this buffering action due to its multiple phase changes across the temperature & pressure ranges where life exists, it’s high specific heat and latent heat capacities and the properties of those individual phases (LWIR absorption, reflectance/albedo, thermal insulation, low density of the vapour phase, etc).

Toto

Berkeley Earth looked at volcanoes too. Compare Figure 1 above with the “similar” graph in their press release archived by the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121021061031/http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-press-release-july-29.pdf
(note25 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer)

The dark line is the result of a model. Note that the cooling for their notated volcanoes is never greater than the yearly temperature variations of the surrounding years, and that there are many other years as cold or colder. Another example of Curve Fitting Is Not Proof.

zazove

Mmm, but both of those graphs show a pretty clear cooling trend. Looks to me like about a 0.3 degree drop in the first and 0.5 in the second.

So I don’t think you can say: “do not result in any measurable global cooling”.

InterZonKomizar

Hi Willis. Very interesting, thanks. It does support your thermostat hypothesis. My question is how does your thermostat hypothesis allow for a little ice age event or a transition to a major stadial?
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Felix

Earth’s climate system is largely self-regulating within each of its states. The glacial intervals are less stable, since less liquid water. They show bigger swings than the interglacials, but similar periodicities.

Glacial D/O cycles have about ten times bigger swings than Bond cycles during interglacials.

ironicman

As the world entered the LIA near the end of the 13th century there were some large volcanic eruptions, but I think we can safely say that had little to do with the cooling.

So we would be looking for some other mechanism, could it have been a Bond Event?

Felix

Most date the LIA from around AD 1400, ie the end of the 14th century.

Those who prefer the end of the 13th century tend to be volcano promoters, like Mann, who don’t want the driver to be the sun.

But volcanic effects are short-lived. You would need a bid one every few years to sustain the LIA from volcanism alone.

The best explanation for the LIA and prior centennial-scale coolings in the Holocene is solar activity. Earth was hit by a series of solar minima from the late Medieval WP to the 19th century, such as we haven’t seen since.

comment image

The depths of the LIA coincided with the Maunder Minimum. Earth has been warming since then. The warming accelerated after the end of the LIA, since we haven’t suffered a minimum since then. The sun has been active during the Current Warm Period, with minor cyclical ups and downs, which explain, for instance, the post-WWI warming, post-WWII cooling and late 20th century warming.

ironicman

Do you give any credence to the story that the LIA was not a Bond Event?

Felix

There really aren’t Bond “events”. There are Bond cycles.

But, yes, IMO all the Holocene centennial-scale fluctuations are the warm and cold phases of Bond cycles, controlled proximally by oceanic oscillations and ultimately by the sun.

InterZonKomizar

Hi IronicMan- The Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder minimums were ‘allowed’ by the Milankovich obliquity falling past 23.5 around 1300, reducing insolation above 65 dgr, and the inactive sun cycles during the Eddy and Bray minimums. So it was not triggered by a Bond event, now should be called a 1500 yr LuniSolar event. The storminess cycle normally starts up at the low and peaks about 7 at the cycle peak 750 yrs later. In 1250 it started early, and peaked at 14, about double, ending early as well.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

InterZonKomizar

Hi IronicMan. You said- As the world entered the LIA near the end of the 13th century …
.
*Here’s some wiki dust … the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850. Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.
.
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.
.
My notes- The Oort minimum was around 1,000 to 1050 ad, some 250 yrs before the ‘main’ Little Ice Age.
.
Wolf min 1260
Sporer min 1380
Maunder min 1615
.
Starting on these dates, we see 90 years of weak Sun output with rapid cooling, followed by 20 to 40 Years of cold with slow warming, then 30 years of more rapid warming typically. The Dalton min of 1790 wasnt as deep or long.
.
You said- So we would be looking for some other mechanism, could it have been a Bond Event?
.
*In Javier’s articles, these occured during the almost coincident Eddy cycle (980 yr) and Bray cycle (2450 yr) minimums. Bond events turn out to follow a 1500 yr LuniSolar cycle, and the Wolf solar minimum starts just before a 1500 yr min, and marks the beginning of increased storminess.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

ironicman

Thanks Sandy, I’ll focus on the Wolf Minimum and the great North Sea Storms.

ironicman

Sandy the Wolf Minimum was from 1280 to 1340.

Could it be related to the 60 year climate cycle?

InterZonKomizar

Hi IronicMan- here is an excerpt from Javier’s article on the 60 Cycle oscillation …

To me this oscillation is not a cycle because prior to 1850 it had a more variable period and it is not well identified in LIA records. Since the origin of this oscillation is unknown, models have a hard time reproducing it and it is all but ignored by the IPCC. It is a big oscillation …
. Link
.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/26/the-60-year-oscillation-revisited/
.
My 2 cents- suppose you have 2 or three million ton pendulums (oceans, land) that are slowly swinging in an arc taking 50 to 70 years to complete. Now off to the side you put a massive wind machine that puts out puffs of air at a 60-year interval. After 20 to 100 Puffs the pendulums will start to be entrained with the puffs of air.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

ironicman

Okay thanks, Hubert Lamb reckoned he saw a 50 year cycle.

Burl Henry

Sandy:

I have always wondered how “weak sun output” can be separated from weakened sun’s rays due to dimming volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions.

Can you explain how this is done?

InterZonKomizar

@Burl said- I have always wondered how “weak sun output” can be separated from weakened sun’s rays due to dimming volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions.
.
Can you explain how this is done?
.
* in the case of weak Sun output, suppose it changed from 1365 watt per meter squared to 1360 watt per meter squared. The earth would slowly start to cool without any change in albedo due to less energy input.
.
In the case of dimming from SO2 in the high stratosphere the albedo would go up, causing some energy to be reflected rather than absorbed, again causing cooling, but not acid rain.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Burl Henry

Sandy:

You say “in the case of dimming from SO2 in the high stratosphere the albedo would go up, causing some energy to be reflected rather than absorbed, again causing cooling, but not acid rain”

“but not acid rain”

This statement implies that reduced solar output causes acid rain, (which is nonsense), and that the difference is that stratospheric SO2 does not.

I need a better explanation as to how to distinguish solar dimming from dimming due to /SO2 pollution.

InterZonKomizar

@Burl said- “but not acid rain” This statement implies that reduced solar output causes acid rain, (which is nonsense),
.
* that was a test to see if you would read my response, heh. Actually I didn’t get back to edit that before the timeout occurred. You’re right. The dimming Sun would not have acid rain whreas the SO2 would have the potential for acid rain.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Burl Henry

Sandy:

O.K., but I am still awaiting an explanation as to how to actually tell them apart

InterZonKomizar

@Burl- as you might expect this separation of causes will be damn difficult. Especially if they are both acting at the same time. You will need to be able to get the top of atmosphere solar insolation plus measure the SO2 globally at the same time. Then you can calculate the cooling due to each effect.
.
That is all I can suggest.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Burl Henry

Sandy:

Thank you.

What you are telling me is that any cooling during the Little Ice Age which is ascribed to changes in solar output cannot be proven, and are undoubtedly simply due to Volcanic SO2 aerosols.

This would also apply to all such claims prior to the modern satellite era.

InterZonKomizar

@Burl said- What you are telling me is that any cooling during the Little Ice Age which is ascribed to changes in solar output cannot be proven, and are undoubtedly simply due to Volcanic SO2 aerosols.
.
.
*Not so fast there Tiger. You are hearing what you want to hear and ignoring all the rest. Simon & Garfunkel use that in a song long ago. This is what I said, “as you might expect this separation of causes will be damn difficult. Especially if they are both acting at the same time. You will need to be able to get the top of atmosphere solar insolation plus measure the SO2 globally at the same time. Then you can calculate the cooling due to each effect.
.
That is all I can suggest.
.
~ ÷ ~ ÷ ~ SO … obviously we cannot go back in time to make the measurements to separate the effects. One thing we are fairly certain of is that volcanic Aerosoles only have an effect for 6 months to 18 months and then dissipate. Therefore the cold spells during the time called little Ice Age were not caused by volcanism. In fact, I believe the cold causes the Volcanism in this way:
.
When an object cools it shrinks. If it is spinning like a ballerina and pulls in its arms it spins faster. So that shrinking and spinning would cause the magma to have marginally more pressure and actively seek a thin spot to pop out as a volcano. QED.
.
.
~ × ~ × ~ And in conclusion …
.
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. Mark Twain
.
.
In 600CE a Zen Master said, “Dont let your ego prevent enlightenment.”
.
.
The progress of canonical science is often held back by torchbearers, until their torch goes out.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Burl Henry

I would refer you to the paper “Abrupt Onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and Sustained by Sea-Ice/Ocean Feedbacks, G. Miller, et al (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 239, issue 2, January 2012.

They show that the cooling effects of the volcanism persist even after the aerosols have settled out. Also, during the Little Ice Age (c. 1250-c.1910) , in addition to the VEI6 and VEI7 eruptions there were at least 17 VEI5 eruptions, and 77 VEI4 eruptions which would have helped to maintain the cooler temperatures

InterZonKomizar

@Burl said- They show that the cooling effects of the volcanism persist even after the aerosols …
.
.
It is the heighth of hubris and arrogance to think humans, in the space of 150 years, can change thermal cycles that are thousands of years long and have existed for millenia. This is true for impulse events like volcano eruptions as well. The thermal mass of the land and oceans is enormous. The temperature of deep, still, parts of the ocean have barely risen one degree in 22,000 years, the last glacial max.
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

Burl Henry

Sandy:

I recently submitted a Guest post to Anthony titled “Atmospheric SO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperatures” which explains the changes to Earth’s temperatures , both historically and since 1850. However, I have never heard from him.

Humans, are indeed modifying Earth’s temperatures, but not because of greenhouse gasses.

Felix

Burt,

The effects of volcanoes don’t last long enough to affect centennial-scale fluctuations like the Medieval WP, the LIA and the Current WP.

The Current WP has had more big volcanic eruptions per unit time than did the LIA, which was more active but with fewer VEI 7s than the MWP.

The important difference is in solar activity.

The MWP ended not c. 1250 but c. 1350, or later. Earth quickly recovered from the AD 1257 and 1280 eruptions.

Big Medieval WP eruptions (800-1350). VEI 5-7:

Dakataua, Papua New Guinea, 800, VEI 6
Ceboruco, Mexico, 930, VEI 6
Chagnbai, China/Korea, ~969, VEI 7
Samalas, Indonesia, 1257, VEI 7
Quilotoa, Ecuador, c. 1280, VEI 6
Tarawera, NZ, ~1310, VEI 5

Big LIA eruptions (1350-1850):

1452-53 Event, New Hebrides, VEI 6-7
Barthabunga, Iceland, VEI 6
Billy Mitchell, Papua New Guinea, 1580, VEI 6
Huayna Putina, Peru, 1600, VEI 6
Kolumbo, Greece, 1650, VEI 6
Long Island, Papua NG, 1660, VEI 6
Laki, Iceland, 1783-84, VEI 6
1808 Event, Various, VEI 6?
Tambora, Indonesia, 1815, VEI 7

Big Current WP eruptions (1850-present):

Krakatoa, Indonesia, 1883, VEI 6
Tarawera, NZ, 1886, VEI 5
Santa Maria, Guatemala, 1902, VEI 6
Novarupta, AK, 1912, VEI 6
St, Helens, WA, 1980, VEI 5
Pinatubo, PI, 1991, VEI 6

MWP: Six per 550 years.
LIA: Nine per 500 years.
CWP: Six per 168 years, so far.

But so far no VEI 7 in the CWP. But two VEI 7s in the MWP.

I didn’t include in the Medieval WP the AD 934-40 VEI 4 Eldgjá eruption (Laki system), Iceland, even though it released an enormous amount of SO2.

Burl Henry

Leaving on vacation. Can’t respond further at this time.

Felix

On this, I must concur.

The volcano hypothesis of the LIA was ginned up by the Team to try to get rid of the LIA as Mann’s bogus “Hockeystick” got rid of the MWP, as per Overpeck’s program.

The LIA, like all prior cool and warm cycles, is totally explained by solar activity. Volcanic-induced cooling during cool periods, such as Tambora during the Dalton Minimum, can naturally be worse than during warming cycles. But as my tabulation above shows, there really is no significant difference between volcanism during warm and cool periods.

Indeed, the MWP, properly defined, suffered more VEI 7s than did the LIA.

ren

The geomagnetic storm causes another increase in Kilauea’s activity.

InterZonKomizar

Hi Willis. With such skeptcism over the BEST record, is it possible to compare your biggest SO2 ejectors start year to the German government temperature record I found from 1760 to 2010 ?
.
Temperaturreihe_Deutschland,_Jahr,_30-10
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

InterZonKomizar

Hi All- the German record i mention above shows five yrs, 1813-1817 are 0.5-1.0 dgC below the average. So the year without summer had some precursor?
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

richard verney

Willis

You argue that volcanoes do not lead to cooling since they do not show up in the thermometer record as cooling events. You adduce evidence supporting that contention.

Your argument might be right, but the equally plausible explanation, for your findings, is that the thermometer temperature record is not fit for scientific purpose, ie., that as a matter of fact volcanoes do lead to cooling, but the thermometer temperature record has been shown incapable of revealing this fact (if indeed it is a fact).

It makes sense that volcanoes would lead to short term cooling (even if the system is self correcting), I suspect (and this is just an opinion because of deficiency of data) that the real position is that the global thermometer data sets are not fit for scientific scrutiny. That is why one cannot detect any trend in them in response to volcanic eruptions.

I have long held the view that the global construct is flogging a dead horse. The Climate Scientists should work with the cream, not with the crud, and they should simply audit all stations and select the 200 most prime stations (least impacted by environmental change) reasonably spread across the main inhabited zone of the Norther Hemisphere, and simply compare each station with itself (with no adjustments whatsoever to station data). There should be no attempt at krigging, infilling, spatial adjustments, homogenisation etc. No statistical games, just simply compare each station individually with itself, and nothing more than that. The stations should be retroffited with the same type of equipment as used in the early 20th century, and readings should be made using the same TOB as used at that station, so RAW data can be directly compared.

We would then truly know whether temperature has truly changed at any place.

As matters stand, we do not know whether the temperature today is any warmer than the 1940s, or for that matter the 1880s. A genuine error spread is so large.

InterZonKomizar

@Richard- this might be what you’re looking for but I don’t know if they still have a budget.
.
.
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
.
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network
.
.
Sandy,
Minister of Future

This is so clear cut I do not even know why I am going to comment but I will.

It is with 100% certainty that large explosive SO2 volcanic eruptions are going to result in a period of time of global cooling following the eruption.

99.9% AGREE.

John Gross

Willis-
There seems a lot of agreement that volcanic sulphates in the atmosphere will reduce sunlight and should reduce global temperature. If the temperature is actually stable then some other variable must be adjusting to compensate. This might be the timing and extent of tropical cloud cover you mention in previous articles.
Is there enough data somewhere to plot cloud cover changes after eruptions?

ATheoK

Excellent analysis, Willis!

Toto

The theory of pet theories is that science works better without egos and emotions. Here are some pet theories. It’s the CO2. It’s the sun. It’s the sunspots. It’s the cosmic rays. It’s the volcanoes. There is nothing wrong with these as ideas of something to investigate. Any or all could be true. Or not. Don’t start believing it until no skeptics can find fault with it.

Because the alternative is that it’s all in your imagination. Coincidence. The weather was cold, the crops were failing. It happens. In those times, they say the people said the gods were angry at them, but they could also blame things on comets and distant volcanoes and witches. In these times, we blame humans, same thing.