Claim: Global Cooling – Because of Climate Change Driven Wildfires

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Are Climate activists preparing their excuses in advance, for the imminent plunge in global temperatures predicted by Dr. Willie Soon?

Super-outbreaks of fire thunderstorms could change Earth’s climate, Australian and US experts warn

ABC Weather / By Ben Deacon

Fire thunderstorms — which occur in pyrocumulonimbus clouds — not only create their own weather system but may also be powerful enough to actually change the climate, according to scientists from Australia and the United States. 

Key points:

  • Fire thunderstorms during Australia’s Black Summer released as much energy as about 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions
  • Clusters of fire thunderstorms may be powerful enough to change the climate, scientists say
  • Measuring the phenomenon as it occurs in North America and Australia has been used to validate the ‘nuclear winter’ theory

A “super-outbreak” of fire thunderstorms — also known as pyroCb events — during Australia’s Black Summer fires of 2019-20 released the energy of about 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons, according to a study published recently in the journal Nature Climate and Atmospheric Science. 

“The energy released was just vast,” said Rick McRae from the University of New South Wales, a co-author of the paper. 

“It doesn’t matter what units you use, they’re big numbers, far bigger than we’re used to handling.”

Mr McRae and a team of researchers — including scientists from the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington — quantified the scale of the Black Summer pyroCb super-outbreak, concluding the fires injected as much smoke into the stratosphere as a moderately sized volcanic eruption. That smoke remained in the stratosphere for more than a year. 

Is fire now in a climate feedback loop?

Fire thunderstorm super-outbreaks are now emerging as a potential feedback loop in the climate system, according to Mr McRae.

He said climate change could drive an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme fire events that, in turn, could change the climate.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-28/fire-thunderstorms-may-cause-nuclear-winter-scientists-say/100323566

Rick McRae is a former firefighter who is associated with the highfire risk project run by University of New South Wales, home of Ship of Fools professor Chris Turney.

I think this excuse for climate prediction failures is clever – it frames any pause or drop in global temperatures as a temporary reprieve caused by our negligent destruction of the planet, and builds on the long term excuse that the global temperature surge predicted by high sensitivity climate models is being masked by aerosol pollution.

Aerosols have long been a convenient excuse, in my opinion, for why global temperatures have failed to surge. They allow climate scientists to crank up their predictions for CO2 forced warming, so long as they counterbalance the predicted CO2 effect by cranking up the predicted cooling effect of aerosols.

Of course, if global temperatures do plunge, it will be fascinating to see how long they can keep making such excuses with a straight face.

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
129 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 10:11 am

“We have an excuse!”.No matter what happens, heads they win, tails you lose.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 10:39 am

Same as “it cools because it warms” 😀

Tom Halla
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 10:52 am

As with the Texas Valentine’s Day freeze being due to global warming?

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 9:35 pm

Using increasing aerosols from fires as an excuse for cooling opens the door to an inconvenient truth that the removal of aerosols due to clean air acts and cleaner burning technology for cooking and home heating will act to cause an increase in temperatures as has been seen. No CO2 boogie man necessary.
Cleaner skies, greater solar influence, increased warming.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Bryan A
July 29, 2021 12:46 am
Alan the Brit
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 10:35 pm

That is precisely why “they” changed the term Global Warming into Climate Change, so that way it doesn’t matter which way the temperature goes, it’s ALL Climate Change!!! Of course past climate changes were a result of variations in orbital mechanics & Solar output &/or a combination of the two, but this current bout of CC is ONLY due to evil wicked Capitalism being imposed upon the world by the evil wicked USA & what’s left of the democratic free West!!! Globul Warming is a one-way street, Climate Change is a two-way street, perfect for causing anything bad!!! FYI, they’re banging away on the news this morning about all the weather extremes around the world!!! I recall when attending my Institution’s centenary conference in Hong Kong back in January 2008, the talk on many tv channels was all global warming, only one channel showed news reports of the terribly cold winter in China, apparently the worst in 50 years, then within a few days became the worst in 100 years, with all flights cancelled, trains going nowhere, people desperate to get home for the imminent Chinese New Year, all other western channels, absolute zilch!!!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 12:57 pm

Who do they think they are, epidemiologists or economists or sports forecasters or tabloid psychics or something?

My apologies to the psychics, most of whom are simply deluded or mere charlatans who have no real affect on our day to day lives…

Tom Halla
Reply to  Caligula Jones
July 28, 2021 1:10 pm

Oh, calling some of the climastrologists deluded or charlatans seems right to me.

G Mawer
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2021 3:07 pm

“He said climate change could drive an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme fire events that, in turn, could change the climate.
…”
So climate change is going to change the climate!!!

It’s been known for many many years that large fires can and do create their own weather. So fires change weather…..not climate…..well unless a fire lasts for about 30 years maybe/??

Tom Abbott
Reply to  G Mawer
July 29, 2021 7:44 am

“So fires change weather…..not climate…..well unless a fire lasts for about 30 years maybe/??”

Yes, let’s see: The fire burns up all the vegetation and puts a lot of smoke in the air for that season, but the next year there is not as much vegetation growing because of the previous fire the year before, so the amount of smoke put in the atmosphere in the subsequent year would be less. How long would this diminished condition exist? Shouldn’t the big smoke years and small smoke years be averaged?

G Mawer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 29, 2021 9:25 pm

It does not seem to work that way. Here in California near me we have had a number of big fires in the last 3-4 years. The new fires started next to a previous fire and burned areas not burned for many years. Lots of smoke here now!!

Latitude
July 28, 2021 10:20 am

….and since these wildfires are man made…..how does that work?

Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2021 12:26 pm

AGW to AGC equals ACC.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  John Chism
July 29, 2021 8:40 am

How many Olympic swimming pools in 1 Hiroshima?

John Larson
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2021 1:14 pm

ACC stands for Anthropogenic Climate Convulsions (for sara ; )

Sara
Reply to  John Larson
July 28, 2021 7:46 pm

Thanks!!!

Scissor
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2021 2:19 pm

I was going to blame Gwyneth Paltrow candles.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Latitude
July 28, 2021 3:20 pm

Over 80% of the fires in the western USA are the result of something humans do.
A recent fire along I-90 west of the town of Cle Elum was the result of a boat trailer throwing a tire and causing sparks to ignite the grass at the edge.
 https://www.yaktrinews.com/kittitas-county-level-3-evacuations-issues-for-wildfire-burning-along-i-90/
There is an odd diversity of things such as this. It is an interesting list.

Duker
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 28, 2021 11:49 pm

And lightning ? I thought that was that where the 80% came from

Duker
Reply to  Duker
July 28, 2021 11:52 pm

It seems that in fires in areas that are habited are human related

Jay Willis
Reply to  Duker
July 29, 2021 1:39 am

That was covered in Bambi. Clearly lightening was the cause of a major forest fire in that case… or was it the hunter’s bullet, I’m not sure, I’ll have to revisit that evidence.

July 28, 2021 10:21 am

Early tactical retreat… 😀

saveenergy
July 28, 2021 10:22 am

“2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions”

I admire the precision measurement … not about 1,999 or 2,001 … but about 2,000.

BTW
What’s the conversion factors to change that ‘about 2,000’ into the more understandable ‘Olympic size pools filled with London buses’; or should it be expressed as ‘Wadams’ ?

Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 10:27 am

“About” is quite exact, isn’t it ? 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Fraizer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 11:06 am

Well, Yeah. 2000 +/- 2000

John Larson
Reply to  Fraizer
July 28, 2021 12:58 pm

This is Climbit Siants (sounds like science); 2000 +/- 3000

Duane
Reply to  Fraizer
July 28, 2021 6:44 pm

Their point isn’t the number of nuclear bombs equivalence … their whole point is to associate these natural weather phenomena in your mind with really scary and evil nuclear weapons.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 12:42 pm

Well I asked this bloke in the pub and he said it was roughly spot on give or take 😉

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 10:38 pm

More or less!!! 😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 11:05 am

How many bombs in a typical thunderstorm? How about a typical hurricane?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 28, 2021 2:42 pm

I looked it up on a lark. Some idiot had done an estimate. For the ‘average hurricane’ (there is no such thing) an estimated 10000 Hiroshima’s PER SECOND. Google can take you to several versions of this Wonderland if you are so inclined.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 28, 2021 4:53 pm

Thanks for your lark, Rud! I propose a new unit of measurement to go along with the Wadham: The Hirosh/sec., or HShit.

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 29, 2021 3:58 am

I gather that I now boil my kettle with about 0.0235621 of a home serviced give or take a smidge or two. That, of course, being when it is available.
I also gather that these home serviced units are squeaky clean unlike those dreadful Watts which are polluting the planet.

Scissor
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 2:23 pm

In scientific measurement terms, 2000 has only one significant figure, so it’s really not that precise and it covers the range of about 1500 to 2500.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Scissor
July 28, 2021 3:11 pm

it covers the range of about 1500 to 2500

Actually, precisely 1500 to 2499. Unless you are using Banker’s Rounding.

Oddgeir
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 3:56 pm

Do a calculation to translate 2000 Hiroshima bombs into sunshine seconds on the diameter of Earth?

Oddgeir

Jon
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 4:55 pm

What’s that in elephants?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jon
July 29, 2021 3:58 am

African or Asian?

I don’t kn o o o o w!!

(A little Monty Python reference)

Duane
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 6:39 pm

This formulation they use is misleading, intentionally so, obviously. They say “the energy released …” as if this is new energy in the system. It is merely the transference of already absorbed energy from the earth’s surface to the middle atmosphere. No additional energy is released, such as is released from nuclear fission or fusion.

Graemethecat
Reply to  saveenergy
July 29, 2021 1:52 am

The Guardian uses the unit known as “The Size of Wales” for its innumerate readers when discussing land area.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  saveenergy
July 29, 2021 6:42 am

The yield of the Hiroshima bomb isn’t known with great accuracy. It was a one-off item, and no weapon of the same design was ever tested. Estimates in the literature range from 12 kilotons to 16 kilotons – so 14 +/- 2 kilotons, or +/- 14.3%.

Stipulate that it was 16 kt. That’s 6.7E13 J, a very big number, no? Yes. 2,000 of them would release 1.3E17 J, which would, of course, be an even bigger number (2,000 times bigger).

Australia’s land area is 7.7 million km^2, or 7.7E12 m^2. For a (bogus) insolation of 342 W/m^2, assuming 8 hours/day sunlight, Australia would receive 7.6E19 J sunlight per day, or 2.8 E22 J per year. That really, really huge 2,000 Hiroshima bombs of energy released is 0.0046% of the sunlight arriving in Oz each year.

“The energy released was just vast,” said Rick McRae from the University of New South Wales, a co-author of the paper.
 
“It doesn’t matter what units you use, they’re big numbers, far bigger than we’re used to handling.”

If they’re not used to handling the “big” 2,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy, they’d certainly be completely helpless when it comes to the numbers Nature gives us. Which speaks volumes about their competence to even opine about, let alone give accurate predictions regarding, how human activity may affect the climate.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael S. Kelly
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
July 29, 2021 7:51 am

“That really, really huge 2,000 Hiroshima bombs of energy released is 0.0046% of the sunlight arriving in Oz each year.”

What do you know about that.

This is why I come to WUWT: There is always someone here who can put things in perspective. Thanks, Michael.

July 28, 2021 10:23 am

As usual, Willis was right…. 😀
Thunderstorms cool the planet 😀 – confirmed by climate science 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 3:12 pm

Exactly. They’ve finally discovered negative feedbacks!

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2021 10:38 am

“It doesn’t matter what units you use, they’re big numbers, far bigger than we’re used to handling.”
Yeah, it’s like, you know, math is hard and stuff. I can’t count that high.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2021 10:41 am

One, two, many 😀

yirgach
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 11:32 am

One too many!

Last edited 1 month ago by yirgach
Rich Davis
Reply to  yirgach
July 29, 2021 4:03 am

* hic *

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2021 3:16 pm

Climate Scientologists, the Baldricks of mathematics
https://youtu.be/ycjhqN4LTq4
(skip the into of abot 35 seconds)

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2021 10:50 pm

Arts grads…..

PCman999
July 28, 2021 10:51 am

” 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions”
To how many Olympic sized swimming pools, filled with gasoline set alight, would that be equivalent?

Notanacademic
Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2021 12:59 pm

What’s that in candle power and how many light houses is that? I’ll accept nothing less than an exact approximation.

Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2021 3:09 pm

Bring Giga-tons into the equation and remind that lightning happens 3 to 4 times per second worldwide 24/7…..appears to be a constant fireworks display to the ISS.

David Holliday
July 28, 2021 10:52 am

So… that’s a feedback?

Coeur de Lion
July 28, 2021 10:56 am

The imminent global cooling can be attributed to the success of the Paris Agreement and the consequent reduction in global carbon dioxide. Well done everybody!

philincalifornia
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 28, 2021 11:45 am

Exactly, so now drink your taxpayer-funded champagne and F-off and leave us alone you climate crackpots.

Last edited 1 month ago by philincalifornia
JCM
July 28, 2021 11:02 am

Flipping this on its head – could 19th and 20th century fire suppression have had any impact on climate of the recent past? Just thinking out loud…

Richard Page
Reply to  JCM
July 28, 2021 12:20 pm

So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the greenies policy of forest mismanagement actually caused global warming by not allowing all that energy to be released in smaller, more manageable controlled burns? Well it’s a radical idea, for sure.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 4:06 am

Two sides of the same cracked pot, I reckon.

John Larson
July 28, 2021 11:03 am

“Are Climate activists preparing their excuses in advance, for the imminent plunge in global temperatures predicted by Dr. Willie Soon?

Depends on where bears . . deposit stool.

Sara
Reply to  John Larson
July 28, 2021 11:40 am

The bears will deposit it exactly where these people will step in it. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  John Larson
July 28, 2021 12:05 pm

What, bears use stools?
comment image

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 12:21 pm

Sure, what else are they supposed to sit on to eat their porridge?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 4:11 am

Which reminds of an old farside cartoon doctor to patient: “your stool is too hard”

Notanacademic
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 1:09 pm

That one that went into a bar, you know the one with the big paws, he might have sat on one.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 4:57 pm

Mark, you really do need to get a life.

Right-Handed Shark
July 28, 2021 11:13 am

IIRC, the worst Australian fire season on record was 1974-75, when more than 5 times the area burned than in 2019-20. These people probably weren’t around back then, so 2019-20 must be “unprecedented”

Charlie
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 28, 2021 12:30 pm

And in 1976 in the UK we had the best summer ever. Thanks for cooling the planet back then, Australia.

Mr.
Reply to  Charlie
July 28, 2021 3:18 pm

Speaking of great summer weather, check out Cliff Mass blog about Seattle having the best “goldilocks” summer weather so far for July that he can find in the records – sunny, calm, dry, smokeless, low humidity, just perfect.

Yet in the comments section, the perpetually-outraged climate alarmists can’t help carrying on about how there was a few days of heatwave conditions back in June.

This despite the fact that Cliff has already meticulously, scientifically explained how even taking account of 1.1C warming for the NW Pacific region of Nth America since 1950, temps in the June heat-dome event would still have exceeded previous contemporary weather records by 1 – 3C.
So global warming wasn’t the guilty party, it was just weather (again!), and instead natural variation should get 60 years (as a serial offender)

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mr.
July 28, 2021 9:57 pm

Here in calgary we are having the nicest summer in over two decades, about time, except for smoke from bc fires of course.
Finally
Back to the 90’s.

Last edited 1 month ago by Pat from kerbob
Dave Fair
Reply to  Charlie
July 28, 2021 5:00 pm

I was in London that June. Very pleasant temperatures. I laughed when the TV informed us that they had to slow down the trains because of heat-warping of the tracks.

Keith Rowe
July 28, 2021 11:32 am
Mr.
Reply to  Keith Rowe
July 28, 2021 12:00 pm

On so many topics.

ren
July 28, 2021 11:37 am

Apparently due to frosts in southeastern Brazil, arabica coffee prices will increase?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  ren
July 28, 2021 12:32 pm

Yes. Arabica futures for this years Brazil crop are up about 30% after the frost. It matters because Brazil, rather than Columbia, is the biggest arabica producer.

Sara
July 28, 2021 11:38 am

Well, they finally did it. They proved that they are almost as smart as my cat.

I am gobsmacked at their cleverness.

H.R.
Reply to  Sara
July 28, 2021 1:10 pm

I had a pretty smart Manx cat. I have a picture of him reading the Wall Street Journal.

His portfolio never did quite as well as mine. Yeah, he was pretty smart, but like most cats, a bit impulsive and stubborn. Didn’t always know when to cut his losses because he “just knew better.”
😁

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Sara
July 28, 2021 10:52 pm

Nowhere near as smart as my loopy lurcher.

Rob_Dawg
July 28, 2021 11:41 am

Since these fires were caused by lightning I shall [not serious;y] suggest that Earth Mother Gia has decided to invoke homeostasis to restore balance.

Rud Istvan
July 28, 2021 12:25 pm

I was skeptical about ‘pryoCB’ reaching the stratosphere. Ordinarily that takes a VEI 5 or 6; many VEI 4 do not. But FN 1 claims the recent Australian event did reach up to 35 km, so lower stratosphere. And they had some satellite measurements showing fairly low density aerosols not highly dispersed. They also have a graphic showing full washout in about 1 year, with about half washout in about 4 months.

So either we reburn what has already been burned recently (very difficult), or there is no persistent pyroCB cooling effect—unlike tropical thunderstorms.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 28, 2021 12:52 pm

Pyrocumulonimbus clouds (pyroCb) are relatively dry thunderstorms produced by intense wildfires that transport smoke plumes into the upper troposphere. Often these plumes reach into the lower stratosphere, whereupon the smoke can be transported thousands of kilometers from the source region in a matter of days. The documentation of these pyroCb events has increased during the last few years with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. These cases have been documented with near-real-time imagery from different geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites as well as ancillary data (http://pyrocb.ssec.wisc.edu). From these documented cases we investigate different meteorological conditions that may be conducive to a pyroCb event occurring. To better characterize an atmosphere that is more favorable for pryoCb generation, we examine the mid-level water vapor, upper-level divergence, and Haines Index (Peterson et al. 2014). In addition, convective available potential energy (CAPE) is investigated, but is determined to be ineffective for determining if a pyroCb event might occur. We will summarize the documentation of pyroCb events over the last few years, as well as show what meteorological conditions appear to be more conducive to pyroCb events forming.

The Documentation and Investigation of Pyrocumulonimbus Events

Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 2:21 pm

Would it be in earlier times when wildfires were left to burn unchecked that any buildup of fuel loads were less between events, and it has been the more recent intervention in dousing small fires that ultimately leads to increasingly intense fires.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Kalsel3294
July 28, 2021 2:50 pm

Plausible hypothesis, but the data isn’t fully supportive. There were much worse forest fires (burn acreage/year) back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, data since suppressed by USFS to pretend things only started in the 1960’s. Several blogs (RCS—Heller, and previously WUWT) have posted the since disappeared early historical data. There was not a lot of effective forest fire suppression (Smokey Bear stuff) back then.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 29, 2021 12:54 am

It is difficult to make comparisons, the area burnt doesn’t necessarily indicate greater intensity which appears to be a factor conducive to pyroCb events forming. I think that at times we do more damage to the environment but putting fires out rather than letting them burn out naturally, but increasingly we have no choice but to do so to protect the ever increasing presence of lives and assets. The land surface of the planet is covered in an extremely flammable fuel, could there been anywhere that has, or had such coverage that has never ever burnt at some point in time?

Caligula Jones
July 28, 2021 12:59 pm
July 28, 2021 1:05 pm

Probably good News OT, sorry again

Highly potent, stable nanobodies stop Sars-CoV-2
Göttingen researchers have developed mini-antibodies that efficiently block the coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 and its dangerous new variants. These so-called nanobodies bind and neutralize the virus up to 1000 times better than previously developed mini-antibodies. In addition, the scientists optimized their mini-antibodies for stability and resistance to extreme heat. This unique combination makes them promising agents to treat Covid-19. Since nanobodies can be produced at low costs in large quantities, they could meet the global demand for Covid-19 therapeutics. The new nanobodies are currently in preparation for clinical trials.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 29, 2021 4:23 am

That won’t do! Now they’ll need covid-22. Ring up Wuhan will you, Tony?

IanE
July 28, 2021 1:07 pm

No, can’t be true. Surely everyone knows that the science is settled!?

Robert of Texas
July 28, 2021 1:13 pm

I thought they had changed “Global Warming” into “Climate Change” just so they could blame more things on CO2? Cold, hot, wet, dry – it doesn’t matter, it’s all CO2’s fault.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 28, 2021 1:34 pm

Even life is CO2 fault, imagine ! 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
The Swede
July 28, 2021 1:24 pm

temperatures has been dropping for the last 18 months , about 0.6 -0.7 degrees , As La Niña is about to deepen again temps will drop further. Areosols from fire may contribute but La Niña is the primary mover as less Waterwapour enters the atmosphere.

ResourceGuy
July 28, 2021 1:33 pm

Okay but don’t encourage the arsonists in the process of playing more global warming media card tricks.

July 28, 2021 2:12 pm

Doubt it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/#comment-2836262

Based on my research, you are incorrect. Major volcanoes (some VEI5 eruptions like El Chichon 1982 and most VEI6 events like Pinatubo 1991+) cause significant (~0.5C) global cooling – but industrial emission and smaller volcanoes don’t have much impact. Even Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere.

Supporting evidence is in Section 5 of this paper.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

Sara
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 28, 2021 7:55 pm

Just a question, as it has to do with gassy volcanoes: how much influence on the atmosphere does an ongoing eruption like Iceland’s newest member of the Fraternity of Vulcan (Geldingadalir) have on the atmosphere and on the weather? While Ejafjallajokul was more of an ash blaster that shut down air traffic, the volume of gassiness was never brought up, and this bouncing baby burper Geldingadalir is exhaling very viscous magma along with a very high volume of gases and not much ash.
Thanks for any feedback.

Reply to  Sara
July 28, 2021 8:21 pm

Have not studied these – probably little effect on climate – takes a century-scale volcano to impact climate, as stated above.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sara
July 29, 2021 3:14 pm

Hey Sara, is that the Icelandic volcano you’ve been watching via webcam, that has temporarily? run out of magma? I saw a picture today of it, and there’s no magma down in the bottom. I imagine that won’t last long.

Robber
July 28, 2021 2:14 pm

So shouldn’t we bring back bonfire days? Imagine 20 million people all creating bonfires to save the planet.

Sara
Reply to  Robber
July 28, 2021 7:57 pm

We used to have a bonfire and sparklers and firecrackers on the 4th of July. Now, we can’t have any of than fun, because someone’s house might get lit up, even if it’s a half mile away in the middle of a cornfield.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robber
July 29, 2021 3:15 pm

Everyone should get a new wood-burning stove and lots of wood. That will cool the planet off.

Dusty
July 28, 2021 3:05 pm

“… released the energy of about 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons

That smoke remained in the stratosphere for more than a year. ….”

They do like to posit scary numbers for consideration, don’t they.

I’m curious, how much energy, in Hiroshima bomb equivalents, does the sun bombard us with every 24 hours? Hmm, 9×10^21, discounted for albedo, I might add, says one site. So the 2000 HBE is 0.00028% of what Sol blasts us with every day. Say, is teensy-tiny a scientifically accurate term?

Anyway, likewise, how many Hiroshima bombs in energy did Krakatoa hit us with in 1883? Couldn’t find anything on that.

Now that I mentioned it, how much particulate did Krakatoa “inject” into the atmosphere, say, maybe, in Australia Wildfire equivalents? Any guesses? Considering Krakatoa climate changed us for at least 5 years, not the measly one year the “Black Summer” supposedly did, I don’t think the Aussie Wildfire Equivalents would bump Krakatoa as the yardstick. And the Pacific Northwest, being much further north than either Krakatoa or the Aussie wildfires, I suspect any effect on temperature from the particulate haze won’t have any significant effect.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Dusty
July 28, 2021 3:52 pm

Back in 2006, before the infamous “council of 28”..

https://www.theregister.com/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/

the BBC made a docu-drama about the Krakatoa eruption.

In the epilogue of the program (from 1:25:00) the narrator lets slip that the eruption caused a global cooling event that lasted well into the 20th century. (co-incidentally proving that any claims of temperature increases since the late 1800’s started from a low point) It sticks in my memory because I’m pretty sure that was the last time that the BBC told anything resembling the truth about climate.

Last edited 1 month ago by Right-Handed Shark
Dusty
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 28, 2021 4:17 pm

Thanks for that info.

aussiecol
July 28, 2021 3:50 pm

”Claim: Global Cooling – Because of Climate Change Driven Wildfires”
Oh dear, as if we haven’t had wild fires before. And what did the climate do then?? Same as it ever was.

Doug B
July 28, 2021 4:23 pm

Burning carbon causes cooling now? I suppose soot causes cooling too.
Somebody get this info to Uncle Joe at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doug B
July 29, 2021 3:18 pm

Sorry, Joe only follows “the science” that will benefit him the most. Demonizing CO2 is what Biden calls science.

Jon
July 28, 2021 4:56 pm

“It will be fascinating to see how long they can keep making such excuses with a straight face.”
As long as the money keeps coming.

July 28, 2021 5:04 pm

Unfortunately, based on past experience, if global temperatures do drop, the Climate Change Alarmists will just carry on regardless, dreaming up new variations to their theme and new excuses and rationales to explain how their religious belief is immune to any counter-evidence.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 29, 2021 3:22 pm

Michael Mann has already pre-empted this cooling. Mann said some time ago that even if we did experience a few decades of cooling, this would not negate the Human-caused Climate Change hypothesis.

He didn’t explain how that works, but that’s what he said. This is called “covering all the bases”.

tygrus
July 28, 2021 9:26 pm

They love the words/phrases “feedback” and “climate change” but shy away from saying “negative feedback” (ie. naturally tries to return to average) and they fail to quantify the non-linear effect of smoke on climates. The climate models rely on positive feedbacks to multiply/exaggerate the small effect of CO2. While they try to say they are learning more & the science is settled they prove how much they don’t know and how much is uncertain.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  tygrus
July 29, 2021 3:28 pm

“The climate models rely on positive feedbacks to multiply/exaggerate the small effect of CO2.”

That is correct, and they haven’t found any positive feedbacks in all the decades of looking.

They should have saved themselves some time by studying history.

History would tell them there has never been a runaway greenhouse effect, due to a positive feedback caused by CO2, in the history of the Earth. How do we know this? We know this because plants, animals and human beings are alive on this planet and that would not be the case if there was a positive feedback to CO2, which would cause the Earth to get hotter and hotter over time to the point of snuffing out all life.

Art
July 28, 2021 9:31 pm

Well that’s how the climate systems work. They self regulate.

Pat from kerbob
July 28, 2021 9:47 pm

I see an entire new measurement system taking over.

How many “Hiroshima’s” does it take to melt a Wadham of ice”?

RickWill
July 28, 2021 10:36 pm

How can firestorms have any impact when CO2 is the control knob. A massive injection of CO2 during a wildfire would surely contribute to warming!

Mike Dubrasich
July 28, 2021 10:43 pm

This piece reeks with irony. The fires are allegedly caused by warming and release heat causing further warming, plus aerosols which do what now? Make it worse for years, of course. It’s a vicious cycle.

But that’s not all. The fires emit CO2. Forested acres may contain upwards of 500 tons per acre of carbon, a fraction of which is oxidized by the fire, and the remainder is oxidized by decay over the next 20 years. Multiply that by the millions of acres burned each year. In some states and countries more CO2 is emitted by fires than by use of fossil fuels. Which makes it warmer, causing more fires, and on and on. Whoosh, there goes the wildlife, too. Spiraling out of control. Don’t tell the control freaks.

But that’s not all. Many of those forest acres have been claimed by Big Corps as carbon offsets. Their virtue signalling went up in smoke! Don’t tell the Wokies. It’s going to get worse before it gets even worser. Oh the compounded ironies!

Rudi
July 28, 2021 10:53 pm

There we have it. The negative feedback they forgot in their models, or one of them.

Greg
July 29, 2021 1:15 am

How about the reduction in aerosols due to Clean Air Act in 60s and 70s and other enviro legislation was the CAUSE of the late 20th c. warming that got everyone so excited.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Greg
July 29, 2021 1:27 am

Similarly volcanic aerosol forcings have been rigged in climate models.

Lacis et al 1992 estimated 30W/m2 per Dobson unit from basic physics modelling and data from El Chichon.

Hansen et al 2006 reduced it to 20 W/m2 having abandonned any pretence at physics and just resorting to arbitrarily tweaking many poorly constrained parameters to make models give the right answer.

That is the same NASA team with authors playing turns a being lead author.

Reducing the forcing allows them to increase other positive feedbacks ( WV, cloud change ) and maintain the same net result. However, this will also amplify the ( opposing ) effects of GHG and thus produce more dramatic future projections.

This is the interest of abandoning physics and going for parameter tweaking. There are so many poorly constrained parameters that you can make the proverbial elephant climb a tree. There are thousands of alternative parameter sets which all produce a vague resemblance to the climate record. You just pick the one which best suits your agenda and provides the most alarming warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
JohnC
July 29, 2021 1:22 am

Weather in uk blamed on anthropogenic climate change https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57988023

Jak
July 29, 2021 3:19 am

Geoengineeringwatch dot org

Jak
July 29, 2021 3:20 am

No free speech here!

Michael S. Kelly
July 29, 2021 6:05 am

I recall one fire season in Southern California (in the 1990s, IIRC) where the smoke canopy was particularly thick, and had well-defined boundaries. I was driving home to Redlands from JPL in Pasadena, and instead of taking the I-210 to the I-10, I took Foothill Blvd, so that I could make a couple of convenient stops on the way home. It was late summer, and the temperature was in the 90s (F) – that is, until I got to around Azusa or maybe Glendora. That was the western terminus of the smoke canopy. I watched my car’s exterior temperature reading go from somewhere in the 90s to the 60s in a matter of half a mile or so. It stayed there until I exited the canopy around Fontana, or maybe Rialto, when it went up into the upper 90s. The respite was amazing, but highly localized. And it had no lasting effect, as far as I know.

garboard
July 29, 2021 6:51 am

meanwhile in the relatively clean air of the Southern Hemisphere , South America is having record cold and snow right into tropical areas of Brazil , South Africa is having record cold and snow , oz is having snow and cold and the antarctic is unusually cold with record sea ice . the Southern Hemisphere is like a woman over fifty – everybody knows its down there but nobody cares

P Wells
Reply to  garboard
July 29, 2021 7:45 am

I can hardly wait to see how the northern hemisphere will do in the coming winter!

TonyG
July 29, 2021 9:19 am

I can’t find the reference, but I remember reading several years ago a “prediction” that global warming “could” trigger a LIA. They’ve been hedging their bets for quite a while.

Yooper
July 29, 2021 9:49 am

How come no one has mentioned the HUGE fires in Siberia?
Last week we had days of white haze in the UP from the fires in Ontario. There’s a whole lot of burning going on……

D Cage
July 29, 2021 10:38 am

Surely this merely proves that the pre computer tin can style heat retention models that said clean air would actually cause significant apparent warming was right. Engineers claimed that cleaner air would reduce rainfall so the evaporation would reduce, with an apparent increase in temperatures which was not included in climate science models. They were too arrogant to accept input from, as they called us openly at the time, grease monkeys.

July 29, 2021 2:20 pm

Fire Thunderstorms:
Enter stage left another controllable player in the climate alarm puppet show.

tommyboy
July 29, 2021 7:52 pm

If the Hiroshima nuke was three kilotons then 2000X3kT=6,000 kilotons or six megatons.
Compare that to the hundred megaton energy of a hurricane or the 24megaton Mount Saint Helens blast.

July 31, 2021 12:07 pm

In very large part, the severity of many modern fires is a direct result of forest management practices that emphasize limiting and stopping natural fires. Since forest fires put reflective particulate into the air and reduce insolation that implies that these modern practices have in fact increased warming. The natural conclusion from this is that if they let the fires burn it would reduce the global temperature and the severity of future fires. Presto!
They have their crisis precisely backwards. Again!

%d bloggers like this: