Claim: Climate change will transform cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, study suggests

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Simulated sulfur gas concentration
IMAGE: SIMULATION OF GLOBAL SULFUR GAS CONCENTRATIONS, IN PRESENT-DAY AND HIGH-END WARMING SCENARIOS view more CREDIT: THOMAS AUBRY, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Researchers have shown that human-caused climate change will have important consequences for how volcanic gases interact with the atmosphere.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge and the UK Met Office, say that large-magnitude eruptions will have greater effects as the climate continues to warm. However, the cooling effects of small- and medium-sized eruptions could shrink by as much as 75%. Since these smaller eruptions are far more frequent, further research is needed to determine whether the net effect will be additional warming or cooling.

Where and when a volcano erupts is not something that we can control, but as the atmosphere warms due to climate change, the plumes of ash and gas emitted by large, but infrequent, volcanic eruptions will rise ever higher. Climate change will also accelerate the transport of volcanic material – in the form of small, shiny droplets called volcanic sulfate aerosols – from the tropics to higher latitudes.

For large eruptions, the combined effect of these phenomena will cause the haze created by volcanic aerosols to block more sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface, ultimately amplifying the temporary cooling caused by volcanic eruptions. The results are reported in the journal Nature Communications.

When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, the effects were felt worldwide. The plume from the eruption – the second largest of the 20th century – reached more than 30 kilometres into the sky, forming a layer of global haze. In 1992, this haze caused global temperatures to drop by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius. In comparison, human activities have warmed global temperatures by over 1 degree Celsius since 1850. However, the effect of volcanic aerosols only persists for one or two years, while anthropogenic greenhouse gases will affect the climate for centuries.

“Beyond the data we have from recent eruptions like Pinatubo, we can also see the cooling effect of volcanoes going back two thousand years from the information contained in tree rings,” said Dr Thomas Aubry from Cambridge’s Department of Geography, the paper’s first author. “However, we wanted to look at the question from the opposite angle: how could a warming climate affect the cooling from volcanic eruptions?”

Volcanic plumes rise like hot air balloons: they keep rising to a height where they’re naturally buoyant. The Cambridge study looked at how high in the atmosphere these plumes can rise and be transported globally under different warming scenarios.

The researchers used global climate models combined with volcanic plume models to simulate how the aerosols emitted by volcanic eruptions might be affected by climate change. 

They found that for large eruptions like Mount Pinatubo, which typically occur once or twice per century, climate change will cause the plumes to rise higher and the aerosols to spread faster over the globe, resulting in a cooling effect amplified by 15%. Changes in ocean temperatures are expected to further amplify the cooling, and the melting of ice sheets is also projected to increase volcanic eruptions frequency and size in places such as Iceland.

However, for moderate-sized eruptions such as the 2011 Nabro eruption in Eritrea, which typically occur on a yearly basis, the effect will be reduced by about 75% under a high-end warming scenario. This is because the height of the tropopause – the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere above it – is predicted to increase, making it harder for volcanic plumes to reach the stratosphere. Aerosols from volcanic plumes confined to the troposphere are washed out by precipitation in a matter of weeks, making their climatic impacts relatively minor and much more localised.

“Climate change isn’t something that’s coming – it’s already here, as clearly demonstrated by this week’s IPCC report,” said co-author Dr Anja Schmidt, also from the Department of Geography. “The effects of climate change and some of the feedback loops it can cause are becoming more obvious now. But the climate system is complex: getting a grasp of all these feedback loops is critical to understanding our planet and making accurate climate projections.”

“The new feedback loops between climate and volcanic eruptions that we highlight in this work are currently unaccounted for by IPCC,” said Aubry. “It could shed new light on the evolution of future volcanic influences on climate. Even if volcanoes have a limited influence on climate compared to human greenhouse gas emissions, they are an important part of the system.”

“Due to more frequent and more intense wildfires, as well as other extreme events, the composition of the upper atmosphere is changing in front of our eyes, and so is our understanding of the consequences of these changes,” said Schmidt, who is also affiliated with the Yusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry. “As we continue to emit greenhouse gases, the way that volcanic emissions interact with the atmosphere will continue to change and it is important to quantify these interactions in order to fully understand climate variability.”

The authors hope to bring together more volcanologists and climate scientists to understand not only the mechanics behind volcanic plume rise and aerosol lifecycle, but also how changes in eruption frequency and magnitude, driven by deglaciation and extreme precipitation, will shape the future climatic effects of volcanic eruptions.

The research was funded by the Royal Society, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and the UK Natural Environment Research Council.


JOURNAL

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-021-24943-7

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Climate change modulates the stratospheric volcanic sulfate aerosol lifecycle and radiative forcing from tropical eruptions

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

11-Aug-2021

From EurekAlert!

2.6 10 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
August 14, 2021 2:29 am

A big clue is given under ‘methods of research’.

Although missing from it is a ‘wet thumb in the wind’.

Scissor
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 14, 2021 5:19 am

Really, it seems like they don’t even know if the effect should have a plus sign or minus sign in front of it.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
August 14, 2021 7:40 am

It’s more like they don’t care. They just pick the assumptions that result in the scariest forecasts.

B Clarke
Reply to  MarkW
August 14, 2021 9:03 am

Its called predictive programing Mark, they know volcanos are going to erupt so they program people into believing its because of co2 when the real reasons are buried, notice the link i gave about a large earthquake in haiti check out the South sandwich Islands whats going on there.

Walter Pate
Reply to  B Clarke
August 14, 2021 10:13 am

Keep an eye out for the Clinton’s looting the Haiti relief funds just like last time…

B Clarke
Reply to  Walter Pate
August 14, 2021 10:17 am

2010 200,000 dead and the Clinton’s made a killing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  B Clarke
August 15, 2021 8:29 am

Didn’t Joe Biden’s relatives get in on some of that money?

B Clarke
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 15, 2021 9:48 am

I don’t know Joe ,although I wouldn’t be surprised.

Greg
Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2021 12:21 am

They just pick the assumptions that result in the scariest forecasts.

Exactly. The models do not capture significant changes in the global record such as the early 20th c. warming or the preceding cooling. There are literally hundreds of choices of parameter values which could do a similarly poor job.

They are free to choose the ones which fit the agenda.

whiten
Reply to  Scissor
August 14, 2021 9:44 am

Scissor.

The main impact of volcanic eruptions, is the actual thermal discharge into the atmosphere…
The actual heat.

Even that as far as the observations permit, for the land volcanic activity, does not have a lasting impact, beyond a weather implication at short term.

The rest is just a hypothetical clap trap….
when it comes to aerosols and gases…

cheers

Greg
Reply to  whiten
August 14, 2021 11:36 pm

And that is based on what ? Your personal opinion pulled from the air?

The heat of a volcano is a drop in the ocean. Full marks for your hypothetical clap trap.

Burl Henry
Reply to  whiten
August 16, 2021 12:08 pm

Scissor:

You say that the main impact of volcanic eruptions is the actual thermal discharge into the atmosphere. The actual heat

That is COMPLETE nonsense.

Volcanic sulfate aerosols from VEI4 eruptions COOL the planet, with the maximum cooling, on average, occurring 16 months after the date of the eruption. It is NOT a short-term event, as you suggest.

The cooling from larger eruptions lasts even longer.

After the aerosols have finally settled out, they frequently cause a volcanic-induced El Nino.

Our changing climate is totally driven by changing amounts of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin!!

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
August 16, 2021 12:12 pm

Oops. This reply was meant for Whiten.

Greg
Reply to  Scissor
August 15, 2021 12:07 am

The real problem here is that the whole “study” is based on looking at failed climate models which do already grossly exaggerate volcanic cooling, in order to counter balance exaggerated GHW.

comment image

This gives some more insight in to the number of ways they can rig the models to exaggerate GHE by parameter fudging other forcings.

The modelled forcing from AOD was scaled back from a physically modelled 30W/m2 in 1992 to an arbitrarily chosen 21 W/m2 in 2002.
comment image

This is then pumped up by fudging other positive feedbacks ( water vapour, cloud, etc. ) which at the same time inflate AGW.

We see the 1991 Mt Pinatubo dip is far too strong in the CMIP6 multimodel mean. They are also known to run hot. It is now clear to all involved in the modelling game but they keep pushing the rigged models for the political agenda which ensures their salaries and massive computer resources.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 14, 2021 6:26 am

WAG?

Rod Evans
August 14, 2021 2:29 am

Next!

Richard Page
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 14, 2021 3:49 pm

Next up – “Joe vs. the volcano!”

B Clarke
August 14, 2021 2:30 am

and the melting of ice sheets is also projected to increase volcanic eruptions frequency and size in places such as Iceland.”

So can anyone tell me how the above works?, I failed to see the mechanics in the article.

So I’ll draw yet another comparison with the GSM predictions that cooling of the earth due to in part the sun ,will see a increase in volcanic activity , the article agrees in prediction but not the catalyst,

So yet another addmission to cooling justified by warming .

There getting desperate.

M Courtney
Reply to  B Clarke
August 14, 2021 2:53 am

If you lose a lot of weight from the land you can expect it to rebound upwards. In geologically unstable areas like Iceland any movement of land increases eruptions.
It makes sense.
The strange thing is to believe that more volcanoes caused by AGW are not a negative feedback.

B Clarke
Reply to  M Courtney
August 14, 2021 3:31 am

Thank you M ,that makes sense, something I had forgotten.

B Clarke
Reply to  B Clarke
August 14, 2021 7:42 am

This just happen a reasonably big one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-58215631

Next month there will be a paper blaming it on cc.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
August 14, 2021 7:45 am

While the effect is plausible, the magnitude of the effect is in doubt.
The rebounding of the land after the last glacial phase was caused by ice sheets that covered all of the land and were multiple miles thick.

Now we are talking about glaciers that much more restricted geographically, and with the exception of Antarctica and central Greenland are limited in thickness to a hundred feet or so.

How much change in pressure is there going to be to a magma chamber that is miles deep in rock, when 100 feet of ice melts?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  M Courtney
August 14, 2021 7:57 am

However, it should be noted that there were no eruptions in North America associated with the retreat of the Pleistocene continental ice sheets. The idea is controversial.

Vuk
Reply to  M Courtney
August 14, 2021 9:22 am

There is to much levity at this thread, at least M Courtney is talking science.comment image
On the left is America and and Europe on the right side (tectonic plates divide). As it happens Greenland is on the American side and if most of its ice melts the north-east Atlantic corner of the American plate is going to spring upwards. This is going to cause massive volcanic eruptions in Iceland, in the process creating few more mountains and extinguishing all life on the island. It may spew so much ash and sulphur to give us not a year but a century without a summer. That certainly would be a tipping point to another ice age, which as it happens is overdue anyway.

MarkW
Reply to  Vuk
August 14, 2021 10:03 am

How much will it spring upwards? I really doubt a change in elevation of a few millimeters is going to have that big an effect on future volcanic eruptions.
Is there any evidence that Iceland’s volcanoes became more active when the Earth warmed up out of the last glacial phase?

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Vuk
Reply to  MarkW
August 14, 2021 10:24 am

Yes, massive eruptions, between 11000-5000 BC, nothing like it has occurred since .comment imagecomment image
note: Tambora barely registers on the scale in comparison.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
MarkW
Reply to  Vuk
August 14, 2021 11:35 am

11,000 to 5,000 BC was after the ice had melted and the Earth was well into the Holocene optimum.

Vuk
Reply to  MarkW
August 14, 2021 12:04 pm

Yes, but it took certain amount of time for sufficient post-glacial rebound (still going on 10,000 or more years after the ice melted) for the crust to give way. Tectonics works in tens or hundreds kilo-years if not mega years. As the top graph shows there was not much activity up to 12ky BC, huge increase for the following 5-6ky and sudden drop off 7ky ago, too much coincidence not to be related to the post-glacial isostatic rebound. Any other explanation?

MarkW
Reply to  Vuk
August 14, 2021 2:57 pm

The recovery from the ice age involved changes in temperature in the 10’s of degrees. The current change is only a degree, and it is a recovery from a brief drop in temperature.
If as you say, these forces work over millenia, then the dominant force should be the gradual cooling that has been occurring for the last 7000 years, not the brief brief the tiny recovery that has been occurring for only 150 years.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  B Clarke
August 14, 2021 6:26 am

They’re. Duh.

August 14, 2021 2:44 am

“High-end warming scenarios”?
I haven’t read the paper, but I have a feeling that this must be RCP8.5.
So a gigo paper.

MarkW
Reply to  Hans Erren
August 14, 2021 7:46 am

RCP8.5 isn’t scaring enough people. How long before they develop RCP9.5 or 10.5?

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
August 14, 2021 7:51 am

42.5

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 14, 2021 8:27 am

Clever

Rich T.
August 14, 2021 2:48 am

They always been desperate. The answer to everything is CC. It does everything and NOTHING! Now seeing commercials for joining the 108 companies fighting CC. But nothing we do will stop nature from doing what it must do. Oh can we sacrifice these CC idiots to the volcano Gods?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Rich T.
August 14, 2021 3:40 am

While reading the post and comments I was thinking just that: it seems that there is a single, absolute physical law: “Climate Change”. A very plastic law, which can be “demonstrated” to apply and “drive” everything on earth and heaven and in the rest of the universe.

Someone please tell it to a certain Albert Einstein… certainly he is absent-minded or taking a long nap.

fretslider
August 14, 2021 2:58 am

Not more useless modelling

It’s all they’ve got

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  fretslider
August 14, 2021 10:35 am

Fretslider

Ah yes!

But this latest “study” from Academia and the MET Office takes the borderline impossible Glowbull Warming scaremongering nonsense and multipies all the old wild arsed guesses by another stack of unsubstantiated guesses.

Like “Garbage in ^2” = “Garbage out ^2”.

Well done, those GangGreen kiddies!

Vuk
August 14, 2021 3:04 am

Is there anything climate change can’t do? Makes your blood boil; however on the + side in the northern latitudes it might improve men’s performance. 🙂

aussiecol
Reply to  Vuk
August 14, 2021 4:38 am

What sort of eruption are you talking about Vuk? Are you suggesting this is going to be the next big CC scare? CC affecting men’s potency?? How do you model that one.

Scissor
Reply to  aussiecol
August 14, 2021 5:33 am

Griff reminds me of a fumarole, an opening in the rear of a volcano through which sulfurous gases are expelled.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 14, 2021 3:10 am

Nothing short of sacrificing virgins will do.

H.R.
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 14, 2021 7:26 am

Yah, but… with our modern promiscuous society, virgins are getting hard to find.

We’re d-o-o-o-m-e-d I tell ya. Well, unless we get some greenies who are so set on saving the planet that they will volunteer themselves to save humanity.


Nahhhhhhh…. everybody ELSE is supposed to sacrifice to Save The Planet, not them.

I guess we’re all doomed, then. The party’s at my place till the lights go out.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  H.R.
August 14, 2021 7:32 am

On the plus side: a transed virgin is still a virgin.

rbabcock
August 14, 2021 3:30 am

Looks to me like the volcanologist community is feeling a little left out from all the potential climate change research money and this is an attempt to get into the cash flow, so to speak.

Ron Long
August 14, 2021 3:40 am

“…cooling amplified by 15 %.” So, all this article says is stupid things like the observed 0.5 deg C decline in worldwide temperatures after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption will be 0.575 deg C. But wait, the effect of medium sized eruptions will be “…reduced by 75 %”. They don’t state the cooling effect of these medium sized eruption, so let’s say 0.2 deg C, now reduced to 0.05 deg C, for some time shorter than 2 years. Not only is their thesis questionable, but if their predictions turn out to be correct it doesn’t have any measurable effect whatsoever. More funding to study nothing? Cultural regression writ large.

2hotel9
August 14, 2021 3:45 am

How much of my money was pissed away on this crap? CO2 is going to make lava less hot? Wow, there truly is NOTHING CO2 can’t do, it is a miracle substance! Next up, it will cure my grandmother’s gout, even though she has been dead for 31 years. Oy vey, colleges really are destroying people’s brains.

Tom Halla
August 14, 2021 4:32 am

It’s models I tell you, models all the way down!

Alba
August 14, 2021 4:36 am

On the issue of peer review and the corruption of scientific and medical journals, Unherd has an interesting article. It includes this statement:
The journal’s Shanghai-based editorial office accepted the article within 12 hours. Such alacrity does not suggest the most rigorous peer review process, although one peer reviewer still hailed the “timely commentary” with a suggestion it must be published “right away”.
Science journals have been corrupted by Chinahttps://unherd.com/2021/08/how-china-could-win-the-lab-leak-debate/

Right-Handed Shark
August 14, 2021 4:36 am

Researchers have shown that human-caused climate change will have important consequences for how volcanic gases interact with the atmosphere.”

No, they haven’t.

LdB
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 14, 2021 6:38 am

I think what they have proved is there is no limit to stupidity published under Climate Science ™

H.R.
Reply to  LdB
August 14, 2021 7:34 am

Science is rarely settled, LdB, but you’re right. They nailed down that fact and there is no refuting it.

What; maybe a Nobel for these researchers?
😜

MarkW
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 14, 2021 7:51 am

These guys honestly don’t understand the difference between a model and reality.
They remain convinced that if they see something happening in a model, it’s been proven.

bluecat57
August 14, 2021 4:38 am

They are trying to discredit a volcano? ROFLMAO

Scissor
Reply to  bluecat57
August 14, 2021 5:36 am

Remember that song by Jigsaw, Sky High?

bluecat57
Reply to  Scissor
August 14, 2021 6:07 am

No. Here’s the chorus.
You’ve blown it all sky high
By telling me a lie
Without a reason why
You’ve blown it all sky high

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
August 14, 2021 10:10 am

I don’t know where I’m gonna go when the volcano blows

MarkW
Reply to  bluecat57
August 14, 2021 7:51 am

No, they are trying to cancel volcanoes.

bluecat57
Reply to  MarkW
August 14, 2021 9:11 am

LOL

richard
August 14, 2021 4:54 am

Tucked aways is always the truth- Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

richard
Reply to  richard
August 14, 2021 4:55 am

effect”

Reply to  richard
August 14, 2021 11:49 am

There is still room at the flanks of the 15 micron band richard

C1177916-8562-4B8B-9877-E8ADE1AF4A54.png
richard
Reply to  Hans Erren
August 14, 2021 11:54 am

not even covered so of doubtful significance.

Reply to  richard
August 15, 2021 5:17 am

Well that flank saturation is the direct cause of the logarithmic IR absorption which can be observed in lab experiments.

Tony
August 14, 2021 5:31 am

We are truly living in the most retarded times ever.Where the biggest idiots are given jobs,are utterly terrible at them,and never get fired no matter how ludicrous,wrong and false their claims are.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tony
August 14, 2021 7:54 am

U.S. Department of Homeland Security threatening and terrorizing all American people now: “Opposing COVID-19 measures or believing elections can have fraud now considered domestic terrorism.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 15, 2021 8:43 am

The Democrats need to gin up a reason for a crackdown on the political opposition. That’s what they are working on.

Bruce Cobb
August 14, 2021 5:35 am

“Climate Change” Causes “climate change”!
Film at 11.

Thomas Gasloli
August 14, 2021 6:12 am

Nature Communications is a SciFi magazine.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 14, 2021 7:55 am

Astounding Stories

Rich Davis
August 14, 2021 6:52 am

From YouReekAlot!

Say no more.

August 14, 2021 7:04 am

“In comparison, human activities have warmed global temperatures by over 1 degree Celsius since 1850.”

So nature and natural solar activity has nothing to do with what has occurred since the Little Ice Age ended nor anything that happened before then?

MarkW
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
August 14, 2021 8:06 am

At least half of this warming occurred prior to 1950, which was when the big rise in CO2 started, so its impossible for that part of the increase to have been caused by CO2.

If they insist in this belief that CO2 caused the rise in temperature from 1850 to 1950, then they have proven that CO2 is no longer a threat.

Consider that CO2 levels in 1850 were around 285ppm. By 1950 they had risen to about 310ppm.
So they are claiming that a 25ppm increase in CO2 over 100 years, resulted in a 0.5C increase in temperature.
Since 1950, CO2 levels have risen to around 410ppm. This means that in an increase in CO2 levels of 100ppm over 70 years has also resulted in a 0.5C increase in temperature.

A 25ppm increase in CO2, a 0.5C increase in temperature.
A 100ppm increase in CO2, a 0.5C increase in temperature.
A 400ppm increase in CO2, a 0.5 increase in temperature.

Therefore they have just proven that at worst, the increase in temperature between now and whenever CO2 levels reach 800ppm is 0.5C. Cancel the panic, everyone go home and enjoy your lives.

Reply to  MarkW
August 15, 2021 10:22 am

Mark W. while I like your explanation, it missed my point that the majority of CO2 is created by nature of flora and fauna respiration while living and decaying or burning, and natural occurrences of soil decay, volcanoes, fires, etc. Carbon Dioxide increased after the Holocene Interglacial (HI) began prior to any humans use of fire from anything amounted to anything measurable. The first major (HI) increase of CO2 was the release from glaciers melting and warming water that reached a peak during the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) that throughout the (HI) has not risen warmer than that timeframe, (that Hans Tausen Ice Cap in 1977 at Peary Land, northern Greenland showed no ice from the last glaciation) with many cooling’s and warming’s since then, the existing glaciers are larger now than during the hottest part of the (HI). The Little Ice Age (LIA) added ice to all glaciers and took a lot of the Carbon Dioxide from the Medieval Warming (MW) into the ice and water – over the 550 years the (LIA) lasted between the (MW) and 1850 of the Modern Warming of the 15C mean – that is being released and we have an understanding there is about a 100 year lag time for this from previous times by ice cores. Since we are still not as warm as the (MW) was, the CO2 is still being released from the (LIA) glaciers and waters because there is still polar Ice from the (LIA). That to say “In comparison, human activities have warmed global temperatures by over 1 degree Celsius since 1850.” is BS.

MarkW
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
August 16, 2021 5:59 am

The seas have warmed up only a few hundredths of a degree over the last 100 years. That is not enough to cause much increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. On the other hand, the fossil fuels being burned are more than enough to explain all of that increase.

MarkW
August 14, 2021 7:30 am

Climate change will also accelerate the transport of volcanic material – in the form of small, shiny droplets called volcanic sulfate aerosols – from the tropics to higher latitudes.

Now wait a cotton pickin minute. The speed of the transport between the tropics and the poles is driven by the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. This is basic science and has been known for generations.
According to global warming theory and all the sacred models agree, the poles should warm more than the tropics, they even gave it a name, polar amplification.
Ergo, if this temperature difference decreases, the transport between the tropics and the poles should slow, not increase.

Once again, the so called climate scientists are making whatever assumption they need to make their claims scarier, without actually checking to see if these assumptions make any sense, or are even possible.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Carlo, Monte
August 14, 2021 7:50 am

These people need to be sacked immediately.

DMacKenzie
August 14, 2021 7:53 am

The volcanic cooling hypothesis is only based on a couple of big eruptions. What if those accidentally coincided with some natural temperature downswing ? Then, that cooling is extrapolated to aerosols (oddly comparing high altitude to low altitude SO2) with the result that “anthro-aerosols are saving mankind from even higher global warming”….when it could simply be that the calculations are masking how exaggerated the CO2 feedback really is….these calculations are pretty dependent on which variables the Ph.D. author wants to assume are/aren’t important and can be fudged until you’re sure that what you always wanted the answer to be, is correct.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 14, 2021 8:23 am

From the above “Peer-Reviewed Publication”:

However, the cooling effects of small- and medium-sized eruptions could shrink by as much as 75%. Since these smaller eruptions are far more frequent, further research is needed to determine whether the net effect will be additional warming or cooling.

There is no need—no need at all—for this article nor for the call for “further research”. I, together with most of humanity, was assured years (decades?) ago by top scientists in the field that the issue of climate change was settled.

Richard Page
August 14, 2021 8:34 am

Haha. To paraphrase – “..we don’t know what we’re doing, we don’t know how volcanic emissions behave and we can’t account for any unexpected warming or cooling. However, if we move the goalposts far enough apart, we should be covered for all eventualities..”

Andy Pattullo
August 14, 2021 9:58 am

I saw the word “simulation” and immediately skipped to the clever comments section. The publication likely has little more than brain fungus to offer.

Fraizer
August 14, 2021 12:40 pm

Got to the 4th sentance and said to myself “This is Eureka Alert BS Isn’t it”?

Sho’nough.

Gerald Hanner
August 14, 2021 2:17 pm

I trained in jungle survival on the slopes of Mt. Pinatubo in 1971. At the time we were told that it was an extinct volcano. Not quite, I guess.

I wonder what it was like to stand on the flat land east of Mt. Pinatubo. That is where Clark Air Base is/was.

Nigel in California
August 14, 2021 2:54 pm

“Changes in ocean temperatures are expected to further amplify the cooling, and the melting of ice sheets is also projected to increase volcanic eruptions frequency and size in places such as Iceland.“

Huh?! The ocean amplifies cooling…AND warming at the same time??

Methinks there is a little too much mental gymnastics happening here.

TonyG
August 14, 2021 4:06 pm

METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling

Yeah, that’s not “research”

Giordano Milton
August 15, 2021 6:22 am

It’s pretty easy to spot fake / narrative science. The authors tout what will happen, almost to the exclusion of what did happen. All predictive. Little evidence

Tom Abbott
August 15, 2021 8:05 am

From the article: “When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, the effects were felt worldwide. The plume from the eruption – the second largest of the 20th century – reached more than 30 kilometres into the sky, forming a layer of global haze. In 1992, this haze caused global temperatures to drop by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius. In comparison, human activities have warmed global temperatures by over 1 degree Celsius since 1850.”

Current temperatures are 0.5C warmer than 1850, not 1.0C. And there’s no evidence for determining how much of this warming is caused by humans, and how much by Mother Nature.

And note that the Pinatubo eruption reached 30 kilometers high, which is significant. Most eruptions don’t get that high in the atmosphere, and human-caused SO2 does’t get that high, either.

Tom Abbott
August 15, 2021 8:11 am

From the article: “Aerosols from volcanic plumes confined to the troposphere are washed out by precipitation in a matter of weeks, making their climatic impacts relatively minor and much more localised.”

Yes, keep that in mind when you hear a Human-caused Global Cooling advocate trying to make a case for SO2 global cooling. The “minor impacts” of aerosols in the lower atmosphere apply to volcanic eruptions and to human-caused SO2.

Tom Abbott
August 15, 2021 8:25 am

From the article: ““Climate change isn’t something that’s coming – it’s already here, as clearly demonstrated by this week’s IPCC report,” said co-author Dr Anja Schmidt, also from the Department of Geography. “The effects of climate change and some of the feedback loops it can cause are becoming more obvious now.”

Says you.

Argument by assertion.

The statistics say what you call “becoming more obvious” is just business as usual for Mother Nature.

This is an alarmists seeing what he wants to see, not what is actually there. There is no unprecedented weather. We always seem to be able to find a comparable storm in the past. When will this not be the case? Not yet. The statistics say not yet.

%d bloggers like this: