The Impact of "Small" Volcanic Eruptions on Earth's Climate 11

[Maui]

These "small" volcanic eruptions are being viewed by some scientists as potentially having a greater influence on earth's climate than was previously believed:

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/01/s...?et_cid=4359172&et_rid=407330416&location=top

Please do not allow the vitriolic verbal pyrotechnics of your fellow contributors overshadow the points that you are attempting to make in your replies.

Maui

 

[woodman88]

So
20 small ones equal one large one
10 large ones equal one huge one
one huge one equals one mini ice age.
Maybe they should study up on pass mini ice ages?

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[cranky108]

"reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures " Sounds like the sun does have more effect than some people would have us believe.

Maybe the cause really is the cutting of trees, and not carbon.

 

[beej67]

I'll say it again..

..everybody's ignoring changes in ground cover, even though they track the same hockey stick with human population that CO2 does.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

I think there might be a little difference, in that trees, or ground cover typically reflect more in the green light, where ash might reflect in a different spectrun. So it is not a one-for-one change.

But what are we doing when we are placing solar power plants in a nice white sandy area?

 

[rconnor]

Maui,

As mentioned in the article, it’s been suggested for a while now (they reference Solomon but there’s also Vernier et al 2011) that we have underestimated the impact of recent volcanic activity but it was interesting to read through the supplemental information on how they separated out ENSO.

The impact on the “pause” is of interest to people. Schmidt et al 2014 and Huber and Knutti 2014 have examined this, amongst other aspects. It would be interesting to see this re-done with the results from this paper. (by the way, here’s a link to the actual paper)

Sounds like the sun does have more effect than some people would have us believe.

Cranky, all climate change is dependent on changes in how much net energy the earth absorbs from the sun. That’s not controversial. It’s a tautology, really.

However, when people say, “the sun is causing the recent change in climate” they really mean, “changes in solar activity are causing the recent change in climate”. Nothing in this paper, nor many others for that matter, supports that assertion. Actually, this paper, and many others for that matter, works against that assertion.

everybody's ignoring changes in ground cover

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

 

[Comcokid]

The climate scientist are still trying to make Earth's climate fit their climate models, rather than the other way around. So, they're beginning to grasp at straws. 'Oops! Our models are fine - we just missed some data.'

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - George Box, perhaps the greatest statistician of the 20th Century.

 

[beej67]

Lol rconnor.

Link 1 is just about the carbon accounting of land cover change, not about the effects land cover change actually has on warming the earth and on changes in the hydrologic cycle.

Link 2 ditto.

Link 3 says changes in land cover have a high impact on local and regional climates, but glosses over their effect on global climate. Then it says that the level of scientific understanding of the changes in global environment due to land cover change is basically zero. I'd agree with that last statement. Been saying it for a while.

Link 4 is a repeat of the generic lunacy that pervades the IPCC, where they claim that forests warm the planet more than crop fields do, based on a pure albedo approach without thinking about what happens to the energy that's absorbed. Hint: forests are a lot cooler than tennis courts but both are green.

Link 5 is actually pretty funny, as it states that one third of the CO2 spike is due to land cover change. Yet land cover is ignored in all the carbon based policy initiatives.

Link 6 was again just about emissions related to land cover change, not about the effect land cover change has directly on the environment.

Link 7 ditto.

At least one link admitted that nobody's studying this seriously.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[moltenmetal]

There's more in a volcanic emission than CO2 that may affect climate, but it's quite clear from the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 data that volcanic eruptions, small or large over the past 60 years, have barely made a blip in the atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements. Their effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration is so small that it is dwarfed by the annual summer/winter CO2 concentration variation caused by the difference in land area with plant cover between the northern and southern hemispheres. Eruptions in the recent past are definitely not responsible for the very clear trend of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

 

[rconnor]

molten,

Yes, there is more to volcanic eruptions than CO2 but I don't think anyone is really saying otherwise. Aerosol emissions are what's important, albeit over the short term. The papers are stating that stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD), previously thought to have no variance outside of major volcanic events, is impacted by smaller eruptions. The papers show that, since 2005, there has been a notable increase in SAOD. This has implications on models as they currently carry the old assumption that SAOD has been unchanged since Pinatubo (1991).

 

[rconnor]

The climate scientist are still trying to make Earth's climate fit their climate models, rather than the other way around.

This is the exact opposite of what is going on here. Scientists, through new observational data and methods, have discovered that the Earth responds to small volcanic eruptions in a different manner than originally thought and the way the current models are setup. This research will help models better match reality, not the other way around, by incorporating the impact of small volcanic eruptions.

 

[beej67]

I would not be surprised to learn that the largest impact volcanic activity has on the climate is not direct SAOD at all, but rather in providing cloud condensation nuclei to promote cloud formation in moist air parcels, producing significant changes in albedo.

I would also not be surprised to find out nobody's going to bother to study that angle of it inside the next decade.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Maybe science is like the stock market, in that everyone want to be invested in the winners, and to dump the losers.
When bad news hits the winners, they can become losers.

So what is investigated is what is felt is a winning area/theory. The losers are just plain stupid and worthless.

So Bee you may be right or you may be wrong on how long it takes. I will remain a sceptic because humans are involved.

 

[rconnor]

Beej67,

Firstly, volcanic aerosol cloud seeding is already studied. A simple Google search could have told you that.

Secondly, even if it wasn't studied and your novel idea spurred climate scientists to investigate a whole new arena of knowledge, it would have little impact on our understanding of long-term global climate change as volcanic impacts are episodic.

 

[beej67]

I've seen quite a bit online about anthropogenic cloud seeding as a way to artificially monkey with the climate. (there's money in this) I haven't seen much on the application of it to climate science, because climate scientists really don't like thinking about changes in cloud cover over time. It muddles the answer they're looking for.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Beej67, it's really quite simply - do a Google scholar search and read. The interaction between aerosols and clouds is a heavily researched topic. Your guess is neither novel nor accurate.

You continually make uneducated assumptions on what aspects of climate change are important (land-use change, volcanic albedo and now cloud cover change). You assume that no one has ever thought to study these aspects, which suggest just how little research you've actually done on the matter. You claim the reason why is because they don't want to know the truth. Where possible, you attempt to erroneously conflate "uncertainty" with "my idea is right and the current scientific understanding is wrong".

In reality, numerous studies have been done on those aspects and the results normally directly counter your assumptions. When you are forced to confront the research, you dismiss it, suggest it is purposefully fraudulent without explanation and declare your guess superior without explanation.

 

[Compositepro]

But it is well known that Google Search is programmed to present you with the results that they think you want to see. Two different people doing the same search will see different results. Perhaps that is why so many think that people with differing views are so "blind to the facts".

 

[rconnor]

Ha, that's an interesting thought. However, Google Scholar likely wouldn't be as influenced by your past searches. Furthermore, the issue isn't really that people link to different references to support their views, the issue is they don't use any references to support their views.

 

[cranky108]

With the drop in oil prices I think we will see less money in Fracking and anti-fracking ads. Which is good, but now that there is talk of anti-fracking money coming from Russia (or it did), one questions where else money is coming from, or came from.

I would call money from foreign political positions, artificial bias in our thinking. So what else is artificial?

 

[rconnor]

...ahh...ok...anyways...now back to the land of the relevant.