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

 

[GTTofAK]

Venier et al, 2011

Thanks for proving my point. Look at figure 3. Ulawun, the dobule Ruang and Reventader event neither GOMOS or SAGE II see any significant effect. Time goes on, technology improves, AERONET and CALIPSO are fully deployed and guess what? We now see this effect. There is no reason to think that Ulawun, the dobule Ruang and Reventader event didn’t have this effect as well but we just didn’t see it. Your trend is simply an artifact of ever improving instrumentation and coverage just like the false trend in hurricanes and tornadoes that alarmist tried to claim was real until they were slapped down by more honest people.

These perturbations that we can now see have always been there. They are already built into the model during the tuning.

Fundamentally you have to show that there has been an increase in these small scale volcanic eruptions. Don’t think for one minute that Ridley didn’t try to do this and fail. One of the reasons I’m very good at destroying alarmist papers is because I put myself in a mindset of a person who’s scientific ethics falls one step short of outright fraud. Alarmists have no ethical problems with throwing away adverse results. So when you ask yourself ‘why didn’t they look at X’ the answer almost always is that they did and didn’t like their results.

 

[rconnor]

If SAGE II and GOMOS are trash, then explain why. More importantly, if they are trash but CALIPSO is an improvement, why are they in such good agreement with each other (SAGE II in agreement with GOMOS, GOMOS in agreement with CALIPSO)? Saying that they are trash because they don’t show a notable increase in SAOD during a few volcanic events (despite the fact they do show an increase) is simply not valid evidence. Not every volcano behaves the same way; some have bigger impacts than others (even within the same VEI classification). Furthermore, GOMOS does show a notable increase during Sarychev, so how could the same instrumentation be trash (i.e. unable to detect aerosols properly) in 2002 but be just fine in 2006?

Don’t think for one minute that Ridley didn’t try to do this and fail. One of the reasons I’m very good at destroying alarmist papers is because I put myself in a mindset of a person who’s scientific ethics falls one step short of outright fraud. Alarmists have no ethical problems with throwing away adverse results. So when you ask yourself ‘why didn’t they look at X’ the answer almost always is that they did and didn’t like their results.

You’ve looked at the evidence that counters your assumption and tried to spin-a-tale to support rejecting the data. More egregious, you’ve, in the same breath, accused climate scientists (and, implicitly, the entire climate science community) of academic fraud caused by inferior moral character. You tout yourself as being intellectually and ethically superior to the entire community of climate science professionals. This is not just stupid and incredibly pompous, it’s insulting. You are the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

A problem I have with some skeptics like GTTofAk is that they constantly complain about models and the need for observational data. Then when you present observational data they complain about that too. However, when it suites their purposes, it’s all the sudden flawless (even if it’s the exact same data set they previously complained about). This isn’t skepticism, this is choosing to reject certain things when they don’t match your ideological preferences and blindly accept them when they do. The exact same thing is done with peer-reviewed literature. This makes any dialogue impossible because with a wave of the hand (and no reputable reason) they dismiss anything that they want and somehow feel validated in doing so (well, in GTTofAK’s case, not just validated but intellectually and ethically superior).

I did honestly mean that I was going to do better to not focus on the individual but rather the idea. However, when GTTofAk carries the attitude that all climate scientists are intellectually and ethically inferior to him and uses this attitude to categorically reject anything that he wants to (without valid reason), it makes any meaningful dialogue impossible. I will not be responding to anymore posts by GTTofAk as responding only serves to worsen the quality of the discussion.

I apologize about going off (again) but I feel it’s necessary. If we actually want a worthwhile discussion, we need to have people come to the table with honesty and mutual respect. I do sincerely hope that other skeptics (rb1957, btrueblood and TGS4 as examples) continue to provide valid, honest skepticism to the discussion.

 

[GTTofAK]

and here comes the dunning-kruger effect complete with that wiki page that fellow alarmist wrote. The last refuge of the beaten alarmist. Only a true sophist would think that a paper that won an Ig Nobel Prize, the scientific equivalent of a razzie award, as some legitimate paper.

So rconnor accuses me of suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, in other words too stupid to know you are stupid, and then accuses be of being so mean. Fortunately I'm not so thin skinned.

First I don’t reject the observational data. I fully accept that there are observed perturbations in aerosols associated with small scale volcanic events. What I reject is the flawed assumption that the difference between older data sets and newer more accurate data amounts to a trend. We have been down the this road before. Alarmist tried to claim that tornadoes were increasing. No we simply had better data. They tried to argue that hurricanes were increasing. No we simply had better data.

Rconnor what is pissing you off is that I’m better at this than you. You spend hours putting this stuff together and I dissect it with such ease that it infuriates you. But there is no need to go off on a personal tirade. I understand your ego is hurt but that is your problem.

 

[rb1957]

personally i think GTT got a little over-enthusiastic, painting climate scientists as the ones to reject "inconvenient" data. I think both sides do it regularly, with or without malice or intention.

personally, i believe that climate is a horribly complicated thing, and when i'm told "the one and only thing that's causing this trend is AGHG" i say "BS". collect all the data you want, i can't believe that there is one single source producing the trend, whatever trend, we see in the world's climate.

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem ... neat, plausible, and wrong."

being a scientific problem, as we collect more data we understand things better, change our thoughts on how things work, and find more complex questions to ask. Rarely (Never?) does any scientific theory stand without being modified in the future, even Newton.

My 2nd issue is that I don't believe that the FFs we burnt yesterday are changing the climate today. As I understand things, AGHGs have been produced in quantity only over the last 50 years; this seems way too close coupled, IMHO.

my 3rd issue with AGHG is that if burning FF is the worse thing we've ever done, why are we still doing it ? why isn't petrol $10/gallon (/liter?) ? and the resulting funds directed towards energy solution that don't create GHG ? because it's politically unacceptable.

and straight to my 4th problem, this is a political problem and solution, not a scientific one.

now, it's a completely different question is my mind, "should we be burning FFs like there's no tomorrow ?". issues of efficiency, conservation.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[2dye4]

""I don't believe that the FFs we burnt yesterday are changing the climate today""

I would say that are trapping some additional heat today.

"" is that if burning FF is the worse thing we've ever done, why are we still doing it ?""

Well it takes public acceptance to voluntarily cut back. And as you can see the debate is ongoing.

"" and straight to my 4th problem, this is a political problem and solution, not a scientific one. ""

Well I would say it's both. There is much scientific work to be done yet.

What we should do is cut luxury consumption of fossil fuels. Nobody seems to want to talk about the elephant in
the room which is entertainment consumption. The USA uses nearly double per capita fossil energy per year as
many other first world nations.

 

[GTTofAK]

"personally i think GTT got a little over-enthusiastic, painting climate scientists as the ones to reject "inconvenient" data. I think both sides do it regularly, with or without malice or intention."

If one of the most famous of not the most famous members of the field removed questionable data from his model only to find that his results were only an artifact of this questionable data and he then proceed to file that run away in a folder on his FTP server called "censored" never to even mention it, publish the model and receive praise and adoration, and when this folder was happened upon by someone trying to replicate his results because well he simply forgot about it instead of his peers criticizing him upon his revelation they instead circle the wagons and defend it what would you think of the field?

Reputations are earned. Climate science's reputation as shady is well earned. That is what happens when politics mixes with science.

 

[GTTofAK]

"If SAGE II and GOMOS are trash, then explain why. More importantly, if they are trash but CALIPSO is an improvement, why are they in such good agreement with each other (SAGE II in agreement with GOMOS, GOMOS in agreement with CALIPSO)?"

Why do you assume that they are independent from each other and AERONET?

 

[btrueblood]

"What we should do is cut luxury consumption of fossil fuels. Nobody seems to want to talk about the elephant in
the room which is entertainment consumption. The USA uses nearly double per capita fossil energy per year as
many other first world nations."

Hm. The line between necessary consumption of fuel and luxury consumption is a pretty murky, grey one - in my opinion at least. Maybe that big grey blob is the elephant you speak of.

 

[rb1957]

GTT, I quite get your reposnse referring to, i believe, Mann and the infamous "hockey stick"; prepare for rconnor to rebutt. My point is that every single point raised by both camps is contested bitterly (irrationally?) by the opposite camp. Both sides make grand statements, both sides hype and over-hype, both sides slag and over-slag. We've seen some of the dirty laundry in the climate-gate emails. Maybe it's a new reality that people respond too quickly to social media and blog posts.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[GTTofAK]

I know he thinks he can win that argument but I would easily eviscerate him. His fault is he thinks that because its published it has to be true.

 

[rb1957]

I get that you're convinced you're right (just as much as he is), but comments like "easily eviscerate him" just serve to poison the well.

And I don't think he thinks "that because its published it has to be true". The fault with many posts on both sides of the argument (it stopped being a debate a long time back) is just that, and he has correctly pointed out several times when "deniers" made false claims (like the temperature station thing several posts ago). I think he has an inflated sense of respectability for peer reviewed journals, and an equally inflated sense of unrespectability for "alternative media"; I think both forms of media have been abused in the past (and will continue to be abused in the future). Mann's paper stands out as a poster boy for how flawed peer reviewed articles (and authors) can be; equally M&M's article assessing Mann's paper had an awful time getting published in peer reviewed media because IMO it was anti-orthodox. Of course outside peer reviewed media you get unreviewed articles that can mean anything.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[GTTofAK]

I get that you're convinced you're right (just as much as he is), but comments like "easily eviscerate him" just serve to poison the well.

I'm not convinced I'm right but I know I will win. I know the argument he will make. I know that it doesn’t follow first principles so I know it’s easily shot with sound first principles. All sophistic arguments are easily defeated with first principles. This is philosophy. Scientific thought begins sound philosophy. If a scientific argument attempts to veer from sound philosophy it is always easy to falsify. This is why rconnor’s arguments despite all the graphs, citations and paragraphs upon paragraphs can be shot with a few simple philosophical truths. When science based on unsound philosophy no matter how verbose meets sound philosophy no matter how succinct the science undergoes its own big bang.

 

[cranky108]

Good data is good, and bad data is bad, but how do you know the difference? I agree we should be debating the quality of data and those who develop and work with it.
I also think we should be debating the political direction that this is going.

Truthfully, if you feel energy is being wasted by some activity, then boycott it. Vote with your money. Like I have done with the viewing of some films, news and TV shows (or don't watch TV).

No matter which way this is, I still think it is wrong to import plastic, and wood furniture from China. The shipping alone is wasteful.

We do have the power to choose, but the answer seems to be that the population in general wants easy, trashy, and low cost.

So how do we change the perception that wastefulness is a problem, no matter which side you believe?

 

[2dye4]

In science philosophical truths must yield to probabilities. There are no absolutes and it is juvenile to pretend so.

 

[GTTofAK]

I believe you do not understand first principles 2dye4. Let rconnor make his post about how great the hockey stick is and you will see the point.

 

[2dye4]

For the purposes of discussion shouldn't we quantify the basic model of climate we are debating.
To my thinking it is something like this.

Static steady state model WRT carbon dynamics.

Tss = Tsspr + Rnss + K(C - Cnss) + Rp

Tss : The steady state value of the Earths temperature with carbon increment added ( C - Cnss )
Tsspr : The steady state value of the Earths temperature with carbon levels in the preindustrial range.
Rnss : Band limited random process with Gaussian characteristics, sampled when overall temperature values are calculated.
K : THE question around which all this chattering occurs, climate sensitivity.
C : Steady state carbon density in the atmosphere.
Cnss : Steady state carbon density pre industrial.
Rp : A random process with Markov property and a Black Swan type of realization. Unpredictable but rare shocks.

To discuss this rationally we need a math model agreed on so we don't argue over our unconscious probability guesses.

 

[IRstuff]

This equation clearly shows that the discussion has more complexity than even what can be conceptually placed on paper. Both spatial and temporal variations make the equation overly simplistic.

The assumption of Gaussian-ness is problematic, since we know that nature doesn't necessarily have Gaussian behavior. Rogue waves were thought to be mythical and delusional events because they were so far outside of Gaussian probabilities; it wasn't until there were photographic and video proof of "monster waves" that rogue waves were accepted as real and possible.

The whole notion of "steady state" is troubling, in my mind, because the atmosphere is clearly never steady state. El Nino/La Nina behavior spans multiple years.

Much of the arguments boil down to how to even quantify what the atmospheric state looks like, even in a single instant. Where is the "steady state" temperature to be measured and how would we know that we're measuring it?

Most of our every-day problems are trivial by comparison; there may be a dozen or so parameters that are extremely well-behaved, coupled with either true "steady-state" or "shock" events that are either well-defined to begin with or can be assumed to be well-defined. We then move on and do our analysis.

Even in the most complicated problems that my company runs across, which involve 50x50 matrix inversions, we can come up with covariance matrices that have nearly zero controversies. And, we can most certainly either completely agree on the input parameters their equations of state, or we can agree to disagree, and include them into the final equation.

Here, it seems like there is nothing that can be agreed upon.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[rb1957]

"Here, it seems like there is nothing that can be agreed upon." ... i disagree with that !?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

I think both sides [question data/research] regularly, with or without malice or intention.

Yes, that’s true. However, when one side questions the data/research, they publish peer-reviewed papers discussing the matter. When the other side questions the data/research, they make a blog post about it. Now, for those that distrust the entire peer-review process/scientific institution, this difference will matter little to them...but their opinion matters little to me. Especially when one of the more notable cases of "pal-review" involved skeptic papers, not "conformist" papers (i.e. Soon and Baliunas 2003 and Chris de Freitas). However, I don't even care about that because saying "sometimes bad science gets through to publication" (both skeptic and "conformist") is obvious and well-known; peer-review is not perfect. However, to extend this to think, "Therefore, blogs should be considered more reputable than peer-reviewed journals" or "Therefore, peer-review can be dismissed with a wave of the hand" is ridiculous.

personally, i believe that climate is a horribly complicated thing, and when i'm told "the one and only thing that's causing this trend is AGHG" i say "BS"…

While, yes, climate is extremely complicated, most of the complications come from interactions within the climate system (internal variability, feedbacks etc.). The hard question in climate science is determining long-term effects. However, there are actually relatively few external factors that can influence long-term changes in Earth’s energy budget that can lead to long-term, significant changes in global climate (i.e. solar variations, orbital/tilt variations, massive volcanoes, asteroids, large-scale anthropogenic actions). So prescribing attribution is a (relatively) easy question within climate science because (1) there is only a small number of external factors that it could possibly be and (2) the exact manner, the rate and extent these factors influence climate are quite different and therefore discernible from each other.

This distinction is well represented in the science. The IPCC has 95% confidence (“extremely likely”) in AR5 (up from 90% in AR4) that “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” However, the confidence in sensitivity (i.e. the extent of long-term effects) is lower and the range is quite high:
AR4 – “likely” (>66%) range 2 deg C to 4.5 deg C, best estimate “about 3 deg C” and “very unlikely” (<10%) less than 1.5 deg C
AR5 – “likely” (>66%) range 1.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C, no best estimate and “extremely unlikely” (<5%) less than 1 deg C and “very unlikely” (<10%) greater than 6 deg C.
(If you’re interested in discussing climate sensitivity, I’d encourage you to read and post in my thread on it.)

My 2nd issue is that I don't believe that the FFs we burnt yesterday are changing the climate today.

You need to separate fast and slow feedbacks. The carbon we release today that makes its way into the atmosphere, will have a very slight impact on the energy budget of the planet tomorrow. In high enough quantities, these start to have a notable impact – represented by fast feedbacks. Overtime, the initial impacts begin to have secondary, indirect impacts that develop over decades and centuries – represented by slow feedbacks.

The FFs we burnt yesterday are (slightly) changing the climate today. However, the full impact will not be realized for decades or centuries. (You’ve mentioned this before and I came across a great article that described this a while back and thought of showing it to you (but it would have been out-of-the-blue) Now I can’t think of where I read it. If I come across it again, I’ll post it.)

my 3rd issue with AGHG is that if burning FF is the worse thing we've ever done, why are we still doing it ? why isn't petrol $10/gallon (/liter?) ? and the resulting funds directed towards energy solution that don't create GHG ? because it's politically unacceptable.

Well, it’s not the “worst thing we’ve ever done” but the rest of the questions are exactly the same as those the people on my side ask. And your answer is spot on as well.

People don’t like to think long-term. Politicians sure as hell don’t like to think long-term. It’s a bad mix for creating policy that might be hard in the short-term but is beneficial to us in the long-term. Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, it works against the consumption-based capitalist zeitgeist. The capitalist structure requires increasing growth and consumption to sustain itself. Asking people to consume less works against this. So it's not just a political issue but a deep-seated cultural issue - which is why I'm doubtful that we can voluntarily (without regulatory and taxation reform) change our consumption habits (as cranky108 suggests).

and straight to my 4th problem, this is a political problem and solution, not a scientific one.

I’d broadly agree with this. Climate Science is a risk assessment exercise . What are the risks of us not mitigating climate change and what are the costs to do that? Scientists set up the inputs for the risk assessment but it’s up to the people and politicians to determine what actions (if any) are needed.

As you stated in your first problem, the climate is a complicated beast. Establishing an exact value for the temperature in 2100 and the exact dollar value of the related impacts is impossible. The best science can do is create a probability distribution function (PDF) for the sensitivity, both TCR and ECS (and they have - WGI). Scientists and economists then need to examine the potential social, economic and environmental impact based off the PDF of sensitivity (and they have – WGII). Then you need to examine the economic benefits (or lack thereof) doing something to mitigate the damage (and they have – WGIII) (…it’s almost as if there is a method to the IPCC’s madness!). With this information, the people and the politicians need to determine what the “tolerable risk” is and how much mitigation is necessary.

We engineers should understand this very well as many of us do Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (or similar). We pour over the data, calculate the risk and present that to management. Often, however, management looks at the costs to implement the risk avoidance measures and look for ways not to do it. “It’s awfully expensive! Are you sure it’s needed? Look at all this uncertainty in your numbers! The risk could be minimal. The risk is probably minimal. The risk is minimal. We don’t need these risk avoidance measures.”

The issue is that they look at the cost of reducing risk, don’t like it and then actively search for ways to justify not needing it. This is how most skeptics approach climate change science. They are told that reducing the risk requires costly, difficult reductions in CO2 emissions, don’t like that and then combed through the evidence, searching for the slightest fault and then extrapolate that to justify a “do nothing” position. But this is not how you do risk assessment as we engineers should know better. You don’t look at the range of possible outcomes, pick the smallest possible risk (despite it having very low probability), ignore the outcome with the highest probability and conclude the “do nothing option is best”.

 

[2dye4]

IRstuff

So true, and partly my point. Considering the equation brings up a framework to think about the issue.

Several random terms are there and as you pointed out more may be needed.

It needs modification but how about we discuss the terms and their influences and what to add.

Another consideration is whether the Earth has a temperature. If you consider that every particle of mass in the Earth
system has a quantity of heat stored in it at any given instant then It does have a temperature in that sense, but we cannot
measure this, so we make due with spacial undersampling and averaging.

The whole exercise is absolutely a statistical one. We cannot model everything and know the complete state of the planet so in essence
we will have to either act on circumstantial evidence or just wait and see.

Considering the industrial climate and what we know about pre industrial climate what are the probabilities that current CO2
trends will manifest an array of potential effects in 20,40,60,100 years. Say Pr(1) - Pr(10) with event 1 being we won't notice the
change to event 10 being a halving of the world population due to the effects.

I am not very optimistic.