Small volcanic eruptions could be slowing global warming

November 18, 2014
The Sarychev Peak Volcano, on Matua Island, erupted on June 12, 2009. New research shows that eruptions of this size may contribute more to the recent lull in global temperature increases than previously thought. Credit: NASA

Small volcanic eruptions might eject more of an atmosphere-cooling gas into Earth's upper atmosphere than previously thought, potentially contributing to the recent slowdown in global warming, according to a new study.

Scientists have long known that volcanoes can cool the atmosphere, mainly by means of that eruptions expel. Droplets of that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can remain for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures. However, previous research had suggested that relatively minor eruptions—those in the lower half of a scale used to rate volcano "explosivity"—do not contribute much to this cooling phenomenon.

Now, new ground-, air- and satellite measurements show that small that occurred between 2000 and 2013 have deflected almost double the amount of solar radiation previously estimated. By knocking incoming solar energy back out into space, sulfuric acid particles from these recent eruptions could be responsible for decreasing by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.09 to 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2000, according to the new study accepted to Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

These new data could help to explain why increases in global temperatures have slowed over the past 15 years, a period dubbed the ' hiatus,' according to the study's authors.

The warmest year on record is 1998. After that, the steep climb in global temperatures observed over the 20th century appeared to level off. Scientists previously suggested that weak solar activity or heat uptake by the oceans could be responsible for this lull in temperature increases, but only recently have they thought minor volcanic eruptions might be a factor.

Climate projections typically don't include the effect of volcanic eruptions, as these events are nearly impossible to predict, according to Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., who was not involved in the study. Only large eruptions on the scale of the cataclysmic 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, which ejected an estimated 20 million metric tons (44 billion pounds) of sulfur, were thought to impact global climate. But according to David Ridley, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and lead author of the new study, classic weren't adding up.

"The prediction of global temperature from the [latest] models indicated continuing strong warming post-2000, when in reality the rate of warming has slowed," said Ridley. That meant to him that a piece of the puzzle was missing, and he found it at the intersection of two atmospheric layers, the stratosphere and the troposphere— the lowest layer of the atmosphere, where all weather takes place. Those layers meet between 10 and 15 kilometers (six to nine miles) above the Earth.

Traditionally, scientists have used satellites to measure sulfuric acid droplets and other fine, suspended particles, or aerosols, that erupting volcanoes spew into the stratosphere. But ordinary water-vapor clouds in the troposphere can foil data collection below 15 km, Ridley said. "The satellite data does a great job of monitoring the particles above 15 km, which is fine in the tropics. However, towards the poles we are missing more and more of the particles residing in the lower stratosphere that can reach down to 10 km."

To get around this, the new study combined observations from ground-, air- and space-based instruments to better observe aerosols in the lower portion of the stratosphere.

Four lidar systems measured laser light bouncing off aerosols to estimate the particles' stratospheric concentrations, while a balloon-borne particle counter and satellite datasets provided cross-checks on the lidar measurements. A global network of ground-based sun-photometers, called AERONET, also detected aerosols by measuring the intensity of sunlight reaching the instruments. Together, these observing systems provided a more complete picture of the total amount of aerosols in the stratosphere, according to the study authors.

Including these new observations in a simple climate model, the researchers found that volcanic eruptions reduced the incoming solar power by -0.19 ± 0.09 watts of sunlight per square meter of the Earth's surface during the 'global warming hiatus', enough to lower by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.09 to 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit). By contrast, other studies have shown that the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption warded off about three to five watts per square meter at its peak, but tapered off to background levels in the years following the eruption. The shading from Pinatubo corresponded to a global temperature drop of 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit).

Robock said the new research provides evidence that there may be more aerosols in the atmosphere than previously thought. "This is part of the story about what has been driving climate change for the past 15 years," he said. "It's the best analysis we've had of the effects of a lot of small volcanic eruptions on climate."

Ridley said he hopes the new data will make their way into climate models and help explain some of the inconsistencies that climate scientists have noted between the models and what is being observed.

Robock cautioned, however, that the ground-based AERONET instruments that the researchers used were developed to measure aerosols in the troposphere, not the stratosphere. To build the best climate models, he said, a more robust monitoring system for stratospheric aerosols will need to be developed.

Explore further: NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming

More information: "Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract

Related Stories

Volcanoes cause climate gas concentrations to vary

May 22, 2013

Trace gases and aerosols are major factors influencing the climate. With the help of highly complex installations, such as MIPAS on board of the ENVISAT satellite, researchers try to better understand the processes in the ...

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

February 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Volcanoes: A friendly force?

April 25, 2014

Some of the most famous and devastating natural disasters in history relate to volcano eruptions. It is estimated that more than 260 000 people have died in the past 300 years from eruptions and their aftermath. But volcanoes ...

Recommended for you

Previously unknown global ecological disaster discovered

June 28, 2016

There have been several mass extinctions in the history of the earth with adverse consequences for the environment. Researchers from the University of Zurich have now uncovered another disaster that took place around 250 ...

Growing Arctic carbon emissions could go unobserved

June 28, 2016

A new NASA-led study has found that in at least part of the Arctic, scientists are not doing as good a job of detecting changes in carbon dioxide during the long, dark winter months as they are at monitoring changes during ...

What did Earth's ancient magnetic field look like?

June 24, 2016

New work from Carnegie's Peter Driscoll suggests Earth's ancient magnetic field was significantly different than the present day field, originating from several poles rather than the familiar two. It is published in Geophysical ...

Study: Rotting trees caused mysterious holes in huge dunes

June 25, 2016

Mysterious holes that forced the closure of a massive dune at an Indiana national park after a 6-year-old boy fell into one and nearly died were caused by sand-covered trees that left cavities behind as they decayed over ...

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Enviro Equipment Blog
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2014
Back in 1991 when there was a huge volcanic eruption in the Philippines and six months later it was like we didn't have a summer that year.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can rely on regularly erupting volcanoes to mitigate man-made climate change. Sigh.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2014
At first they denied that there even was a pause and now they have reason 58 (or 59 I forget ) for the "nonexistant" pause. Climate scientist's biggest fear is not warming but that the public will catch on to the hoax and the grant money will dry up.
KDK
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2014
More like contributing to the global COOLING being cause by Solar Cycle 24 and likely the Milankovitch ice-age cycle as well! Grow up folks! AGW was a fraud from the start, as exposed by Climategate and explained by Agenda 21!
runrig
4 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
At first they denied that there even was a pause and now they have reason 58 (or 59 I forget ) for the "nonexistant" pause. Climate scientist's biggest fear is not warming but that the public will catch on to the hoax and the grant money will dry up.

Any more of that sort of stupidity and I'll have to ignore you MR.
if you care...
I thought you had a tad more insight than that comment would have us believe.
Last chance.
Loosing patience with chronic (as in long-tern and persistent ) deniers on here.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Hi again MR166. :)
At first they denied that there even was a pause and now they have reason 58 (or 59 I forget ) for the "nonexistant" pause. Climate scientist's biggest fear is not warming but that the public will catch on to the hoax and the grant money will dry up.
Mate, you're beginning to sound like a child easily distracted by inconsequential things and forgetting the main point. The trend is warming. Period. Transient transitional natural events will complicate but not stop the longer term warming trend, because the 'cooling' ash will wash out of the skies while the CO2 mostly increases. So when transient colling/buffering events vanish/exhaust, the CO2 is STILL THERE and warming trend continues. Just because we get temporary shortlived episodes of slowed warming, you shouldn't act like a child and believe it's all over! You have to look at the bigger/longer picture and see what the real/persistent problem is (increased CO2) that overwhelms all these 'fluctuations'. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
@ Really-Skippy, how you are Cher. I left off to study for my radio license test and when I get back you were gone for four or three weeks? Are you feeling better now? I passed my test, all three of them, now if you get a license from the Australia FCC-Skippys we can talk in persons both of us.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
@ Really-Skippy, how you are Cher. I left off to study for my radio license test and when I get back you were gone for four or three weeks? Are you feeling better now? I passed my test, all three of them, now if you get a license from the Australia FCC-Skippys we can talk in persons both of us.

Hi, Ira. Was that a license to operate or fix them?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
Hey folks! This Uncle Ira dummy is still 'bot-downvoting' posts based on person not science. How stupid can such trolls be to delude themselves that they have any relevance to science or humanity when they STILL flout all the ethics of science and humanity like that? This Ira dummy and his "schtick" is so tired and worn out, but he still keeps on with it. Just goes to show the minimal intelligence and imagination behind this Ira dummy username, hey! Poor sod. He could be replaced by a trained (or even an untrained!) monkey at any time, and people would immediately see the improvement in both intelligence and imagination! Poor Ira dummy. Poor poor drunken, doped-up, delusional sod. Oh well, the only good thing is that he is a living breathing cautionary tale for those younger readers to stay away from drugs and booze which leads to such obviously desperate self-wanking delusions in concert with gangs of others of his sad trolls ilk. Too too sad.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Runrig I cannot help but point put BS when I see it. According to some internet temperature charts the world temperatures should have increased by at least .3 degrees using the 1980-2000 rate of rise. Now we have 50+ different papers each claiming the + .3 degrees did not happen due to the research presented by that paper.

Now if all 50 papers were correct the temperatures would have fallen by some 15 degrees by now. So obviously most of the papers are BS.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
Hi, Ira. Was that a license to operate or fix them?


It's the hobby license, for ham radio. I can operate them, or fix them or build them from scratch all legal me. You got to have the license to use them, that is what I got. Are you in the U.S.&A.? Or some different place? Here it is the FCC-Skippys that give the licenses if you pass the test. I took my test about 10 or 9 days ago and passed him good, I pass all three of them good so I went from Technician Class, to the General Class, to the Amateur Extra Class all in the same one day. It's complicated to explain on the physorg but if you ask google he will explain better than I can do on just the space here.

Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2014
Oh well, the only good thing is that he is a living breathing cautionary tale for those younger readers to stay away from drugs and booze which leads to such obviously desperate.


Didn't take you long to start with the lying Cher. I do not take drugs. I do not drink very much either, maybe four or three time a year. So do your diligence and quit telling the lies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2014
Poor insensible Uncle Ira.
Oh well, the only good thing is that he is a living breathing cautionary tale for those younger readers to stay away from drugs and booze which leads to such obviously desperate.


Didn't take you long to start with the lying Cher. I do not take drugs. I do not drink very much either, maybe four or three time a year.

There you have it, folks! The only excuse that leaves for poor PROVEN LYING Ira's continued malignant anti-science/humanity-ethics trolling, and being an irrelevant ignorant bot-dick on a science site, is that this Ira nitwit is a NATURAL and/or a soberly knowingly SELF-MADE stupid malignant couyon!

Better for this poor Ira dummy to go along with the excuse of booze & drugs; it at least would leave open the possibility of him stopping being such an Ira dummy asshole when the booze and drugs stopped!

Sounds like he's wilfully self-doomed to irrelevance/malignancy where science/humanity ethics are concerned. Sad.
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
The trend is warming... Just because we get temporary short lived episodes of slowed warming the CO2 is STILL THERE and warming trend continues...


I don't know what kind of reality you live in but here on earth nuclear terrorism is not a bogus threat. Just because we get temporary short lived episodes of no domestic terrorist acts, the threat is STILL THERE. And what does your greenwash activism contribute to this very credible threat? It doesn't help.

Greens never favored an idea of cheap and abundant energy.
http://www.greenp...tFrance/
You might wonder why one may want cheap as dirt energy? Simple: it would give relatively inexpensive and abundant fresh water through desalination. All those deserts in the Middle East can be irrigated! Then, there would be prosperity and less unrest in that stuck in 4th century AD region. A prosperous Middle East would eradicate extremism.
plaasjaapie
1 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
Any excuse for why the warmist creed isn't working, hey? L-/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
First, it was the planet ain't warming because the heat is not only going into the oceans, but it is magically bypassing the upper layer and going lower.
Now it's all these small volcanoes that, well, aren't small.
Soon, the AGW Cult will have their Chicken Littles believing that the sun is radiating more energy than it possibly can.
AGW Cult "science" where magic happens, and the ignorant shall believe.
imido
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Nov 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
Runrig I cannot help but point put BS when I see it. According to some internet temperature charts the world temperatures should have increased by at least .3 degrees using the 1980-2000 rate of rise. Now we have 50+ different papers each claiming the + .3 degrees did not happen due to the research presented by that paper.

Now if all 50 papers were correct the temperatures would have fallen by some 15 degrees by now. So obviously most of the papers are BS.

Like I said, I'm loosing patience.
I've finally realised that some people on here are beyond reach and my quest of "denying ignorance for others" is futile in their case.
Best not to feed the Trolls and then they have to chronically spout their ignorance in a vacuum .... so not much fun for them (well except Shootist).

Unless you show a flicker of recognition once more you will come into that category for me.
The "ignore" button beckons.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
Any excuse for why the warmist creed isn't working, hey? L-/

Ignore button hit
craig james
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2014
The tern "could be slowing" to describe the surface temperature change since 1998 is at best subjective and at worst misleading. Data from NASA, NOAA, and Remote Sensing Systems show that the world's temperatures are 1.08F cooler now than 1998.
The reliability of the GISS land based global temperature system is questionable because of urbanization. In 1979 more accurate satellite temperatures became available. Since 1979 the world's temperature has risen 0.36F according to NASA. The cooling cycle may have begun.
RWT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2014
Ah we're back to the volcanoes ate my global warming excuse again. Perhaps they should consider the empirical evidence disproving their cute little hypothesis, stratospheric temperature.

Volcanic aerosols cool the troposphere by blocking light BUT they WARM THE STRATOSPHERE! What have stratospheric temperatures done during the pause? It has actually decreased, hence, there are likely actually less aerosols in the stratosphere now than in 1998. Chalk this research up as another climate science F-A-I-L.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
Ah we're back to the volcanoes ate my global warming excuse again. Perhaps they should consider the empirical evidence disproving their cute little hypothesis, stratospheric temperature.

Volcanic aerosols cool the troposphere by blocking light BUT they WARM THE STRATOSPHERE! What have stratospheric temperatures done during the pause? It has actually decreased, hence, there are likely actually less aerosols in the stratosphere now than in 1998. Chalk this research up as another climate science F-A-I-L.

And what does AGW say about temps in the Strat?

Err... Cooling my friend.
And thanks for confirming.

Chalk this up as another Denier fail.
FFS
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
nswanberg
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
Cooling towers add to global warming by cleaning the atmosphere of reflective particulates and aerosols. If you have ever had the pleasure of cleaning out a cooling tower you know it is true. Also, FUX News reports that the moon has become more reflective adding more energy to the earth at night and until this theory is dis-proven there can be no acceptance of man made CO2 induced global warming. We should all burn our share of carbon while it is still available.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
"FUX News reports that the moon has become more reflective adding more energy to the earth at night and until this theory is dis-proven there can be no acceptance of man made CO2 induced global warming."

OK, even I think that that is ludicrous.

1 min later............

Oops I did not catch the sarcasm at first glance.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
Runrig I cannot help but point put BS when I see it
@mr
perhaps you should read the following article: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
it describes your intentional ignoring of actual science for the sake of your already preconceived notion of how it "should be" based upon your religious/conspiratorial/whatever background
it even specifically talks about your issues with the current trends (warming vs cooling)
Perhaps you should go back and either learn to read or learn some science
for science, here is a good start: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

@RC
2 of your posts here are TROLLING
reported
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
Cooling towers add to global warming by cleaning the atmosphere of reflective particulates and aerosols. If you have ever had the pleasure of cleaning out a cooling tower you know it is true. Also, FUX News reports that the moon has become more reflective adding more energy to the earth at night and until this theory is dis-proven there can be no acceptance of man made CO2 induced global warming. We should all burn our share of carbon while it is still available.

What ? things get whackier FFS

You really think that the collective strength of the worlds "cooling towers" has any bearing at all on the worlds climate??

AND the sunlight reflected from the Moon onto Earth has caused a rise in global temps ?

http://www.window...edo.html

"The Moon's albedo is 0.07, meaning that only 7% of the energy that gets to it is reflected."

Yes of course - that's the answer.

FFS
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
So Capt. please correct me if I am wrong here. All of the warming trend up until 98 was caused by CO2 and natural trends that can be considered normal baseline occurrences. Whereas the 18 year pause after 98 can only be attributed to anomalies in ocean currents, El Ninos, trade winds, ice melt, ocean oscillations, and last but not least-----volcanic eruptions.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
So Capt. please correct me if I am wrong here. All of the warming trend up until 98 was caused by CO2 and natural trends that can be considered normal baseline occurrences. Whereas the 18 year pause after 98 can only be attributed to anomalies in ocean currents, El Ninos, trade winds, ice melt, ocean oscillations, and last but not least-----volcanic eruptions.

MR:
Natural effects affect the climate overlying an AGW effect - at all times.
There was a warming effect from climate cycles up till '98 (warm ENSO) and a cooling one since then (cool ENSO predominating) - what matters is the mean. Plus consideration of heat entering the oceans, as it must do with a cool ENSO (it takes heat into deeper waters in the W Pacific).

http://blog.chron...ines.gif
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2014
"Natural effects affect the climate overlying an AGW effect"

Ah Mr. Rig therein lies the problem. How do we separate normal climate variances from AGW induced catastrophe with a degree of accuracy that warrants huge disruptions to our economy and ability to afford day to day expenses?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
"Natural effects affect the climate overlying an AGW effect"

Ah Mr. Rig therein lies the problem. How do we separate normal climate variances from AGW induced catastrophe with a degree of accuracy that warrants huge disruptions to our economy and ability to afford day to day expenses?


Look at my linked graph ... that's how.
Not just by looking at it (obviously), but noting that despite the cyclic changes between Nina and Nino ... ave global temps keep rising.
Come down from the Nino line at '98 to the Nina line at graph end on right.
What slope has that line?? .... Precisely.

Is it me or does not that reveal an UNDERLYING climate driver?
Which has to be CO2 (as it's NOT the Sun, geothermal, Orbital, DM or galactic rays ... it's just not)..

http://blog.chron...ines.gif

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
Ah good Rig we are making progress one step at a time. So you at least admit that the other 49 reasons/papers explaining the the pause were pure BS.
artist1270
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
Sure, because in the backwards world of science-that-has-to-serve-a-political-agenda, the massive amounts of CO2 emitted from volcanoes magically does the opposite of CO2 emitted by humans, because...............because..................because science.
Monika
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
I thought, they have always known, that volcanoes do cause cooling. It was an established fact. . The thing that gripes me is..... anything can happen! At anytime! The scientists can go..... 'on and on' trying to prove to us how they have all the answers... 'down pat'. And, the Deniers can deny all they want... till the cows come home. That giant tsunami from the Indian Ocean proves that!!
We have far greater issues to concentrate on.
I want to recommend: a book for any one who really wants to get a grip on this situation.
It's written by: Marq De Villiers
It's called: WATER The Fate of Our Most Precious Resource
It's an absolutely brilliant disturbing look at the most crucial ecological issue of our time.
He gives a full run-down account of water resources around the world.
How water is being manipulated by technology, used as a political bargaining chip, or imperiled by ignorance.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
please correct me if I am wrong here
@Mr
you were wrong there
1- don't over simplify and then expect sudden clarity
2- there is no "only", there is the science and the evidence

if you refuse to keep up with that, and you refuse to read the studies that have been listed as argument for points, then why are you here arguing still?
this is another thing that is frustrating with you specifically and trolls/deniers in general (and i lump you in with trolls now as you've already been down this path several times with others)
you don't like the implications of regulation or attempts to try and correct the situation, but you offer NO resolution, nor any science refuting the proof that we've given, and you use your fear and dislike of the future as reason to ignore reality
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
I want to recommend: a book for any one who really wants to get a grip on this situation.
It's written by: Marq De Villiers
@monika
you need actual science tol bring you clarity on the AGW situation
and i can see by your post that you are not one who agree's with the science either... perhaps you should start out with learning a little about science first: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
then you can move on and study the science behind the WHY of decisions, like CO2: http://www.scienc...abstract
or learn about how warming can cause extreme weather or localized cooling weather like we are seeing now: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

the above studies are based upon evidence and observation as well as known laws of physics... and like AGW, they are what you would call "proof" supporting the position

you should research the science before conjecturing on a public science site
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
Sure, because in the backwards world of science-that-has-to-serve-a-political-agenda, the massive amounts of CO2 emitted from volcanoes magically does the opposite of CO2 emitted by humans, because...............because..................because science.


What massive amount of CO2 from volcanoes? Humans produce 50-100 times more CO2 than volcanoes, so whatever volcanoes do, it's just noise compared to what humans do. Stop looking at science through your political agenda.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
In 1979 more accurate satellite temperatures became available. Since 1979 the world's temperature has risen 0.36F according to NASA. The cooling cycle may have begun.


Given the well documented problems (and likely cooling bias) with the models used by the satellites to determine temperatures (you do know they don't measure temperature directly, don't you?) why would you trust them without any verification? Models are great, but every one is incorrect (that's why they call them models and not reality). Given the choice, I'm going to trust direct measurement of temperatures above the models.
Monika
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
@zz5555......I do believe in the AGW situation! And it's at a critical point. Which is why I posted my comment. I'm trying to reach the deniers!

The book I mentioned..... is critical! I think it would show, some people, how man does affect his environment. He gives explicit information on precisely how, in some cases, where man has altered weather patterns by his manipulation of our water on the planet. Case in point: Man actually contributed/caused the dust bowl in the 30's. Which I remember, hearing once, along time ago. But this drove it home!
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
"Given the well documented problems (and likely cooling bias) with the models used by the satellites to determine temperatures (you do know they don't measure temperature directly,"

Right and the "adjustments" made to the land based temperatures, poor siting next to heat sources and urban heat island effects make them more reliable.

The satellites might not be as accurate as a properly sited non tampered with reading but they cover a much wider area and at the very least are great indicators of relative temperature change over the years. IE the temps might be slightly off but the change in temps is still very accurate.
Monika
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014

Attention: Captain Stumpy!
I'm Sorry! The above statement was supposed to be addressed to you! Not @zz5555
Monika
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
Attention: Captain Stumpy

The above post was meant for you! Not @zz5555.
My mistake!
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
The fact that water is the most precious resource is obvious to anybody turning on TV and witnessing Middle East chaos. However, this issue is utterly uninteresting from science perspective. (Or, should I rather suggest that science has nothing to contribute there). Instead, here on physorg we see a flow of impotent articles predicting future disasters, population displacement, and civil unrest -- all due to puny 1K temperature increase. How is it that so many people are blind and fail to notice turmoil that is already there? Once again, make energy cheap, water abundant, and transform Middle East deserts into huge oasis. This would not calm hot temper of their habitats, but I bet it would contribute developing positive attitude, something akin to brasilian.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
Tegiril I agree that water in the desert could change the political landscape for the better. What kind of power do you suggest? Do you think that solar or wind could ever be cheap enough to do that? It is a perfect application for intermittent power sources but desalinization plants require a HUGE amount of power.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
Fusion is the ultimate power source. Short of that, ordinary nuclear is having renaissance as well. Last year scientific american published an article about Russians cranking up nuclear technology, and customers all over the third world are lining up:
http://www.scient...-or-not/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
Ah good Rig we are making progress one step at a time. So you at least admit that the other 49 reasons/papers explaining the the pause were pure BS.


The ENSO cycle is the major climate cycle ... But not the only one. Science exists to find out stuff.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
Sure, because in the backwards world of science-that-has-to-serve-a-political-agenda, the massive amounts of CO2 emitted from volcanoes magically does the opposite of CO2 emitted by humans, because...............because..................because science.

CO2 emitted by volcanoes is tiny by proportion.
The proof?
Go examine the records from the world's CO2 monitors after the Pinatubo eruption... They don't even flicker my friend.
FFS
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
@zz5555......I do believe in the AGW situation! And it's at a critical point. Which is why I posted my comment. I'm trying to reach the deniers!

The book I mentioned..... is critical! I think it would show, some people, how man does affect his environment. He gives explicit information on precisely how, in some cases, where man has altered weather patterns by his manipulation of our water on the planet. Case in point: Man actually contributed/caused the dust bowl in the 30's. Which I remember, hearing once, along time ago. But this drove it home!

Monica....
Laudable but, unfortunately futile. Been trying for years (here and other places) personally.
All you can do is point out the lies, misconceptions, myths and politically driven thinking and set the record straight for others. With the science.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014


Given the well documented problems (and likely cooling bias) with the models used by the satellites to determine temperatures (you do know they don't measure temperature directly, don't you?) why would you trust them without any verification?

Zz.....
Because they show what they want.
Have you not noticed (rhetorical) that deniers jump on any science with glee when it offers a glimmer of hope to them .... Yet disparage climate science in general.
There's a name for that - it begins with. H and ends in "crit".
Monika
not rated yet Nov 20, 2014
I'm telling you! This book encompasses so much more than you could imagine!
For one: They have done all that - turning deserts into oasis and way more things than imaginable. Believe me! The way they have/are managing the water on this planet is way more important (and yet, contributing) to all of our other problems, including Climate Change!!
And, It's Global!!

Science is not going to save us if we are not willing to get down to the nitty-gritty root of the problem(s)

Next year when they meet in Paris for negotiations with The United Nations I would want them to start with this book! Otherwise; all the rest won't matter!
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
"Zz.....
Because they show what they want.
Have you not noticed (rhetorical) that deniers jump on any science with glee when it offers a glimmer of hope to them .... Yet disparage climate science in general.
There's a name for that - it begins with. H and ends in "crit"."

So Rig I am a hypocrite because I trust satellite data that covers most of the earth more than I trust a virtual handful of stations most of which are located near or in big cities. To make up for the lack of stations in remote areas "scientists" approximate readings for them. Yea,,,, that trumps real satellite reading every time.

And you call me the hypocrite!!!!!!!!
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
"Zz.....
Because they show what they want.
Have you not noticed (rhetorical) that deniers jump on any science with glee when it offers a glimmer of hope to them .... Yet disparage climate science in general.
There's a name for that - it begins with. H and ends in "crit"."

So Rig I am a hypocrite because I trust satellite data that covers most of the earth more than I trust a virtual handful of stations most of which are located near or in big cities. To make up for the lack of stations in remote areas "scientists" approximate readings for them. Yea,,,, that trumps real satellite reading every time.

And you call me the hypocrite!!!!!!!!

If the cap fits MR then wear it.

The worlds thermometer recorded temp record is the ONLY long-term record whereby meaningful comparisons can be made. The sat data is NOT temps recorded At 1.25m above the ground surface, and must be calibrated an resolved by algorithm, not least for orbital decay.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
Ah, reason 67 for the pause-------------"Orbital Decay"!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2014

Attention: Captain Stumpy!
I'm Sorry! The above statement was supposed to be addressed to you! Not @zz5555

@Monika
I see
I misunderstood your post
My apologies...

thank you for the information on the book, i will look for it in the library next time i visit

So Rig I am a hypocrite because I trust satellite data that covers most of the earth more than I trust a virtual handful of stations most of which are located near or in big cities
@mr166

nope
you are a hypocrite for attempting to use empirical data that means something you don't understand while ignoring the empirical information that proves you wrong
and for ignoring all the science and data that are evidence period

it is actually called stupidity, but hypocrite is accurate for you as well
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
Ah, reason 67 for the pause-------------"Orbital Decay"!


No just a valid reason why sat data cannot be considered consistent with itself and therefore used in a meaningful way in long term comparisons.

And would you be so fussed about this if sats showed greater warming?
Precisely.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
The ENSO cycle is the major climate cycle

Agreed, but what forces the ENSO cycle?
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
Let me retract that
Monika
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2014
" The fact that water is the most precious resource is obvious to anybody turning on TV and witnessing Middle East chaos. However, this issue is utterly uninteresting from science perspective. (Or should I rather suggest that science has nothing to contribute there.

@TegiriNenashi..... Well isn't that lovely!
When you say "there" do you mean Middle East? Or Water? Two totally different subjects!
Our Global Water System is going to need A Hell of a lot of SCIENCE and EXPERT ENGINEERING!
Or... the only thing left for the Earth... is Fire, Brimstone and Ice exploding to cleanse itself!!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2014
Small volcanic eruptions could be slowing global warming
LOL. More of the _____ ate my global warming excuses (fill in the blank with whatever strikes your fancy, I guess).

So does this mean the oceans haven't eaten global warming?

What about the Arctic?

How about the stadium wave?

How about Africa?

Funny that, I haven't heard the, "Africa ate my global warming!" argument lately, nor, "The stadium wave ate my global warming." What happened to those, anyway?

Monika
5 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2014
@runrig..... You're right! It's True! It is 'ALL' Politically driven!

And, I'm sorry, if I keep harping on this, and the book. But, I was literally floored, at how the politically empowered ones, all around the globe, have wasted $billions, and the tonnage of waste (2-fold expression) in, and on "Water" 'Management Control" over every inch of the entire planet. Without a single thought or care for long term affects.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
Monika, you should check out Pakistan.

I watched them try to sue power companies for not providing power, when they hadn't paid them so they couldn't buy fuel.

I wish this was not typical of all governments, but it is. The Chinese appear to currently think that there is some "Internet czar" in the US who is "keeping Chinese out." They haven't figured out that what you do is set up a web site and say so; they're totally clueless about how ANYTHING works, and they too are typical of most governments.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2014
Meanwhile, the Germans are burning more coal, after all their jumping up and down about environmentalism.

Meanwhile, the US still doesn't have a climate mitigation strategy.

Meanwhile, Brazil's emissions have risen again despite all their talk about alcohol cars.

Meanwhile, the US Senate has been taken over by people who intend to deliberately fritter away another two years without doing anything about anything.

Meanwhile, Russia is sending arms into Ukraine again.

I mean, it goes on and on.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2014
"Meanwhile, the US still doesn't have a climate mitigation strategy. "

The American Indians used to have one, they called it a Rain Dance.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2014
"Meanwhile, the US still doesn't have a climate mitigation strategy. "

The American Indians used to have one, they called it a Rain Dance.
@mr Stupid
1- this was a religious event, not a scientific event
2- you said "American Indians" but this was not common throughout all tribes
3- your attempt at denigration of Da Schneib is incredibly offensive to the indigenous North American Tribes because you really don't know what the F8ck you are talking about, especially with regard to the rain dance

you really should start using your search engine more and leaving off the fringe pseudoscience sites and political extremist sites

and leave religion for the forums dedicated to it

Funny that, I haven't heard the
@ubastupid
funny that, i haven't seen any science out of you and you still haven't refuted the studies i've linked, either

funny that, you never give equivalent evidence for your claims, you only conjecture wildly

no studies = PSEUDOSCIENCE
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2014
Monika, you should check out Pakistan.

I watched them try to sue power companies for not providing power, when they hadn't paid them so they couldn't buy fuel.

Fargin' lawyers...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.