The climate botherers attribute big negative forcings to volcanos and it just so happens that that’s the only way they can get their high estimated climate sensitivity to co2/h2o enhanced forcing to work in their models. It also leaves the door open for them to attribute stronger effects to all other emitted particulates and gases. There is therefore, strong reason to be suspicious that they have overblown the climatic effects of volcanos. I’ve graphed the Ve5+ volcanic eruptions of the last 150 years against the sea surface temperature record:
Where are the big cooling events caused by big volcanic eruptions? The occasional downturns in temp look like perfectly ordinary climate ups and downs to me. So what is really going on?
Does the emitted ‘black carbon’ – soot to you and me, and other aerosols – cause warming as much as the increased albedo or diminishing of optical depth causes cooling? Or do even the biggest volcanic eruptions just not have enough clout to affect the global temperature much at all?
Of course, some might complain that I should be plotting volcanic activity against air temperatures, since their eruptive emissions are an atmospheric phenomenon. But since a drop in the air temperature makes only a very small difference to ocean temperature, and it’s the oceans which drive global climate, what kind of ‘forcing’ is this? The top two metres of ocean have as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above. Volcanic induced cooling of the atmosphere, so what?
Post your thoughts below.
By the way, wordpress has introduced a little yellow star at the bottom of each post. The more clicks it gets, the more likely it is to get promoted on the wordpress system and noticed by other blogs. Cheers.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
James Hansen noted in his 2007 report “absence of strong cooling following the 1883 Krakatau eruption” – report referenced on this page: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm
Thanks Alan, a far more thorough piece of work than my brief note. Having noted it, did Hansen offer any convincing explanation? 🙂
A few points:
1) VEI is not an index of stratospheric volcanism.
2) Global temperature summaries are not the way to go when studying the bidirectional coupling. I recommend something more well-mixed & damped – e.g. Southern Ocean SST.
Hi Paul,
1) Which of these VEI 5-6-7 volcanos didn’t throw stuff into the stratosphere?
2) The southern and northern hemisphere atmospheric circulations don’t mix much. What makes you think a northern hemisphere volcano is going to affect southern hemisphere SST’s?
I agree it would be interesting to study the two hemispheres seperately to see if any better signal can be found. Pointers to data on amounts of stratospheric plume spreading for individual events welcome.
I disagree! Sea surface temperature is overdued a lot, as the oceans have got VERY big thermal capacity. You should rather compare with the air temperature or with averaged hemisphere temperature.
I actually found a HIGH level of similarity with Moberg et al. 2005 temperature record and volcanoes, it can even be used to give a better precision to dating various volcanic explosions in middle past (up to 2000 years, as is the temperature record length), where the precise dating of volcanic explosion is not available…
Rather MOST of the short-term temperature drops on the unsmoothed (yearly) Moberg data can be attributed to various volcanoes! Even more – volcanic records are far from complete (can you find for ex. 1453 explosion in Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program database? I could not – dating of submarine explosions is problematic… But it’s effects are well historically documented, and Wikipedia even states, which volcano it was – how do they know??) and they can be partially reconstructed or corrected from temperature data…
See for ex. http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Moberg2005_cmp_AngMomentSum_cmp_VEI_cmp_InvDistSunSSB_ver100607.png The triangles are volcanic explosions (most of them at level 4), the line below 4 is “unknown VEI”, the violet ones are missing in Smithsonian data but are mentioned in Wikipedia. Interseting is the match between the “olive”-colored serie, inverted distance of SSB from Sun, as when the Sun gets close to SSB, it triggers strong volcanic explosions… (next probably arround 2013 and surely 2030 +- 1 year, last Mt. Pinatubo 1990 was a clear example, prior 1912, 1477, 1453 etc… were good examples, Mt. Tambora at 1815 came just a little late, for ex. explosions at year 300 were rather at 304, at year 230 were rather 232/3 – dates corrected by temperature record)
Otherwise, on the explanation, how volcanoes cause not only cooling, but also warming (in another mode), explaining most of glaciation and end-of-glaciation, see “Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways” http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/Ward2009SulfurDioxide.pdf – a very comprehensive explanation…
Good graphs TB! No apparent link between volcanic eruptions and SST can be seen.
Short-term regional effects are more likely to be found, as the atmosphere is stratified and not as well mixed as some would have us believe. For example, if Katla in Iceland decides to blow this could worsen what is looking like an already bad NH winter.
We don’t know enough about how the various types of volcanic ejecta effect different climate systems to make useful estimates and the height these substances are shot into the atmosphere will also change the effects. The latitude of an eruption can alter the impact of the event, as can the local geography around the location of the volcano.
There is too much speculation about the effects of volcanoes on climate, but little quantified hard observational data. Climate is a maelstrom of interconnected energy exchange events and is driven by deterministic chaos. Finding what is obviously a small signal in a global context is difficult.
BTW – my collected “volcanic” data-serie files can be download from http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/VolcanicData_1006.zip
The file contains list of erruptions from Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program (Large Holocene Eruptions.dat) with values before 2000BC commented out (my software cannot process dates before 2000BC), unknown dates are marked -01-01, and there is not obvious, where the original source stated a longer year span, one year was selected. Next are WikiErruptions.dat collected from Wikipedia, next is Gisp2 Greenland SO2 record (in format year/doy=value)
Semi, many thanks for your detailed response and links to data.
Three points I want to pick up on:
1) you said:
“explosions at year 300 were rather at 304, at year 230 were rather 232/3 – dates corrected by temperature record”
Surely this only works if you use the assumption that the volcanos were the cause of the reconstructed fall in temperature?
2) You said:
“on the explanation, how volcanoes cause not only cooling, but also warming (in another mode), explaining most of glaciation and end-of-glaciation”
I’m always a bit suspicious of climate forcing agents which can at one time cause warming, and at another time cooling. I will read the pdf you linked, (I remember you posted it a week ago here too), but I will have my sceptical eyes open.
3)You said:
“Sea surface temperature is overdued a lot, as the oceans have got VERY big thermal capacity. You should rather compare with the air temperature or with averaged hemisphere temperature.”
I will admit there is a possibility that volcanic ejecta might have knock on effects in seeding clouds and causing raised albedo which might cause the oceean to release some of it’s stored energy, lowering overall Ocean Heat Content while raising SST, as we have seen in the recent el nino since cloud cover increased from 1998. This might mask some of the volcanic effect in global SST metrics. However, there was no evidence of any cloud albedo change affecting global temperature much following Pinatubo as far as I can see, and any change in cloud cover doesn’ty show up in the ISCCP cloud data project on a global scale.
But your comment also proves my point. I’m not sayimng volcanos don’t affect air temperature. I am saying that air temperature isn’t that important in driving climate, exactly because the oceans have a much higher heat capacity.
Tenuc:
“We don’t know enough”
True, true. 😉
Where is it the Pinatubo eruption?. BTW after this eruption it came the big 97-98 El Niños. Though volcanoes generate a lot of SO2, sulphur, selenium, etc. after the solids settle on the ground and only a few months later, a luxurious vegetation grows on the revitalized soil.
So, volcanoes, are one of the ways nature gives men the way to live and survive.
Adolfo asked:
“Where is it the Pinatubo eruption?”
Luzon (Philippines)
Looking at the succession of troughs in the temp data from 1915 to 1940, I would say the double whammy of N.H. Kharimkotan and S.H. Azul does have an effect; of around 0.05C for a few months. It should be noted however, that it coincides with a longish solar minimum after a low solar cycle.
tallbloke says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Thanks! I just saw Hudson Cerro. Funny tip 🙂
TB: Re: your question at 7:55: Hansen’s explanation for lack of cooling from Krakatau: “the near-absence of observed cooling after Krakatau may be, at least in part, a problem with the ocean data.”
Alan, I’m sure that if Hansen was in charge of the SST data, he would have solved that problem.
Not all volcanoes cause cooling (they never cause warming), and which do what and how much depends not on the size of the eruption but more on the location, timing and nature of the eruption… type and amount of aerosols, and how high they are thrown and how widely they are dispersed.
In any event, cooling need not be global, and will only last a few years unless multiple eruptions compound and extend each other. Mapping many volcanoes without reference to their specific nature, and without investigating climate impacts in detail, is not particularly productive.
Reference this link for more information: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
Lastly, your opening statement about climate sensitivity is patently false. Multiple separate lines of evidence, from disparate proxy temperature histories to simple physics calculations to physical simulations project climate sensitivity in a range from 2C to 5C per doubling of CO2. To my knowledge there is no line of evidence which relies on volcanoes to quantify climate sensitivity in any way (if there is, it is one of very, very many that don’t), and certainly no such factor in climate models.
I started this off, I say plot them against the land surface record, most of us don`t live on the ocean or in the sky !
@Semi says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:20 am
“Rather MOST of the short-term temperature drops on the unsmoothed (yearly) Moberg data can be attributed to various volcanoes! ”
That is not what European temperature records suggest at all, it does not take long to do a quick check of the coldest years on CET, most have no large eruptions for several years before, but most of the eruptions can be seen to be on a temperature uplift after a cold period (Europe temp`s move in unison well so using CET is as good as any other series, and an excellent indicator of the solar signal; http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm )
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
Also, the theory states that the N.H. would get warmer winters and cooler summers from large eruptions, so instead of just looking at yearly figures, have a look what is going on through each year in question to inspect when the colder periods were.
TB, check this out;
“Frost and light rings of living and dead individuals of Siberian juniper (Juniperus sibirica Burgsd.) and Siberian larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.) growing at the upper (Polar Ural Mountains) and polar (Yamal Peninsula) tree lines in northwest Siberia have been studied to reconstruct summer frosts and abrupt temperature declines during the second half of the growing season over the past 1250 years. The most severe temperature events in both regions were in AD 801, 1109, 1259, 1278, 1466, 1601 and 1783. Comparison of our data with data from other regions of the world shows that there is agreement in the timing of extreme temperature events in AD 800–801, 1109, 1258–1259, 1453, 1466, 1585, 1601, 1783, 1884, 1912 and 1992 between several regions. Most probably, these extremes have been caused by climatically effective explosive volcanic eruptions.”
by Rashit Hantemirov, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology.
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Each of the dates have been beautifully cherry picked to be the year after a very large eruption, no other cold years incuded at all (of which there many), 1884 was hot, and 1912 was not cold. !
Ulric, I suspect that due to the vageries of atmospheric circulation, it’s possible big eruptions do make it cold in some places, hot in others, and average in others. SO it will be possible to construct any narrative you prefer. The reason I plotted the biggest eruptions of the last 150 years against the global record is because I’m primarily interested in knowing whether big volcanos have a global effect, because I want to assess whether Hansen et al are justified in attributing a strong negative feedback to them, as a way of counterbalancing their climate sensitivity to co2/h20 vapour.
I acknowledge it was your questioning of the cooling effect of volcanos which prompted me to take a look, and thanks for inspiring this post. However, I disagree that we should look at land surface record rather than SST’s because I think SST’s are less contaminated, and since the ocean drives the climate anyway, that is what is important to long term temperature change regardless of which metric is more immediately and directly felt by humans.
@tallbloke says:
August 6, 2010 at 6:32 am
Ok, so under the ash in the UK, it got really hot. under the black smoke from the burning oil wells in Kuwait, it got unbearably hot, and in a city smog, such as very recently in Moscow, it got very hot. Something to do with the darker colour absorbing more heat than white clouds??
TB said;
” However, I disagree that we should look at land surface record rather than SST’s because I think SST’s are less contaminated, and since the ocean drives the climate anyway, that is what is important to long term temperature change regardless of which metric is more immediately and directly felt by humans.”
Record high SST`s in July 2009 did nothing to stop the coldest winter in 30/40yrs, and that winter is followed by heat waves, as predicted, to the week.
Long term temperature change is a mental construct, at least within the last millenium, anomalies go from one extreme to the other, seasonally, its the Sun…
Clearly, the Sun drives climate/weather. One could see the oceans as a heat reservour providing a variable base line for land temp`s, but in reality it is not that simple. At certain times of the year, the oceans could be upwelling cold water, and moving SST`s in the opposite direction to land temp`s, and so by only using SST records, you are likely to end up with the most `contaminated` measurement of global temperatures for the 2 years following a large eruption.
Hi Ulric,
some fair points there as far as interpreting interannual events go. Bob Tisdale uses a 37 month smoothing on SST’s IIRC. My general emphasis is on getting an idea of the heat inthe whole system. The woefully poor ocean heat content records frustrate that, and using SST as a proxy is fraught with problems too. So yes, contaminated global temperature but still a better idea of the energy flows in the mid term I think.
OK, I’m away for the weekend, play nice. 🙂
@tallbloke says:
August 6, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“but still a better idea of the energy flows in the mid term I think.”
How long does it take for the aerosols to get washed out of the atmosphere, a couple of years max?
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm !
So what happened to Tambora and the consequent year without summer?
tallbloke, the old assumptions about stratospheric volcanic emissions not mixing across the equator have been shown to be grossly deficient. What I am suggesting is not as simple as conditioning analyses on hemisphere; that is too simple due to north-south terrestrial asymmetry.
I will again share some data links & notes:
—
1) Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness (SAOT) tau = monthly-mean optical thickness at 550 nm: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt
Sato, Mki.; Hansen, J.E.; McCormick, M.P.; & Pollack, J.B. (1993). Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 22987-22994. doi:10.1029/93JD02553.
html: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1993/Sato_etal.html
pdf: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Sato_etal.pdf
2) (weighted) Dust Veil Index (DVI):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_data/volcanic.dat
Lamb, H.H. (1985). Volcanic loading: the dust veil index.
ftp://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pub/ndp013/ndp013.pdf
3) Mitchell’s Severity Index (MSI):
Table 1 in:
Sato, Mki.; Hansen, J.E.; McCormick, M.P.; & Pollack, J.B. (1993). Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 22987-22994. doi:10.1029/93JD02553.
html: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1993/Sato_etal.html
pdf: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Sato_etal.pdf
Original article by Mitchell:
Mitchell, J.M. (1970). A preliminary evaluation of atmospheric pollution as a cause of the global temperature fluctuation of the past century. In: Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, Singer, S.F. (editor), pp.139-155, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970.
4) Ice-Core Volcanic Index (2nd version) (IVI2):
data: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/IVI2TotalLoading501-2000.txt
info: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/
Gao, C.; Robock, A.; & Ammann, C. (2008). Volcanic forcing of climate over the past 1500 years: An improved ice-core-based index for climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, D23111. doi:10.1029/2008JD010239.
Click to access Gao2008JD010239.pdf
Gao, C.; Robock, A.; & Ammann, C. (2009). Correction to “Volcanic forcing of climate over the past 1500 years: An improved ice core–based index for climate models”. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D09103. doi:10.1029/2009JD012133.
Click to access GaoCorrection2009JD012133.pdf
5) Sea surface temperature (SST) – monthly raw (not anomaly) ERSSTv3b from KNMI Climate Explorer: http://climexp.knmi.nl
SO = Southern Ocean (60°S – 90°S)
SEP = Southeast Pacific (160°W – 70°W, 45°S – 90°S)
—
Cautionary notes from Sato, Hansen, McCormick, & Pollack (1993):
1) “Estimates of stratospheric aerosol optical thickness ideally should be based on measurements of optical extinction.”
2) Regarding rough pre-1882 estimates from volcanologic evidence: “Any estimate based on such evidence is highly problematical, because aerosol optical depth depends mainly on the amount of sulfur emitted rather than the size of the eruption.”
3) “[…] data […] reveal marked exceptions to Lamb’s expectations […] difficulty of specifying latitudinal distributions […] magnitude of errors that may occur with simple assumptions about the global distribution of aerosols […]”
4) “Lamb’s index is based in part on observed midlatitude temperature anomalies, a circularity which makes it not directly useful […]. However, Mitchell [1970] used Lamb’s estimates of the volume of ejecta from known volcanoes […] to construct an index for the period 1850-1970 intended to be proportional to “stratospheric aerosol loading.””
—
While I do not agree with every item, Ulric regularly makes highly worthwhile points. Semi has thrown an interesting stick in the wheel in this thread too – thanks for sharing. Thanks to David Ball for his key comment (about volcanoes) in Lucy’s thread; this steered the discussion into fruitful territory, attracting a comment from Alan.
I am occupied for long hours with completely unrelated work these days; otherwise I would comment at (further) length on this subject. Volcanoes and climate appear strongly (& conditionally) bidirectionally coupled (…and this has nothing to do with alarmist-nonalarmist political spectra).
A final note about which variables & timescales to investigate: All (i.e. no need for false dichotomies).
Great thread tallbloke.
Ulric Lyons written:
> How long does it take for the aerosols to get washed out of the atmosphere, a couple of years max?
It depends, how large are the erruptions and how frequent! As Peter L. Ward writes in his work, the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere may get overdriven, which then influences also other gas (like methane etc.) accumulation in the atmosphere…
One important point in his work:
> By 1962, man burning fossil fuels was adding SO2 to the atmosphere
at a rate equivalent to one “large” volcanic eruption each 1.7 years
So at least from the second half of 20th century (but rather from 1890’s), the volcanic record is highly contaminated…
————————————————————————
Larger citation from his work’s Abstract:
…
All major historic volcanic eruptions have formed sulfuric acid aerosols in the lower stratosphere that cooled the earth’s surface ~0.5 °C for typically three years.
While such events are currently happening once every 80 years, there are times in geologic history when they occurred every few to a dozen years. These were times when the earth was cooled incrementally into major ice ages. There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming.
Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very rapid warming. Such warming and associated acid rain becomes extreme when millions of cubic kilometers of basalt are erupted in much
less than one million years. These are the times of the greatest mass extinctions. When major volcanic eruptions do not occur for decades to hundreds of years, the atmosphere can oxidize all pollutants, leading to a very thin atmosphere, global cooling
and decadal drought.
By 1962, man burning fossil fuels was adding SO2 to the atmosphere at a rate equivalent to one “large” volcanic eruption each 1.7 years. Global temperatures increased slowly from 1890 to 1950 as anthropogenic sulfur increased slowly. Global temperatures increased more rapidly after 1950 as the rate of anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased. By 1980 anthropogenic sulfur emissions peaked and began to decrease because of major efforts especially in Japan, Europe, and the United States to reduce acid rain. Atmospheric concentrations of methane began decreasing in 1990 and have remained nearly constant since 2000, demonstrating an increase in oxidizing capacity.
…
————————————————————————
So I may add, that it is not only about energy balances, but a great deal about chemistry also…
And that the longer record you get, the more you can learn from it…
——————————–
Another point: after rather a small eruption of Eyjafjallajokull 2010 (sub-glacier eruption – more water evaporated), there followed unusual repeating floods in Central Europe and North America (1-2 months later), and there follows draughts and fires in Russia (3-4 months later). I don’t believe these events are not connected…
Semi; This Peter L. Ward “take” on volcanic contributions to Global Climate Change is most interesting. This explains the shifting from ice periods to warm and back better the CO2 hoax. I hope the world government type climateologists don’t get whiff of this or they will think that they can really manage the worlds temperature. pg
@Semi says:
August 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“All major historic volcanic eruptions have formed sulfuric acid aerosols in the lower stratosphere that cooled the earth’s surface ~0.5 °C for typically three years.”
or
“Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very rapid warming.”
?
and
“There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming.”
So what do you want to conclude? that volcanoes took us out of the last ice age? or the solar forcing of deglaciation also drove the increase in volcano activity?
Providing the data links requested by tallbloke appears to have flagged my above post (August 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm) for moderation. Southern Ocean SST, Southeast Pacific SST, & stratospheric volcanism follow the rate of change of LOD (which relates to global wind patterns).
While I don’t agree with everything in the following article, it stimulates critical thinking about the limited utility of global summaries & other mainstream conventions deserving challenge:
Seager, R. (2006). The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate. Scientific American 94(4), 334-. doi: 10.1511/2006.60.999.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.2006,no.4,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
At the timescale of terrestrial polar motion variations, a maximum rate of change of earth rotation occured ~1920, corresponding with a time when (as Sidorenkov has pointed out) a lot of water was being locked up in Antarctica. The concurrent pulse of heat arriving in the North Atlantic corresponds with the drop in temperatures in the Southern Ocean south of the Indian Ocean.
While these temperature patterns might seem consistent with what we know about thermohaline circulation & AMOC, ocean circulation alone isn’t enough. (Interestingly, Semi seems to be suggesting that the atmosphere thinned around that time. Can anyone confirm or refute this?)
This is a good juncture at which to review a quote from the following:
Trenberth, K.E.; Caron, J.M.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Worley, S. (2002). Evolution of El Nino – Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures. Journal of geophysical research 107(D8). doi: 10.1029/2000JD000298.
Click to access 2000JD000298.pdf
“While the development of ocean heat content anomalies resembles that of the delayed oscillator paradigm, the damping of anomalies through heat fluxes into the atmosphere introduces a substantial diabatic component to the discharge and recharge of the ocean heat content. However, most of the delayed warming outside of the tropical Pacific comes from persistent changes in atmospheric circulation forced from the tropical Pacific. A major part of the ocean heat loss to the atmosphere is through evaporation and thus is realized in the atmosphere as latent heating in precipitation, which drives teleconnections.”
We need more information on the fractal geometry (a function of terrain) and spatiotemporal variability of the terrestrial zero degree Celcius isotherm, which marks the qualitative threshold that Ulric has mentioned so many times (in different words – i.e. what he refers to as season-dependent flips in temperature-precipitation relations). Interaction of terrain with north-south terrestrial continental-maritime contrasts is key in the volcano-climate puzzle.
[reply] Earlier post now rescued. Normal service resumes in around 7 hours. 🙂
@Paul Vaughan says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:20 am
“We need more information on the fractal geometry (a function of terrain) and spatiotemporal variability of the terrestrial zero degree Celcius isotherm, which marks the qualitative threshold that Ulric has mentioned so many times (in different words – i.e. what he refers to as season-dependent flips in temperature-precipitation relations).”
The zero degree Celcius isotherm has nothing to do with it, and the inverse (not flips) temp`/rain relationship between summer and winter, has nothing to do with this thread.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“While I do not agree with every item, Ulric regularly makes highly worthwhile points”
There are two;
a) eruptions happen at short term temperature uplifts, in the solar signal, and sometimes exacerbated by local circulation too. (discovered by myself)
The larger the temperature differential, then potentially larger eruptions occur.
b) most large eruptions are not followed by cooling.
Fire away..
Ulric, once again:
Cautionary notes from Sato, Hansen, McCormick, & Pollack (1993):
“[…] aerosol optical depth depends mainly on the amount of sulfur emitted rather than the size of the eruption.”
VEI is not about optical depth. Suggested: Have a look at IVI2, MSI, DVI, & SAOT. [Keep in mind the considerable problems with DVI — nonetheless it has some utility.]
–
Ulric wrote: “[…] has nothing to do with it […] has nothing to do with this thread.”
Disagree strongly — e.g.: see the Russian literature.
Hi Paul,
How do Hansen et al go about backing up their statement?
@Paul Vaughan says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:03 am
“Disagree strongly — e.g.: see the Russian literature.”
How about explaining why?
P.V.;
“fractal geometry (a function of terrain) and spatiotemporal variability of the terrestrial zero degree Celcius isotherm, which marks the qualitative threshold that Ulric has mentioned so many times…”
a) is complete rubbish, the temperature/rainfall relationship is a global signal driven by the Sun, thresholds have nothing to do with its nature. It is such an elegant and simple principle, there is no need to attempt to complicate it so, especially without reason.
b) I see no need to even bring it up in this enquiry.
………………………………………………………………..
Why don`t you tell us which VEI 5/6 eruptions since `1850` did emit large quanities of aerosols to stratospheric altitudes then ?
Here’s the cartoon from Hansen, Sato et al 1993:
Looks a bit selective, more analysis needed IMO. I think we need to find out who “Marshall 1970” is, how he was obtaining his metrics and what he was trying to do with them.
Here is the list “…” means no data:
Date Volcano Longitude Severity VEI
1854, Feb. Sheveluch, Kamchatka 57øN, 162øE …, 5
1855-1856 Cotopaxi, Ecuador IøS, 78øW 1.5 …
1856, Feb. Awu, Celebes 4øN, 125øE 2 …
1861, Dec. Makjan, Molucca Islands 0øN, 127øE 2 4
1875, March Askja, Iceland 65øN, 17øW 2 5
1883, Aug. Krakatau, Indonesia 6øS, 105øE 1 6
1886, June Tarawera, New Zealand 38øS, 177øE 2 5
1888, March Ritter Island, Bismarck Archipelago 6øS, 148øE 2 …
1888, July Bandai San, Japan 38øN, 140øE 2 4
1892, June Awu, Celebes 4øN, 125øE 2 …
1902, May Mont Pe16e, Martinique 15øN, 61øW 2 4
1902, May Soufri•re, St. Vincent 13øN, 61øW 2 4
1902-1904 Santa Maria, Guatemala 15øN, 92øW 1.33 5-6
1907, March Shtyubelya, Kamchatka 52øN, 158øE 2 5
1912, June Katmai, Alaska 58øN, 155øW 2 6
1932, April Quizapu, Cerro Azul 36øS, 71øW 3 5
1947, March Hekla, Iceland 64øN, 20øW 2 4
1953, July Mount Spurr, Alaska 61øN, 152øW 2 4
1956, March Bezymyannaya, Kamchatka 56øN, 161øE 2 5
1963, March Gunung Agung, Bali 8øS, 116øE 1.5 4
1966, Aug. Awu, Celebes 4øN, 125øE 2 4
1968, June Fernandina Island, Galapagos 0øS, 92øW 2 4
1980, May St. Helens, United States 46øN, 122øW … 5
1982, April E1 Chichon, Mexico 17øN, 93øW … 5
1991, June Pinatubo, Philippines 15øN, 120øE … 5
1991, Aug. Hudson, Chile 46øS, 73øW … 5
The severity numbers 1, 2, 3 of Mitchell [1970] are intended by the author to represent volumes of
ejecta1 -10,0 .1-1, 0.01-0.1k m3 , respectivelyV.o lcanice xplosivitiyn dex( VEI) numbers6 , 5, 4 of
Newhall and Self[1982] are intended by the authors to represent volumes of ejecta 10-100, 1-10, 0.1-1
km 3 , respectively.
latitudes (Table 1) of the known principal volcanoes. The
eruption believed to be the largest in period 2, Krakatau
(Indonesia, 6øS, 1883), was located in the near-equatorial
zone; hence we used the same optical depth in the southern
hemisphere as measured in the northern hemisphere. Some
justification for this assumption is provided by similar sulfur
amounts in Arctic and Antarctic ice cores for the period
following Krakatau [Hammer et al., 1980; Thompson and
Mosley-Thompson, 1981]. The period 1886-1888 contained
three of Mitchell’s “severity 2” volcanoes. Because of the
symmetry of these volcanoes about the equator (Table 1) we
assume that the optical depth in the southern hemisphere
was also the same as in the northern hemisphere during
1886-1889.
In the period 1890-1892, for which Dyer [1974] assumes
the measured optical depth originated from Bogoslov (54øN),
we take the optical depth at 0ø-30øN as half of that for
30ø-90øN and zero optical depth in the southern hemisphere.
In the period 1896-1898, assumed by Dyer [1974] to be
affected by Thompson Island (54øS), we use an optical depth
the same as during 1890-1892 but placed in the southern
hemisphere. In the period 1902-1906, presumably affected
by the Mont Pel•e (15øN), Soufri•re (13øN), and Santa Maria
(15øN) eruptions, we take the optical depth in the southern
hemisphere to be half of that measured in the northern
hemisphere. In the period 1907-1911, presumably affected
by Shtyubelya (52øN), we used the optical depth measured at
Pavlovsk (56øN) for 30ø-90øN, with zero optical depth elsewhere
(little, if any, optical depth perturbation was measured
at Simla (31øN)]. In the period 1912-1915, affected by
Katmai…
and so on.
tallbloke & Ulric:
You have a lot of reading to do.
There is more reading to do than there is time to do it. That’s why this board pools knowledge. Some try to inject useful nuggets relevant to the topic in digestible form, and answer questions simply and directly.
Why make it harder than it needs to be?
Ulric Lyons said (2010-08-09 09:26)
> Why don`t you tell us which VEI 5/6 eruptions since `1850` did emit large quanities of aerosols to stratospheric altitudes then ?
Since cca 1870, the human production of aerosols was large enough to mask volcanic effects (by 1960 it is equal to 1 large volcanic erruption each 1.7 years…), so it switched to the mode with “many volcanic erruptions following”, which causes warming rather than cooling (idea from P.L.Ward’s work, my own “lay” words)
Which volcanoes emited enough sulfur can be learned from ice-core records (Greenland and Antartica resp. for each hemisphere) : the IVI2 database (linked above by P.V. 2010-08-07 01:36pm) may be a very good source of information on this, the GISP2 dataset (used by me earlier, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/chem/volcano.txt ) is another example…
If you look more deep into history, you find a bunch of volcanoes, which did cause a temperature drop, the year without summer (1815) is just the most prominent example (but at that time, the most prominent drop was at 1813, after an “unknown” eruption at 1809-10, which is seen on sulphur records only, also marked as “unknown” in IVI2 paper), but the crop failures after 1783 Laki explosion, that led (indirectly) to 1789 French revolution, is another example (at wikipedia there is a link to “Volcanic winter” beside this event), the temperature drops arround 1707, 1641, 1580, 1453-1456, 1230, 822-826, 699, 639-645, 306, 235, 80-87 are other examples… But while examining the relation between SO2 and temperature records, sometimes there is also rather an increase in temperature after the volcanic erruption, like in 1260, 1175, 1105, 938, but they are just few cases… (and for ex. 938, there was already the temp-increase ongoing, and the volcanic erruption made at least a camel-shaped drop at the top of the peak)
@Semi says:
August 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The `year with no summer` was 1816 not 1815.
How can an eruption in 1809 make it cold in 1813 (1814 was the really cold winter then)
especially when it was so warm in 1811.
Temp`s did not drop 1707, it was 1709 that was the really cold winter, all over Europe, but 1708 was very warm.
The other dates given:
1641, 1580, 1453-1456, 1230, 822-826, 699, 639-645, 306, 235, 80-87
are just cherry picking of large eruptions, and misses the majority of v.cold episodes through the epoch.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
A most important objection, is that almost all of the cold episodes claimed to be caused by volcanic eruptions, are strong winter, and not summer cooling. This goes against the theory, which predicts summer cooling, but slight winter warming, especially somewhere like Europe.
So it seems that volcanoes sometimes warm, sometimes cool and sometimes have little or no effect. Older eruptions could have produced short/medium term regional or global weather/climate effects, but we rely on proxy data to estimate scale? Not a very solid foundation for making prediction!
I think that another nigger in the woodpile is the release of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) by some eruptions would have an impact on levels of atmospheric ozone, as would the ice crystals which form when a particular eruption injects superheated water vapour high into the stratosphere. Again, quantification from solid observational data would be needed to understand how this would effect weather/climate.
It would seem that each individual event needs to be examined for weather/climate impact and there is no general rule about the effect of volcanoes on weather/climate for possible future events. I always thought that volcanoes were black swan events, but now it seems we could have a full rainbow of swans to contend with!
@Tenuc says:
August 9, 2010 at 6:38 pm
“So it seems that volcanoes sometimes warm, sometimes cool and sometimes have little or no effect..”
So how safe woulld you say it was, to suscribe a slightly cooler January, and a very cool October, in 1992, to the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991? the rest of 1992 appears to be ABOVE average.
The very cold start to 1784, is an analogue for 1963, (179yr return) and was very much due to solar conditions, and not the 1783 eruptions. The Summer of 1816 (probably the ONLY clear example of summer cooling), also has a solar explanation, which Tallbloke will be privy to when he gets down here for the low down.
I am not convinced of any cooling at any event.
tallbloke, people need to at least be independently motivated enough to read the summaries of what each of the indices estimates (takes 2-5 minutes).
[snip]
[reply:] Spare me the lectures. I was sufficiently motivated to download the pdf, screenshot the cartoon, upload and link it after all. Refer to what I said in the intro about the motivation there may be on the part of political-activist-scientists for exaggerating the effect of volcanos on temperature. I still stand by it.
I would like to add that since the start of 2008, I have noticed an increase in volcanic activity to varying degrees, at every solar forced uplift in temperature.
My recent forecasts for temperature uplifts were from July 15th, and July 27th.
Recent new volcanic activity was clustered around the 17/18th July;
http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html
and 23rd and 27/28th July;
http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/quarterly.php?cat_id=12&y=2010&q=3
There has to be a seismic aspect to this, see solar wind speed, and geomag` 23rd and 25/26th July;
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100726_2031/index.html
Ulric, on the trees thread you said
“just read about the hellish high temperatures that the UK suffered in 1783 when volcanic ash clouds circled over the Island for 3 months, and 23,000 people died.”
Are you aware of first hand accounts of that event?
Rev Gilbert White.
Thanks, and thanks for the lmsal link too. Richard has been saying some interesting things about the way planetary and lunar alignments build up and release energy which affects terrestrial electromagnetic activity over on the humidity thread.
I don`t get the Lunar declination thing, it doesn`t show in the sea tides, what is supposed to do, affect circulation or something else?
Phase is important, I recently found it has a notable effect on Arctic pressure, it shows in monthly co2 as well !
Ecliptic plane crossings are also very important (nodal crossings).
tallbloke wrote: “Refer to what I said in the intro about the motivation there may be on the part of political-activist-scientists for exaggerating the effect of volcanos on temperature.”
I’m more interested in the part of the coupling that goes in the other direction (i.e. from temperature [including deep south SST] to volcanism [including stratospheric]).
I never had time to polish the volcano-climate notes on the webpages I had posted before my account at SFU was scheduled to expire. I have moved on to employment in a different industry. I take my share of the responsibility for misunderstandings that arise due to incomplete notes whipped up on the Pareto Principle.
Clarification: There are problems with SAOT and especially with DVI. That is part of the reason why I’ve been looking at IVI2 & MSI [particularly useful for comparing with ~1940-1960 SAOT].
There are layers of conditioning to work out (involving ENSO, VEI, LOD, QBO, lunisolar tides, sunspots, etc.). I look forward to having time to work on this more in the future.
This is key to understanding unexplained phenomena of ~1920-1940, such as the Chandler wobble phase reversal, the Arctic temperature spike (see Arnd Bernaerts on 1918 Spitsbergen), Mursula’s fascinating linear pattern in ~1905-1945 aa index anomalies, the Dirty 30s drought, terrestrial nutation anomalies, Phil Jones’ ~1940 data-cooking antics, etc.
There’s a whole lot more going on with volcano-climate dynamics than what the alarmists are talking about — they are only looking at a very tiny piece of that picture (perhaps the piece that most suits their agenda?…)
Also: In case anyone has misunderstood: I have been in (general) agreement with Ulric on temperature uplifts since before I was even aware that he was aware of that. However, it is apparent that we are using different “temperature” records, so I ask Ulric to please make an effort to be more clear in specifying records when dropping various comments about “temperature uplifts”, etc. – thanks if this will be possible.
Speaking of finding data sets, did you spot that I found and linked a thread on where to get humidity time series for you as requested?
Do tell us what your investigations with IVI2 and MSI came up with.
Rather than leaving us in the dark as usual
The ~around 1940 land surface temperature spike may have something to do with dry soil in America and elsewhere I think. The SST spike may be due partially to ‘bucket adjustments’ and partly due to someone’s desire to reconcile the two datasets.
Once again: What I found was that the coupling is bidirectional & conditional. (Some readers may recall the webpages where I was regularly updating my findings before the expiry-date of my SFU account.)
As I have indicated: Further investigation will be necessary to work out more details of the conditioning. I look forward to having more time for this, but presently I have only a fraction of the time I enjoyed last year for climate investigations.
Before dismissing volcano-climate connections as alarmist propaganda, I encourage all skeptics to make a careful comparison of the rate of change of LOD (length of day) and Southern Ocean & Southeast Pacific sea surface temperatures. Perhaps don’t focus on what the alarmists are advertising about volcano-climate connections but rather on the details they have not publicized.
Volcano-climate relations are the most fascinating relations I’ve encountered since I began climate investigations in late 2008. Anyone who has studied notes I’ve posted in the past can connect the dots to see that the patterns [which can also be isolated from aa index] can be expressed as a function of terrestrial polar motion and lunisolar tides (the latter of which are confounded with indices of solar system dynamics – what Ian Wilson calls a “fossil resonance” if I remember the phrase correctly).
To avoid misunderstandings: I do not suspect a magnetic driver; rather it looks like the modulation is running in the other direction (see the Russian literature).
[reply] No-one here is “dismissing volcano-climate connections as alarmist propaganda”. The assertion this post makes is that big volcanos don’t cause big global cooling events, contrary to the recieved ‘wisdom’.
You have Ian Wilson the wrong way round. He says that in the Moon’s past, during its recession from Earth, there have been times when it was in strong resonance with other solar system harmonic patterns which would have accentuated its effect on Earth. The near synchronies it displays today are a fossil of those eras.
If you want “to avoid misunderstandings” by saying “the modulation is running in the other direction” you failed. Either I’m too thick to understand what you are saying or you’re too cryptic to explain it sufficiently well. “(See the Russian Literature)” is none too useful either, as there is lots of it, mostly in Russian. 🙂
@Paul Vaughan says:
August 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“Also: In case anyone has misunderstood: I have been in (general) agreement with Ulric on temperature uplifts since before I was even aware that he was aware of that.”
I am not aware of you being in agreement in slightest, you are kidding yourself.
” However, it is apparent that we are using different “temperature” records, so I ask Ulric to please make an effort to be more clear in specifying records when dropping various comments about “temperature uplifts”, etc. – thanks if this will be possible.”
I am using temperature series that are from the regions I am refering to, that is patently clear.
I don`t `drop comments`, you do, and you got snipped for it too.
tallbloke: Here’s a gif animation of aerosol optical depth anomalies from the GACP dataset that captures the Mount Pinatubo eruption. It uses maps of 12-month averages to eliminate seasonal impacts:
The GACP project used AVHRR satellites to create the data. It was designed specifically for the oceans. Refer to papers here:
http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/publications/
The GACP data is short lived from 1981 to 2006 and is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Regarding the impacts of volcanoes on SST, if you were to break the SST data down into individual ocean basins and smooth it with 12-month filters to eliminate the seasonal noise, you’d discover that the North and South Atlantic have the most noticeable response to Mount Pinatubo. The responses in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are considerably less. Why? (Last time I did that I used HADISST data.)
Considering how sparse source SST data is in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and how much infilling is required, would you expect to see a drop from a volcano?
Considering how sparse source SST data is in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and how much infilling is required, would you expect to see a drop from a volcano?
Hi Bob,
It’s pretty sparse even in the late C20th isn’t it? Did anyone attach a particular number of fractions of degrees centigrade to the aftermath of Pinatubo? Looking at my SST graph at the top, it looks to me like SST was due for a fall anyway. Did OHC register an impact?
The animation is interesting to watch, but without your practised eye, I can’t get much from it. Do the incoming Shortwave measurements at the surface tell us anything about how to calibrate these optical depth changes?
Sorry for not coming in here more often, as a result these couple post should have been up thread…
Ulric’s comment””The `year with no summer` was 1816 not 1815.
How can an eruption in 1809 make it cold in 1813 (1814 was the really cold winter then)
especially when it was so warm in 1811.
Temp`s did not drop 1707, it was 1709 that was the really cold winter, all over Europe, but 1708 was very warm.
The other dates given:
1641, 1580, 1453-1456, 1230, 822-826, 699, 639-645, 306, 235, 80-87
are just cherry picking of large eruptions, and misses the majority of v.cold episodes through the epoch.””
The years for Uranus Neptune synod conjunctions by my rough calculations are 1993, 1814,1635, 1456, 1277, 1098, 919, 740, 561, 382, 203, 24
so my question is there any connection or are they just phase related by some lag in the cyclic patterns interactions with Saturn and Jupiter?
The claim is that Tambora caused the whole of Europe to suffer a very cool summer in 1816, so why not look for evidence of land surface cooling in 1992?
Apples and oranges Ulric. 1992 was near the peak of high SC23 whereas 1816 was in the grip of the Dalton Minimum…. 😉
Richard: always nice to hear from you, whenever you find the time.
Remember that sharp drop in temperature from 7th July 2009 that caused extensive flooding in the N.H. and very low temp`s in the S.H. (hundreds died from cold in S.America), it was accompanied by record high SST`s. I really suggest looking at land temp`s and not SST`s for this study, as all the claims are that eruptions cause a drop in land temp`s, SST`s could easily be going in the opposite direction in some months.
[reply] Got any global land temp data handy? I’ll overlay it on the graphs at the top.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 11, 2010 at 1:47 am
“”I don`t get the Lunar declination thing, it doesn`t show in the sea tides, what is supposed to do, affect circulation or something else?””
as the solar wind daily compresses the atmosphere as the bottom of a tire on pavement, the lunar declinational tidal component get the assistance of steps in prevented backsliding as it moves air masses from both the poles and equator to form both primary and secondary tidal bulges in both hemispheres.
The progression of the speed of declinational movement is pendulum like in that it makes rapid swings across the equator, and hangs near culmination for about 72 hours, so the atmosphere being unbounded responds to these tidal effects with large surges in meridional air flows, that clash with polar air masses at declinational culminations.
These generate the large cyclonic patterns of weather seen globally, most of the heat transfer from the equator toward the poles is carried this way. Because the declination is tied to the solar rotation, and solar activity shifts from one hemisphere to the other in phase, the ion charge gradient peaks and assists the production of severe weather as the air masses clash at culmination.
The jet streams are the result of the locations where the tidal balances meet, they move in latitudinal response to the strength of both the lunar declinational air tides and the net ionic content of the global atmosphere, driven by the solar activity in tandem. Due to a four fold symmetry (maybe due to the orbital period of Mercury ~88 days against the star field and ~108 days as a synod with Earth) [Do I have these periods right? I haven’t looked since 1980 something and may be off on the #of days.]
I find the lunar declinational atmospheric tides to be THE MAIN driver in short term global circulation patterns, slave to the solar output, and disturbed at will by the outer planet synod conjunctions. The main problem I have with my forecast method is accounting for the outer planet’s in and out of phase pulses with the lunar declination rhythms.
Hope this helps you to see my prospective, I want to make an animated movie of the GOES global vapor or IR maps with steps on the minimum time unit 1 hour or 15 minutes piled on top of one another in stacks of 27.32 days so it shows a progression of 12 tiled series each shifting one time unit forward in sync with the others so that the four fold pattern can be viewed easily, after talking to you guys on here over the past months I should like to have an additional frame showing the solar activity shifting from one hemisphere to the other next to the first GOES frame in sync with it’s real time, and progress them together.
(Re-reading this last paragraph I find it hard to follow) Basic graphic model to flesh out the layout of the data displayed is needed, I’ll have my daughter help with that as soon as I get to Phoenix.
[reply] I’d like to devote a thread to that project when you are ready.
tallbloke says:
August 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Apples and oranges Ulric. 1992 was near the peak of high SC23 whereas 1816 was in the grip of the Dalton Minimum….
**********************************
There were actually some very warm years through Dalton, 1794, 1798, 1802, 1804, 1806, 1811, 1818. The really big volcanoes follow after the two coldest winters of 1814 and 1815. My point still stands, we should look for a land temperature drop after Pinatubo.
Sure looks like it was a drop in solar activity after Pinatubo that was responsible for the dip in temperature:
There was a big spike just before the eruption too. 😀
@Richard Holle says:
August 11, 2010 at 9:22 pm
The years for Uranus Neptune synod conjunctions by my rough calculations are 1993, 1814,1635, 1456, 1277, 1098, 919, 740, 561, 382, 203, 24
**************************************
Best check again; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
@Richard Holle
August 11, 2010 at 9:52 pm So you say there is a Lunar declinational air tide, should Lunar declinational then affect the ocean tides in the same manner? eg. are neap tides different depending on whether there is a north or south declination extreme occurring?
@tallbloke says:
August 11, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Don`t bother with the solar cycle as SSN can be going the opposite direction to temperature at times. What we need is just land temp`s for say 1991 to 1993 so as to see the detail better. Note that Pinatubo had begun its eruptive sequence earlier in the year, responding to the very strong temperature differential from February to March 1991.
Ulric,
that’s not SSN it’s TSI, which I thought might be better correlated with solar windspeed. And that’s a big drop off the peak of the solar cycle, so I would expect some correlation with temps at that point.
Pinatubo might have started its eruptive sequence earlier, but when did the ejecta go stratospheric? Not until June I suspect.
Having said that, it’s a good one to make a case study of. I’ll hunt for more local data (can you help?) and we’ll do another thread on it in a while.
TSI can go opposite to solar wind velocity at times too, as sunspots and coronal holes don`t get on that well, sometimes though, fast and turbulant solar wind emanates from stronger sunspot groups.
You can do a daily plot of solar wind here http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Check the strong rise at the start of April 1991, and another at the start of June.
There is actually a very strong peak of sunspots early June too.
I most interested in a thorough check of any apparent suface cooling (or warming!)after the eruption for 2yrs, and look separately at uplifts that led up to it later, another thread would be good. To be honest, all I`m looking at is a cold October in 1992 and a cool Autumn in 1993.
Interesting that you would comment on the TSI and solar wind not being in step. I believe that the TSI – photonic and neutrino output, is the “electron” componet and the solar wind is the “H ion or proton” componet of the solar output. While we normally connect EMF effects with electron flows, there also EMF effects with proton flows. Plasma conduit anyone. 😉 pg
Ulric, you’ve possibly misunderstood the material I’ve had posted (or perhaps not looked at it). tallbloke, you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said about Ian Wilson’s notes. Also, I’ll try once again: The claims are not simply that large eruptions cause cooling.
[reply] Ian Wilson doesn’t ‘make notes’. He is a published astrophysicist. He also wrote to me last year to say he recognised the independence of my research, which you rubbished, on LOD and solar barycentric motion, and offered to help me to get it published with the assistance of a Russian scientist prominent in this field of “the Russian literature”.
As I have pointed out to you on more than one occasion on this thread, and in private email, this thread is not about the totality of the real and complex interaction between volcanic activity and climate, a vast subject which is beyond the scope of a single blog post. Yet you still wish to imply that we are deficient in understanding, and I for one have had enough of that.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 11, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Thanks for the links.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 12, 2010 at 12:27 am (Edit)
TSI can go opposite to solar wind velocity at times too, as sunspots and coronal holes don`t get on that well, sometimes though, fast and turbulant solar wind emanates from stronger sunspot groups.
You can do a daily plot of solar wind here http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
I know, I provided that link to someone here last week. I think I got it from you 😉
So I just did a plot, and guess what, solar windspeed dropped immediately after Pinatubo and didn’t peak again until early1993. 😀
SW in black on this plot. You’re right that it doesn’t match TSI all the time, but in this case it confirms what we are saying about cooling after big volcanos often being due to the big yellow thing in the sky sadly neglected by many researchers.
If anyone’s watching, Grimsvotn/Bardabunga is acting up:
http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/vatnajokull/
Hmmm, something’s brewing.
Tallbloke,
A couple of years ago I was looking at correlations between VEI and rainfall (interestingly it seemed Tunguska and Tsar Bomba left small fingerprints).
A problem arose when comparing VEI’s from different datasets. I saw the Katmai (Novarupta) 1912 eruption in some data was a VEI 6, but some sets show it as less, and so on for Bezimianny, Lamington ……
Then trying to get maximum height of dust clouds showed similar variations.
My question – Is the volcano data any better than GISS temp (post-adjustment) data?
Hi Tony, and welcome.
Honest answer? I don’t know. It seems unlikely we’ll have a good handle on the max cloud height from volcanoes which erupted long ago. I would guess that the data will evolve as the same volcanoes erupt again, and local studies calibrate the modern fallout against archeological evidence, and so re-estimate cloud diffusion for previous events.
Or something. 🙂
This observation of surface cooling just before an increase in volcanism and at the time of a decrease of solar activity seems to be a valuable clue to interplanetary connections. At present I vote for EMF connections rather then gravity although the solar activity changes look to me to be more gravity based. :-d pg
P.G. Sharrow says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:17 pm
It’s only a matter of perspective (phase angle) 🙂
Adolfo Giurfa
Is your point of view different then your view point? 8-]
Actions of energy does seem to demonstrate 3 dimensions of activity, That is for an action in one direction there are 2 more kinds of action in the other 2 directions.
Barycentric stirring of the great thermonuclear pot seems to be the main cause of changes of its’ total energy output. However the sunspot activity may not be the best measure of solar energy output.
Contrary to popular impression the spark output of a Tesla high energy system is not the thing Tesla was after. The highest output was arrived at if No spark was created. Then the highest effects of power were transferred to the Aether and the greatest amount of energy was available to be removed back to ground by the receiver. It may be that the strongest EMF coupling takes place with in a quiet sun. The sunspot activity may represent “sparking” losses in EMF coupling with greater TSI radiation and solar wind. Stronger coupling would result in greater transfer of energy to the earth internally. This would also increase the heating of the deep cold oceans to appear much later in upwelling.
Long periods of a quiet sun would result in an ice age as the “heated” oceans would evaporate great amounts of water into a cold upper atmosphere. The actual surface temperature of the oceans would not change much as only the evaporation energy would increase. The summers would not be as hot and the winters not as cold as there would be a more even amount of energy in the lower atmosphere.
Maybe the coming Ice Age will not be so bad. pg
If we evolve flippers and big lungs. 😉
[…] Ulric Lyons points out volcanoes frequently occur when there have been sudden temperature uplifts coincident with sudden […]
Huaynaputina, apparently the largest eruption in the last 600yrs:
http://www.volcanolive.com/huaynaputina.html
Click to access briffa_1600_volcanic.pdf
is thought to have caused climatic cooling from 1600 to 1603. The heliocentric configuration then is a near perfect astronomical analogue of the cold winters of 1963, 1784, and 1010 and 829, the two times the Nile froze in the last 2000yrs.
[…] when we have had better instrumentation to observe temperature response. However, a while back, I posted a thread showing that a lot of other big eruptions over the last 120 years didn’t cause cooling at a […]