Volcanic Aerosols, Not Pollutants, Tamped Down Recent Earth Warming

Volcanic Aerosols, Not Pollutants, Tamped Down Recent Earth Warming

www.sciencedaily.com

Mar. 1, 2013 — A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight -- dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning, said lead study author Ryan Neely, who led the research as part of his CU-Boulder doctoral thesis. Small amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth's surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet."

"Neely said previous observations suggest that increases in stratospheric aerosols since 2000 have counterbalanced as much as 25 percent of the warming scientists blame on human greenhouse gas emissions. "This new study indicates it is emissions from small to moderate volcanoes that have been slowing the warming of the planet," said Neely, a researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint venture of CU-Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

A paper on the subject was published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Co-authors include Professors Brian Toon and Jeffrey Thayer from CU-Boulder; Susan Solomon, a former NOAA scientist now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jean Paul Vernier from NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.; Catherine Alvarez, Karen Rosenlof and John Daniel from NOAA; and Jason English, Michael Mills and Charles Bardeen from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.

The new project was undertaken in part to resolve conflicting results of two recent studies on the origins of the sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, including a 2009 study led by the late David Hoffman of NOAA indicating aerosol increases in the stratosphere may have come from rising emissions of sulfur dioxide from India and China. In contrast, a 2011 study led by Vernier -- who also provided essential observation data for the new GRL study -- showed moderate volcanic eruptions play a role in increasing particulates in the stratosphere, Neely said.

The new GRL study also builds on a 2011 study led by Solomon showing stratospheric aerosols offset about a quarter of the greenhouse effect warming on Earth during the past decade, said Neely, also a postdoctoral fellow in NCAR's Advanced Study Program."

Continued artical in link.
Well this is interesting. I so if the drop in temp is not because of global warming but because of volcanos. Maybe we could be expecting some major events in the near future. Maybe volcanos play a part in how an iceage happens? Just leeks outs and cools the planet over till the currents slow down and everything freezes.

Thought id share this with you guys!

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw

I so if the drop in temp is not because of global warming but because of volcanos.

I'm afraid you read the article incorrectly.

There was no drop in temperatures. Temperatures increased but not as much as models predicted.

It is thought that this is because of the contribution of small volcanic eruptions. Something that was not included in those models. The point being that they should be, in order for the models to be able to more accurately predict the pace of warming.

I am somewhat staggered that volcanic gas was never modeled for in these researches. One would have thought that such things would automatically be factored in, since they have been active contributors to the contents of the atmosphere since before man gained the capacity to make fire, and then some!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw

 

I so if the drop in temp is not because of global warming but because of volcanos.

I'm afraid you read the article incorrectly.

There was no drop in temperatures. Temperatures increased but not as much as models predicted.

It is thought that this is because of the contribution of small volcanic eruptions. Something that was not included in those models. The point being that they should be, in order for the models to be able to more accurately predict the pace of warming.

edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ahh thank you my friend. I love how informative you are. I'm just tired. I'm wondering if we would get baked then if the volcanos started puffing more smoke

reply to post by TrueBrit

It wasn't thought that aerosols from small eruptions would enter the stratosphere in amounts significant enough to affect radiative forcing. It was thought that only large explosive events like Pinatubo and El Chichon would do so. Being random and unpredictable, such events wouldn't be appropriately applied to the models.

Small eruptions, on the other hand, are more constant (though unpredictable). Now that their effects are being quantified they can be included.

what scares me is how utterly helpless we are from a massive eruption or, god forbid, massive methane hydrate releases

Earth keeps changing, there could be a pattern to this perhaps.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Or asteroid impacts.
But the good news is we don't have to worry about sabre tooth tigers any more.

My problem with this research is that once again science seems to have fallen into the either/or trap.

Why can it not be because of human pollution AND volcanic aerosols?

(and I'd add a few other factors in as well)

Just as warming is not caused just by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but a whole variety of things (some natural)

Lots of warming factors, lots of cooling factors, all engaged in a complex dance that sees first one lead then the other ..... but with warming taking the lead most often over a multidecadal timescale. And the human factors being preventable, even if the natural ones cannot.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

My problem with this research is that once again science seems to have fallen into the either/or trap.

No. It hasn't.

The study does not say that coal burning in China had no effect. It says that coal burning in China cannot account in full for the variance from predicted warming. It supports your point. The 2009 study laid the "blame" completely on China.

reply to post by Phage


Serves me right for not reading all the text