Volcanic Eruptions Cause Global Cooling: Man Made Pollution Has a Very Small Effect

[Jhon cooper martin]

Volcanic Eruptions Cause Global Cooling: Man Made Pollution Has a Very Small Effect

Global temperatures over time are dependent on major volcanic eruptions and not on man made pollution as the global warming crowd claims. Volcanic eruptions have caused some heating, but the main effects have been global cooling.

 

There are many examples of global cooling, some of which are described in the following paragraphs. (Reference 1,2) Approximately 74,000 years ago there was an eruption of a volcano in Java named Toba. This eruption is described by volcanists as “Humongous.” The eruption killed almost all humans on earth at that time. This is not a theory but is well established by scientific data from different sources. They include geologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and others. (Reference 1,2)

 

We are a single species which we all are descended from and survived in east Africa. From there this migration has been traced first east, then north and east, and later west. Recently Science Daily, (May 10, 2007, reference 3) reports that new research DNA data shows that the Australian Aborigine people came from the same genetic background as the people who migrated out of east Africa. The same is true for the people of New Guinea.

 

The estimated eruption volume of the Toba eruption is fourteen cubic miles. This is based on evidence from a large number of sources. It is enormous compared to the pollution that the global warming crowd claims is doing so much damage. There is evidence that there were a number of years of global cooling with freezing or near freezing temperatures along the equator with lower temperatures at higher latitudes (Reference 1).

 

A number of volcanic eruptions have been related to global cooling. The Tambora eruption in Java in 1815 is an example of this. The year following this eruption was known as the year without a summer. In the United States’ Northeast there were snow storms and frost in June, July and August. Many people lost their lives in Java, perhaps as many as 10,000 directly and many more indirectly (Reference 1 pages 68 – 70).

 

Volcanic eruptions started in Iceland in 1783, continuing until 1784. These eruptions were along a line, approximately twenty-seven kilometers long. More than twenty-five percent of the population died from volcanic ash, poison gas and starvation.

 

Benjamin Franklin, at the time, represented the United States in France. He speculated that the eye stinging haze and cold winters of 1783 – 1784 were the result of the Iceland volcanoes. North America winters were especially cold to the extent that the Mississippi river froze at New Orleans. Ice cores from Greenland contained significant concentrations of sulfuric acid for the years of 1783 – 1784. Sulfuric acid is one gas contained in the eruption gases.

 

On April 5, 1815 the volcano Tambora in Indonesia erupted. This was the largest eruption in the last 10,000 years. An estimated thirty-six cubic miles of ash and pumice were ejected. In New England, 1816 was called “The year without summer.” In June 1816 the average temperature was seven degrees Fahrenheit below the preceding years for the entire period from 1780 to 1968.

 

In 1883 the island of Krakatau erupted causing a loss of life of 36,417 official recorded deaths to an estimated 120,000. The average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius with unstable temperatures until 1888 (Reference 4).

 

It is very difficult to separate war, politics, and climate. Washington crossing the Delaware in December of 1776 encountered very cold weather with snow on the ground and below freezing conditions. This is evidence of a volcanic eruption somewhere on earth. There were volcanic eruptions in the Wudalianchi Field in Northeast China that took place in 1776. This may have caused the bad weather Washington encountered. In any case Washington’s victory appears to be greatly due to his crossing the Delaware under very difficult conditions (Reference 6). Currently we are experiencing much loss of liberty and freedom as a result of high taxes and more government regulations which are completely uncalled for.

 

More than 2,000 years ago the eruption of Mount Etna probably caused colder temperatures in Italy and led to famine in Rome and Egypt. Starting around 535 AD and continuing into 540 AD, there is evidence of extremely short summers and periods of extreme cold. This has been attributed to the eruption of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia (Reference 1, pages 68 – 91).

 

Around 1630 BC Greek Island of Thera erupted and apparently caused the beginning of the end of the Minoan Civilization. Radio and carbon data indicated cold weather in the northern hemisphere including China. Tree ring data from various parts of the world set the time at 1628 BC. Recent studies indicate that the eruptions injected an estimated fifteen cubic miles of earth. The plume reached a height of eighteen to twenty-one miles (Reference 1).

 

Climate cooling in the northern hemisphere as indicated by the tree rings, from many locations, frost in July as reported from China, heavy rain in Egypt. There is even evidence that the myth of Atlantis actually occurred and was caused by the Thera Eruption, (Reference 6).

 

On March 17, 1963 the volcano Agung on Bali erupted explosively. The gases reached the stratosphere and the troposphere fell about eleven degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature in the northern hemisphere fell slightly. At the end of March and beginning of April, 1982, the Volcano El Chichon in southeast Mexico exploded vertically. There was a slight lowering of the temperature in the northern hemisphere of several tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.

 

There are a number of factors that appear to influence the climate both local and global. The size of the eruptions is perhaps the most profound on the global climate. The humongous eruption of Toba around 74,000 years ago wiped out almost all humans on earth. It is the largest in the last 100,000 years.

 

Volcanic eruptions occur somewhere on earth almost continuously (Reference 7). The larger ones contribute to global cooling. The smaller ones are not well understood but some appear to contribute to global cooling. This needs to be explored with honest research based on good data and not on computer models based of false assumptions. Computer models are valuable in research as long as the input data are well founded and the limitations are recognized.

 

Research to date has yielded much information on the details of the effects, however much more remains to be discovered. Small eruptions may cool the troposphere with only an insignificant cooling globally. Some eruptions cause short term heating and larger long term cooling; an example being the Iceland eruption of 1873 – 1874. The composition of the gases erupted makes a difference. The amount of sulfur dioxide is also important; the larger amount resulting in the larger global cooling. The direction of the eruption is significant. If it is mostly vertical the more likely it will spread globally as compared to lateral eruptions.

 

Governments and politicians can make a critical difference on the lives lost. The Mount Pelee eruption is perhaps the most misguided case. Authorities claim the volcano was extinct up to the last. Many thousands lost their lives needlessly (Reference 2, page 203). In the Iceland eruption of 1883 – 1884 the magma was stopped before it was able to destroy a much needed harbor by a major effort of water cooling (Reference 2, page 136).

 

Is a current global warming crowd giving us bad advice? Bad advice was given to the residence of Mount Pelee before the eruption causing the needless loss of life. In other words, are we going in the wrong direction mainly out of ignorance?

 

There is much scientific data that supports the out of Africa human migration after the Toba eruption. A study of the human mitochondrial DNA indicated that the human population was reduced to as few as 5,000 people between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago. This fits exactly with the people in nearby New Guinea.

 

Now we have a complete picture, the Toba eruption reducing the human population to only a few thousand. They were all located in east Africa. From there they repopulated the earth. Their migration has been followed first east, then north, and then east and west.

 

The global warming crowd claim man is to blame and if not corrected will do much damage to the climate. Al Gore has become rich and famous as a leader. Obama has obtained perhaps the world’s greatest political power and at the same time has done enormous damage to the United States and world economy (Reference 10, 11, 12). Global warming has a great appeal in that they are saving mother earth. It turns out over the long term mother earth is not kind and gentle. When it comes to volcanic eruptions she can be mean and vicious. It is time this is recognized.

 

Currently it appears there is little that can be done before another Toba type eruption. Given time it may be possible to predict such an event and a much greater percentage of people could survive. Fortunately, such an eruption appears unlikely for thousands of years in the future.

 

There is much that can be done for smaller eruptions. A great amount of research needs to be done with the objective of predicting the location, size, and nature of future eruptions. The result of this work should be used to determine what measure can be used to reduce the loss of life and property damage.

 

Obama appears to believe that the wealth of the United States built up over the years was at the cost of the poor foreign nations. His stated objective is to reduce the standard of living of the middle income American. Most Americans do not believe this is true and American wealth was built up by private enterprise and individual freedom (Reference 8).

 

Higher taxes, and more government regulation, which is what the Obama administration has been imposing, is going the wrong way. More and more regulation dictated from Washington which appears to have no regard to the economic impact which results in making Middle Americans poor. Middle Americans produce most of the new jobs. The thought of higher taxes and more regulations makes planning for the future difficult.

 

The population can be divided into two parts, consumers and producers. The entire populations are consumers. The producers are a smaller part. An economic system that encourages producers is much more likely to prosper than ones that do not. As F.A. Hayck pointed out (Reference 9) historically the free enterprise system has proven to be more productive than planned systems, such as socialist, dictatorships, communist, etc.

 

Obama seems to be working hard to turn the United States economy into a third words economy. His weapon has been the myth of global warming. As pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, global climate is determined almost entirely by volcanic eruptions and is not man made. Obama played global warming propaganda for much more than it is worth. Eventually he wants to be a dictator, where the subjects have very little freedom and are almost all very poor. Printing money is one way Obama administration is working to destroy the economy. Restriction banks from lending money is another.

 

Al Gore (Reference 13) appears to be another want to-be dictator that would subject the United States to a planned economy based on the global warming myth. Again this is likely to result in the loss of much personal freedom and great damage to the economy.

 

The United States economy is far from being a free enterprise system. However, if the effects of volcanic eruptions on global temperatures are properly accounted for, it would be a major step forward. The effects of man made pollution on global climates are similar to the tail wagging the dog. In this case it is a very small tail wagging of a very large dog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

1. Savino, John, and Jones, Marie D. “Super Volcano, The Catastrophi Event that Changes the Course of Human History.” The Career Press, Inc, 2007.

 

 

1. Zeilingade Boer, Jelle, and Sauders, Donald Theodore. “Volcanoes in Human History” Princeton University Press, 2007.

 

 

1. Science Daily, May 10, 2007.

 

 

1. Krakatoa – Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia 10/29/2011.

 

 

1. Fischer, David Hackett, “Washington’s Crossing” Oxford University Press, 2004.

 

 

1. “Minoan Eruption” – Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia.

 

 

1. “Kraktoa” – Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

 

 

1. Smithsonian / USGS Weekly Volcanic Activity Report.

 

 

1. Hayek, Friedrich A. “The Road to Serfdom” Special Abridged Edition, The Heritage Foundation, University of Chicago Press, 1994.

 

 

1. Horner, Christopher C. “Power Grab” Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2010.

 

 

1. Milloy, Steve. “Green Hell” Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2008.

 

 

1. Horner, Christopher C. “Red Hot Lies” Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2008.

 

 

1. Gore, Al. “An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It.” Rodale, 2006.

 

 

John Cooper Martin worked as a research engineer for thirty-five years. Investigations include earthquakes, volcanoes, earth stresses, soil mechanics, land subsidence, hydraulic fracturing, geothermal power, oil field performance and economics, exterior ballistics, supersonic flow, etc. The results were used to guide company or government policies. Some results were published in technical papers or used to initiate research projects at government laboratories or universities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Since you posted this in earth science, political views are irrelevant to the discussion. Post any sentiment along those lines in politics.

————————


I don't see the connection between volcano preparedness and global warming.

If volcanos tend to cool the planet, and I agree they do, one must still account for the observed warming.

[Jhon cooper martin]

Global temperatures are variable and one should consider time periods of 10 to 100,00 years. The last 10 years there is evidence of global cooling. For example Mississippi froze at New Orleans other examples are given in the forum. As discussed in the forum in the last 100000 years the Toba eruption eliminated almost all the human population.

 

 

[swansont]

Global temperatures are variable and one should consider time periods of 10 to 100,00 years. The last 10 years there is evidence of global cooling. For example Mississippi froze at New Orleans other examples are given in the forum. As discussed in the forum in the last 100000 years the Toba eruption eliminated almost all the human population.

 

Why should we consider the last 100,000 years when we are interested in much shorter time scales?

 

Citations, please, (preferably links instead of book titles; if you cite a book at least give a proper cite with page numbers) for your evidence of cooling in the last 10 years.

 

Did Toba allegedly freeze people to death? If not, I don't see the connection to global warming.

[Ophiolite]

I am not aware of any serious Earth scientist who disputes the role of large volcanic eruptions in tending to produce a drop in global temperature.

 

Many Earth scientists, politicians, educated laypersons and viewers of the Discovery Channel are aware that very large volcanic eruptions could devastate large parts of the Earth and even throw the entire biosphere into crisis.

 

You appear to be arguing that because volcanic eruptions can cause cooling that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot cause warming. If this is not what you are saying you need to clarify your argument.

 

So, as SwansonT has requested political aspects of your post not be discussed here I am left wondering whether there is anything at all to say in this thread - except, perhaps, to point out that Lake Toba is in Sumatra, not Java and to wonder if that reflects on the quality of your research.

[Ophiolite]

This looks like the OP was a hit and run post. It has been duplicated on at least two other forums, with no response from Martin on either of them.

[swansont]

This looks like the OP was a hit and run post. It has been duplicated on at least two other forums, with no response from Martin on either of them.

 

Inconceivable!

[JohnB]

Inconceivable!

 

You keep using that word......

[seismic dunedain]

Why should we consider the last 100,000 years when we are interested in much shorter time scales?

 

 

 

 

good question. But we should consider much longer than just the last 100,000 years, that's a blink of an eye in geologic time. The reason we should be considering long time scales is so that we can understand how much of the current global change is anthropogenic. For instance, how do we answer this question "what if Global warming isn't caused by us and it's just a natural cycle?" Well we would need to know how the Earth's climate has changed throughout its history to determine how much of the current global change is anthropogenic and how much is a natural paleo-climactic cycle.

 

By the way, this whole article is garbage. First of all, if volcanic eruptions cause cooling then it is probably because of the ash and soot that eruptions eject into the atmosphere and nothing to do with the greenhouse gases. Second, just so we're all clear, Human sources of Co2 are an order of magnitude greater than volcanic activity. And what the hell was with all the political crap. This is the problem with so many people with an opinion on global warming, they don't know or care one iota about the actual science, they just have some political-economic agenda they want to advance and they'll spread all kinds of garbage. That's why the public is so confused. You have left-wing fear-mongers telling us that global warming is leading us to a Doomsday apocalypse and right-wing greedy morons telling us that it's all a myth. The truth is that global warming IS real and it WILL be a challenge for the future, but it won't result in any sort of apocalyptic disaster.

 

 

 

'

Edited March 8, 2012 by seismic dunedain

[swansont]

good question. But we should consider much longer than just the last 100,000 years, that's a blink of an eye in geologic time. The reason we should be considering long time scales is so that we can understand how much of the current global change is anthropogenic. For instance, how do we answer this question "what if Global warming isn't caused by us and it's just a natural cycle?" Well we would need to know how the Earth's climate has changed throughout its history to determine how much of the current global change is anthropogenic and how much is a natural paleo-climactic cycle.

 

No, knowing how much temperature has varied in the past does not tell you if this is a natural cycle; that assumes all of the effects are identical, and that's a bad assumption to make. The way you determine if it's natural or not is to measure everything and find out the contributions. "It's natural" is not some magic bullet — you still do a systematic study of the problem. Scientists have done so, and concluded that you can't explain the amount of warming without anthropogenic effects.

[seismic dunedain]

No, knowing how much temperature has varied in the past does not tell you if this is a natural cycle; that assumes all of the effects are identical, and that's a bad assumption to make. The way you determine if it's natural or not is to measure everything and find out the contributions. "It's natural" is not some magic bullet — you still do a systematic study of the problem. Scientists have done so, and concluded that you can't explain the amount of warming without anthropogenic effects.

 

First of all, you are correct that the Earth is not exactly the same as it was in the past but it is SIMILAR enough that we can draw scientific value from studying it. We shouldn't just ignore an entire body of evidence because it's not a perfect body of evidence. In fact, all of sedimentary geology is based on whats called the principle of Uniformitarianism which basically says "The key to the prast is the present". So basically geologists make the assumption that the Earth today is very similiar to the ancient Earth. How else could a geologist look at 500 million year old sandstone and draw conclusions about the environment that sandstone was deposited in? So it isn't a bad assumption at all, it's the assumption that sedimentary geology is based on.

 

Who said "It's natural" is some magic bullet. I certainly didn't. What I said that it's a valuable question to ask if our current global warming is part of natural cycle. And I wasn't telling what climate scientist SHOULD do, I'm telling you that they DO spend a lot of effort studying ancient paleo-climatology to help answer that question. You seem to have assumed that I deny global warming, which of course is not what I did if you read my post.

Edited March 8, 2012 by seismic dunedain

[iNow]

And as swansont already noted, natural causes ARE included in climate science, yet they fail to adequately account for either the rate OR the amount of warming we are experiencing, even if they may have in the past.

Edited March 9, 2012 by iNow

[seismic dunedain]

And as swansont already noted, natural causes ARE included in climate science, yet they fail to adequately account for either the rate OR the amount of warming we are experiencing, even if they may have in the past.

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. I am not sure why anyone thinks I disagree. I merely think that the idea we shouldn't look beyond the last 100,000 years to be a misguided sentiment. Climate scientists can and do look much further back and I was just explaining why.

 

I see, because I posed the question "what if Global warming isn't caused by us and it's just a natural cycle?" it sounds as if I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic. But I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that this question is one that needed to be addressed by climate scientists. And one of the ways they did address that question is by looking back much farther than the last 100,000 years. Alright, I think we might all be on the same page now.

Edited March 9, 2012 by seismic dunedain

[swansont]

First of all, you are correct that the Earth is not exactly the same as it was in the past but it is SIMILAR enough that we can draw scientific value from studying it.

 

True, but that's not what you implied earlier.

 

We shouldn't just ignore an entire body of evidence because it's not a perfect body of evidence. In fact, all of sedimentary geology is based on whats called the principle of Uniformitarianism which basically says "The key to the prast is the present". So basically geologists make the assumption that the Earth today is very similiar to the ancient Earth. How else could a geologist look at 500 million year old sandstone and draw conclusions about the environment that sandstone was deposited in? So it isn't a bad assumption at all, it's the assumption that sedimentary geology is based on.

 

Uniformitarianism doesn't assume the earth was the same, it assumes the processes behaved in the same manner.

 

Who said "It's natural" is some magic bullet. I certainly didn't. What I said that it's a valuable question to ask if our current global warming is part of natural cycle. And I wasn't telling what climate scientist SHOULD do, I'm telling you that they DO spend a lot of effort studying ancient paleo-climatology to help answer that question. You seem to have assumed that I deny global warming, which of course is not what I did if you read my post.

 

What I read in your post was the implication that if a temperature change had occurred naturally in the past, then from that information alone we could conclude that a similar current temperature change is natural. And that's not true. If that's not what you meant, fine, but that's how it reads.

[seismic dunedain]

True, but that's not what you implied earlier.

 

 

 

Uniformitarianism doesn't assume the earth was the same, it assumes the processes behaved in the same manner.

 

 

 

What I read in your post was the implication that if a temperature change had occurred naturally in the past, then from that information alone we could conclude that a similar current temperature change is natural. And that's not true. If that's not what you meant, fine, but that's how it reads.

 

 

Fair enough

[Acme]

I am not aware of any serious Earth scientist who disputes the role of large volcanic eruptions in tending to produce a drop in global temperature.

 

Many Earth scientists, politicians, educated laypersons and viewers of the Discovery Channel are aware that very large volcanic eruptions could devastate large parts of the Earth and even throw the entire biosphere into crisis.

 

You appear to be arguing that because volcanic eruptions can cause cooling that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot cause warming. If this is not what you are saying you need to clarify your argument.

 

So, as SwansonT has requested political aspects of your post not be discussed here I am left wondering whether there is anything at all to say in this thread - except, perhaps, to point out that Lake Toba is in Sumatra, not Java and to wonder if that reflects on the quality of your research.

Disclaimer: I am not a global warming skeptic, denier, decryer, yada yada yada.

 

In light of your specifying 'large' volcanic eruptions I thought you'd find this new study interesting.

Small Volcanoes Underestimated in Climate Models

A new study from MIT shows that the effects of smaller eruptions have been underestimated in climate models, revealing that relatively small volcanic eruptions can increase aerosol particles in the atmosphere, temporarily mitigating the global warming caused by greenhouse gases.

 

The impact of such smaller eruptions has been underestimated in climate models, the researchers say, and helps to account for a discrepancy between those models and the actual temperatures observed over the last 15 years.

...

Overall, these smaller eruptions have lowered the increase of global temperature since 2000 by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius, counteracting some of the warming that would otherwise have occurred. Now, using this new information, groups that carry out climate modeling can update their models to more accurately project global climate change over the coming decades, Ridley says....

Full paper behind pay-wall: >> Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change @ Geophysical Research Letters

 

Given our paucity of data for 'small' submarine volcanoes -notwithstanding that they don't introduce aerosols directly into the atmosphere- it seems reasonable there are other discrepancies in the models yet to be corrected.

 

Let the heated debate ensue.

[swansont]

Disclaimer: I am not a global warming skeptic, denier, decryer, yada yada yada.

 

In light of your specifying 'large' volcanic eruptions I thought you'd find this new study interesting.

Small Volcanoes Underestimated in Climate Models

 

Full paper behind pay-wall: >> Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change @ Geophysical Research Letters

 

Given our paucity of data for 'small' submarine volcanoes -notwithstanding that they don't introduce aerosols directly into the atmosphere- it seems reasonable there are other discrepancies in the models yet to be corrected.

 

Let the heated debate ensue.

 

 

If it's correct, then there must be additional heating from other positive forcings to compensate.

[Acme]

If it's correct, then there must be additional heating from other positive forcings to compensate.

I don't understand your comment in light of the article. Perhaps you could clarify your reservations.

 

Edit: Here's the Abstract from the original paper.

Abstract

 

Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, Aerosol Robotic Network, and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at middle to high latitudes and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm−2. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12°C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Acme

[swansont]

I don't understand your comment in light of the article. Perhaps you could clarify your reservations.

 

Not a reservation, really. It means that there has been warming from other sources, despite the erroneous claims of "no warming for 15 years"; here we have another piece to that result. However, no single paper can be assumed to be absolutely correct. It still needs corroboration.

[Acme]

Not a reservation, really. It means that there has been warming from other sources, despite the erroneous claims of "no warming for 15 years"; here we have another piece to that result. However, no single paper can be assumed to be absolutely correct. It still needs corroboration.

I see. Perhaps the article belongs in another thread; heaven knows we have enough of them. I searched the site for 'volcanoes' and looked for climate change threads with that term and as Ophiolite mentioned 'large' volcanoes here in relation to climate I settled for this one. While others may claim here or elsewhere that there is 'no warming for 15 years', the paper and article I cited do no such thing. (Nor do I.) The authors are just giving evidence that may account for the discrepancy in the rate of change predicted by models and the rate of change -say warming- that has been observed.

 

If you have some specifics to quarrel with then by all means do so, but I think the generalized 'needs corroboration' observation is unsatisfying given this is a peer reviewed study.

 

While the paper is behind a pay-wall, I did find some parts that are not.

 

Auxiliary Material for Uncertainties in recent volcanic aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change

Edited December 9, 2014 by Acme

[Ophiolite]

If you have some specifics to quarrel with then by all means do so, but I think the generalized 'needs corroboration' observation is unsatisfying given this is a peer reviewed study.

Whoa! I would absolutely look for corroboration of the findings of any single study. Surely peer review does not validate the results, it merely indicates that the researchers have apparently employed sound scientific practices and good logic in their study.

[Acme]

 

...

If you have some specifics to quarrel with then by all means do so, but I think the generalized 'needs corroboration' observation is unsatisfying given this is a peer reviewed study.

...

Whoa! I would absolutely look for corroboration of the findings of any single study. Surely peer review does not validate the results, it merely indicates that the researchers have apparently employed sound scientific practices and good logic in their study.

 

Good grief! We all are constantly asking [crying out] for peer reviewed material so that we can judge the work on its merits, and when I give a peer-reviewed source I get a bunch of hand waving knee-jerking and no judgment or consideration of the work's actual methods or merit. Very disappointing to say the least. I thought you in particular Ophiolite would find the study interesting if not have some specific observations on it. My bad.

[Ophiolite]

I think it is both a pertinent and interesting article. I said nothing to the contrary. I simply made the point that all research needs to be replicated and validated before - provisionally, always provisionally - being accepted into the "library" of knowledge. That's a position that I would have thought you would have agreed with. I'm sorry you've got your knickers in a twist over, what to me, is a simple statement of good scientific practice. If you don't think that's good practice, maybe we should open another thread to discuss.

[Acme]

I think it is both a pertinent and interesting article. I said nothing to the contrary. I simply made the point that all research needs to be replicated and validated before - provisionally, always provisionally - being accepted into the "library" of knowledge. That's a position that I would have thought you would have agreed with. I'm sorry you've got your knickers in a twist over, what to me, is a simple statement of good scientific practice. If you don't think that's good practice, maybe we should open another thread to discuss.

Neither did you say it was pertinent or interesting 'til now. You -and Swansot- instead just launched into generalized criticism without so much as a mention of any specifics from the paper. It should go without saying that discussion, validation, criticism and review of the paper's specifics are what I expected. I'm not holding my breath.

 

In my own interest I looked into as much as I could find and this blog makes some interesting points as well as garnered some specific questions and comments.

 

ReportingClimateScience.com

...This finding builds on previous research published earlier this year by a team including Benjamin Santer – who is also a co-author of the current study - that analysed satellite data to show that volcanic aerosols released from several eruptions since 2000 had a discernible cooling effect on the lower layers of the atmosphere. This previous paper, published in Nature Geoscience, estimated the magnitude of the volcanic cooling effect in climate model simulations, and concluded that the lack of volcanic influences in model simulations of twenty-first-century climate can explain some of the overestimation of warming in these simulations of global mean surface temperatures, compared with observations. They concluded that “climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998.” ...

Here's a link given on that page to the previous report referenced. Seems the initial paper I introduced was itself corroboration and follow up study. Go figure. >> Research: Volcanic Aerosols Contribute to Pause

.

Addendum:

As I said, I chose this thread because of Ophiolite's mention of volcanic eruptions. I should emphasize again I in no way intend to support this thread title's implication that humans aren't to blame for the increase in the rate of warming, nor do the authors of the papers I have referenced. Perhaps I should have started a separate thread in the news section. Sue me. Mods feel free to split or not as you will.

 

Reading just now the second article I just referenced the authors make clear the implication of their work and that said work is contrary to warming denialist claims. To whit:

..The authors study the impact of the eruptions of El Chichón and Pinatubo and challenge the suggestion that the recent divergence between modelled and observed temperature changes provides evidence that climate models are on average two or three times too sensitive to human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.

 

“If this claim is correct, there is a serious error in present model-based estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) to greenhouse gas forcing. As both TCR and the volcanic signal decay time are related to the rate of ocean heat uptake, a large model error in ocean heat uptake would yield errors in the simulated temperature response to El Chichón and Pinatubo. The close agreement we find between the observed and model average TLT (temperature of the lower troposphere) responses to El Chichón and Pinatubo does not support the claim of a fundamental model error in climate sensitivity,” state the authors.

 

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said: "This is a good paper and confirms the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change position that recent volcanoes contribute to the slowdown but cannot be the only cause. Volcanoes give us only a temporary respite from the relentless warming pressure of continued increases in CO2."

...

Edited December 9, 2014 by Acme

[swansont]

 

If you have some specifics to quarrel with then by all means do so, but I think the generalized 'needs corroboration' observation is unsatisfying given this is a peer reviewed study.

 

Peer-review is a necessary but insufficient condition. It does not guarantee correctness; there can be problems that peer review does not discover. You always need corroboration, regardless of the field of study. Examples abound within climate science of a range of results for many areas where multiple groups have carried out research. Not all of the results overlap, statistically. They're all peer-reviewed, but they can't all be right.