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

[Strange]

Nothing current since Mount Pinatubo and the early 1990's.

 

Did that affect climate?

 

 

By all means look it up, it would do you good, something of a triumph for Hansen and his models.

 

Look what up?

[Harold Squared]

Mt. Pinatubo, naturally. I thought I made that clear. The eruption did indeed affect climate as predicted by Hansen from 1991-93. There are other examples of course, I try think I mentioned 1816, aka the Poverty Year.

[Strange]

Mt. Pinatubo, naturally. I thought I made that clear.

 

OK. I haven't seen "climate" applied to such short term changes before.

 

Still, hardly relevant to the long term climate change caused by CO2...

 

 

The eruption did indeed affect climate as predicted by Hansen from 1991-93.

 

Another of your brilliantly specific references. I am guessing this is the paper with Hansen's predictions:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91GL02788/abstract

 

I suppose it would be a waste of time asking you for a reference to where these predictions were confirmed? (But it is nice to see that you don't dismiss climate models as worthless.)

[Harold Squared]

 

OK. I haven't seen "climate" applied to such short term changes before.

 

Still, hardly relevant to the long term climate change caused by CO2...

 

 

Another of your brilliantly specific references. I am guessing this is the paper with Hansen's predictions:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91GL02788/abstract

 

I suppose it would be a waste of time asking you for a reference to where these predictions were confirmed? (But it is nice to see that you don't dismiss climate models as worthless.)

It has long been observed that computers exhibit the "GIGO" syndrome. In general I expect this to apply to models as well. Long and short term are relative concepts, the onset of AGW is generally attributed to the 1950s, but it took awhile for the popular press to catch on as records of a preoccupation with an ice age fill the records of the 1970s, pretty much the entire decade.

 

The last such reports I personally know of in fact, appeared in 2008.

 

Pinatubo approximates the magnitude if not the duration of the AGW effect since then, 0.5C approximately.

 

Thanks for the link, I hope you are well.

[Essay]

One aspect of AGW's CO2 effect is how it will persist (spatially and temporally) for decades and centuries, 24/7/365, and from pole to pole; unlike most other forcers of climate, which wax and wane to create the long-term average.

 

So....

Pinatubo approximates the magnitude if not the duration of the AGW effect since then, 0.5C approximately.

 

That's an interesting comparison. So basically you're saying (the temperature change part of) AGW could be offset by repeating a Pinatubo-type event every few years.

 

That seems about right, I guess, since it is essentially the same as the "sulfate aerosol" geoengineering project that's been recently proposed.

Plus, it is a neat way to describe the "scale" of AGW effects!

 

So currently, AGW is running at about 3 extra Pinatubos per decade, right?

 

~

[overtone]

A severe enough such event, or series of them, may be enough to counteract the effects of AGW to date,

Sure. But we haven't seen anything like that in millions of years, so it's probably not the way to bet.

 

particularly as the rate of temperature increase for whatever reason has slackened in recent years.

That probably isn't true.

 

 

 

Pinatubo approximates the magnitude if not the duration of the AGW effect since then, 0.5C approximately.

The Pinatubo effect globally was less than -.4C for less than one full calendar year. If you look at the temperature graphs for the twentieth century, you can hardly see it.

 

 

 

So currently, AGW is running at about 3 extra Pinatubos per decade, right?

More like seven or eight. Edited July 10, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

particularly as the rate of temperature increase for whatever reason has slackened in recent years.

That probably isn't true.

Of course, it's not, and Harold has been corrected on this point more than once already before throughout these threads, but he'd rather not let any pesky facts get in the way of his preferred narrative or emotional commitment to anthropogenic climate change denial.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, showed the rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.116C per decade) was almost exactly the same, in fact slightly higher, as the past five decades (0.113C per decade).

See the study in Science here: http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5632

 

 

[StringJunky]

New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface

 

 

For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community. Nearly all of the measurable indicators of global climate change—such as sea level, ice cover on land and sea, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—show a world changing on short, medium, and long time scales. But for the better part of a decade, global surface temperatures appeared to level off. The overall, long-term trend was upward, but the climb was less steep from 2003–2012. Some scientists, the media, and climate contrarians began referring to it as "the hiatus."

 

If greenhouse gases are still increasing and all other indicators show warming-related change, why wouldn't surface temperatures keep climbing steadily, year after year? One of the leading explanations offered by scientists was that extra heat was being stored in the ocean.

 

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html#jCp

Edited July 10, 2015 by StringJunky

[Harold Squared]

There was a downturn in CO2 levels after Pinatubo, wasn't there? I forget.

 

Anyway, the release of CO2 from warming oceans probably trumps volcanic effects.

[swansont]

There was a downturn in CO2 levels after Pinatubo, wasn't there? I forget.

Nope.

 

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3_650.jpg

[Harold Squared]

Nope.

 

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3_650.jpg

No, not on that scale, of course. It was pretty modest. Actually, as your data seem to indicate, all efforts at CO2 emissions moderation to date seem to have been abysmal failures, hence my little suggestions on the smoke and mirrors thread.

 

This is another topic altogether, barring the particulate emissions aspect, which doesn't seem to be the main focus.

[swansont]

Actually, as your data seem to indicate, all efforts at CO2 emissions moderation to date seem to have been abysmal failures, hence my little suggestions on the smoke and mirrors thread.

 

Another assertion pulled out of a dark place, with no data or analysis to back it up. To know how (un)successful the efforts have been, you'd have to analyze how much CO2 we'd have if the efforts hadn't been made. But that would require some analysis rather than posturing. For all you have shown, the CO2 levels could have been at 400 ppm by 2005 if nothing had been done. Or 450 ppm. Or 500 ppm. How do you know? I'd say a reduction of 20 ppm is a success, and 120 ppm even more so (as long as we're just making things up)

[Harold Squared]

 

Another assertion pulled out of a dark place, with no data or analysis to back it up. To know how (un)successful the efforts have been, you'd have to analyze how much CO2 we'd have if the efforts hadn't been made. But that would require some analysis rather than posturing. For all you have shown, the CO2 levels could have been at 400 ppm by 2005 if nothing had been done. Or 450 ppm. Or 500 ppm. How do you know? I'd say a reduction of 20 ppm is a success, and 120 ppm even more so (as long as we're just making things up)

The observation is made on the data you have presented. The level continues to rise at pretty much the same rate regardless of all measures taken to date, as any child of four can plainly see.

 

Widespread reliance upon nuclear energy has not been tried of course, but would in all probability prove more effective than intermittent resources such as solar and wind which require supplementation of some kind, to date generally based upon carbon combustion.

 

An example of the magnitude of fossil energy required to back up renewables in the absence of nuclear power is the extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 expected by 2020 in Germany, source world-nuclear.org "Nuclear Power in Germany" updated July 2015.

 

No mention of solar power imported from Spain can be found in the report.

[swansont]

The observation is made on the data you have presented. The level continues to rise at pretty much the same rate regardless of all measures taken to date, as any child of four can plainly see.

 

 

One reason we don't hire children to do science. Maybe you can up your game and discuss this at a high-school level, at least.

Widespread reliance upon nuclear energy has not been tried of course, but would in all probability prove more effective than intermittent resources such as solar and wind which require supplementation of some kind, to date generally based upon carbon combustion.

Which misses the point. Any generation by renewables can reduce fossil fuel use.

 

An example of the magnitude of fossil energy required to back up renewables in the absence of nuclear power is the extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 expected by 2020 in Germany, source world-nuclear.org "Nuclear Power in Germany" updated July 2015.

 

 

What does the solar power industry have to say?

 

Or perhaps an unbiased source? Germany now can get more from renewables than from its lignite source

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-01/german-renewables-output-tops-lignite-for-first-time-agora-says

[overtone]

Widespread reliance upon nuclear energy has not been tried of course,

Of course it has. Hundreds of power reactors have been operating for decades all over the planet.

 

but would in all probability prove more effective than intermittent resources such as solar and wind

Depends on how one measures "effectiveness", and how solar and wind are actually set up whenever they come to be accorded the same level of investment and governmental support as nuclear.

 

The waste and weapons threat problems remain unsolved, and the vulnerability to catastrophic accident coupled with the inevitable centralization brings enormous risk premiums on top of the already high costs to any honest analysis, but there would probably be a role for nukes in the CO2 reduced world.

 

 

 

 

An example of the magnitude of fossil energy required to back up renewables in the absence of nuclear power is the extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 expected by 2020 in Germany, source world-nuclear.org "Nuclear Power in Germany" updated July 2015.

Actually, that's an example of the fossil fuel energy required to back up nuclear power. It's the nukes that needed backing up, not the renewables. Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

Of course it has. Hundreds of power reactors have been operating for decades all over the planet.

 

Depends on how one measures "effectiveness", and how solar and wind are actually set up whenever they come to be accorded the same level of investment and governmental support as nuclear.

 

The waste and weapons threat problems remain unsolved, and the vulnerability to catastrophic accident coupled with the inevitable centralization brings enormous risk premiums on top of the already high costs to any honest analysis, but there would probably be a role for nukes in the CO2 reduced world.

 

Actually, that's an example of the fossil fuel energy required to back up nuclear power. It's the nukes that needed backing up, not the renewables.

A bizzare assertion to make when the capacity factors of each source are compared. Usually the only time nuclear facilities require "backup" is during scheduled maintenance and refueling periods.

 

Sheer volume of power produced is not always a plus, either, counterintuively. There are cases on record of Denmark having to GIVE its wind power away or even pay to get rid of it in 2007 and in 2009.

 

Renewables are by their very nature flaky and unreliable, with the exception of hydroelectricity. In the parlance of system operators they are not "dispatchable".

 

It should be mentioned that the partnership between Norway(hydroelectricity) and Denmark(wind power) is probably the best possible symbiosis of renewable sources but that in general thermal(coal) power accounts for a third of the electricity consumed in Denmark, particularly in drier years.

 

Oh, guys we are really off topic here. Dragging it back a little, it would be fair to say that geothermal energy in volcanically active regions might be of some limited use in curbing atmospheric emissions of an artificial nature. Agreed?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

Actually, that's an example of the fossil fuel energy required to back up nuclear power. It's the nukes that needed backing up, not the renewables.

A bizzare assertion to make when the capacity factors of each source are compared. - - .

It's an observation of the actual events - what actually happened. The nukes needed backing up.

 

 

 

Usually the only time nuclear facilities require "backup" is during scheduled maintenance and refueling periods.

There have been about 975 nuclear power reactors built and powered up.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/interactive-map-all-the-worlds-nuclear-reactors

 

Of them, at least 10 have failed catastrophically and permanently - a possibility they share with hydroelectric dams and essentially no other power source. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank That's a minimum 1% total loss rate, whose permanent effects are not calculated into the so called "capacity factor" of the industry as a whole.

 

Nukes need backup.

 

 

 

Oh, guys we are really off topic here.

The OP topic was dismissed in a couple of sentences long ago.

[iNow]

it would be fair to say that geothermal energy in volcanically active regions might be of some limited use in curbing atmospheric emissions of an artificial nature. Agreed?

Like in Iceland where it already accounts for 25-30% or the Phillipines where it accounts for 27%, or El Salvado and Kenya and New Zealand where it's nearly 15% of each country's total electricity generation?

 

http://www.nea.is/geothermal/

http://www.energydigital.com/top10/2718/Top-Ten:-Geothermal-Energy-Locations

[Acme]

...

Oh, guys we are really off topic here. Dragging it back a little, it would be fair to say that geothermal energy in volcanically active regions might be of some limited use in curbing atmospheric emissions of an artificial nature. Agreed?

Such activity is known to cause earthquakes.

 

How]How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?

People living near a geothermal drilling project in fault-riddled northern California are worried about more earthquakes after a similar project triggered a major jolt in Switzerland. A seismologist explains the forces at work.

Despite the promise of cheap, clean power, geothermal energy development may be on shaky ground. There have been rumblings from residents and scientists alike that drilling deep to tap naturally occurring heat could cause bigger earthquakes.

...

2013 Video: >> Connections between seismic and aseismic fault slip in the Salton Trough and Salton Sea Geothermal Field

Edited July 28, 2015 by Acme