Before we get to volcanoes I want to take you on a little history.
When this climate science was born by Jim Hansen the logic was simple. The ice ages were a period of great temperature variation. 8C movement caused the Earth to move from iceball state to where we are today and back hundreds of times. Why?
Milankovic cycles were discovered to be small variations in Earths orbit around the sun.
Due to the effects of other planets gravitation the Earth moves in a a very small wobbling pattern that was discovered to be about the duration of 41,000 years or roughly the ice ages.
The total maximum variation in the suns impact on the earth generates no more than 10% of the energy needed to cause the ice age variation. So, scientists for a long time have known there is a problem with why the ice ages show so much temperature change when the solar input change is so low.
Scientists have known that CO2 absorbs energy and raises the temperature of the mid-atmosphere. Evidence supported the idea that CO2 varied dramatically during ice ages. This is because as the oceans warm they disgorge CO2 since the solubility of CO2 in water becomes less with higher temperatures. So, CO2 went up after the temperatures went up and came down after the temperatures went down. CO2 variation wasn’t causing the ice ages but was a result of the ice ages temperature fluctuations on the oceans. This is correlation but not cause. Nonetheless we know CO2 does raise temperatures so as it went up for other reasons it does magnify the temperature response from the solar variation effectively.
Scientists were able to show that this CO2 effect was small but enough to account for another 20% of the energy required for the ice ages.
Even with solar radiation and CO2 there is 70% of the energy to make an ice happen missing!
Hansen and folks reasoned that CO2s effect could be multiplied by other factors like increasing humidity from increasing temperatures. Water vapor is 10 times the power of CO2 in raising temperatures so a small change in water vapor would greatly impact temperature. Water vapor was estimated would triple the effect of CO2 alone. Right there with humidity you almost completely explain the ice ages. So, for Hansen and some of these climate professionals the science was settled. They explained why the temperature moved so much in the ice ages. What they didn’t say is that this depended on this massive magnification of the CO2 effect which they hadn’t proved. They created the other 70% out of thin air.
Over the last 20 years many people including myself have noticed that CO2 is not producing the effect it was supposed to produce. The ice ages CO2 varied by 100ppm between 180 and 280PPM in the atmosphere. We have already added 140PPM into the atmosphere today. Even if we stopped putting any more CO2 into the atmosphere today we have already put in enough to basically be the equivalent of 1 to 1 1/2 ice ages of CO2 difference. If we continued to pour in CO2 it seemed likely temperatures would rise 4, 6 or even 8 or more degrees centigrade worldwide according to this multiplicative theory. That’s what happened in the ice ages. So, it must happen today.
One caveat is that as you put more CO2 into the atmosphere it doesn’t go up linearly. The CO2 molecules compete with each other in absorbing the radiation and so you have to double the amount of CO2 to get the same rise in heat but still even counting that the temperature rise from 140ppm should be huge. We have already as of 2015 put in 50% gain which is equal to the ice age rise in Co2 therefore we should see 4C. Climate scientists claim 1C in the entire period from 1750 – 2015 which is far less and unfortunately as I’ve explained in other blogs they cannot claim all this heating is from CO2 because other things have been happening like the end of the LIA that obviously are part of that 1C. So, the amount of change so far is already way less than they thought originally. Original speculation was that climate sensitivity could raise temperatures by as much as 10C by 2100 because CO2 has been such a powerful force according to their theory. CO2 alone is responsible for generating 90% of the ice ages temperature change according to them so we should be getting a massive response to the CO2 we’ve ALREADY put in let alone the amount from another 80 years of emissions.
However, we have NOT seen this high multiplier happening. In the last 20 years we have poured in almost 50ppm or 1/2 an ice age of CO2 difference and temperatures haven’t moved an iota. Not 4 degrees C you might expect and not even 0.4C, not even 0.04C. How could that possibly be if this multiplicative effect was happening it should be generating massive heat! There should be no need to adjust and hunt and explain away pauses! They even said so. They said CO2 would dominate temperature for the next century but for 20 years natural variability completely cancelled out CO2. This was impossible!
The entire 1 1/2 Ice ages of CO2 we have deposited in the atmosphere has caused since 1945 about 0.3C not 12.0C, not even 1/10th 12C or 1.2C. In fact satellites show 0.3C or 1/40th the amount one MIGHT expect and which some climate scientists thought.
ICE AGE CO2 CHANGE: 100ppm from 180 to 280ppm
ICE AGE TEMP CHANGE: +8C
1945-2015 CO2 change: 95ppm from 310 to 405.
1945-2015 TEMP CHANGE: +0.3C 1/40th the effect seen in the ice ages
Do you see the problem. Clearly CO2 is NOT WORKING LIKE THEY THOUGHT.
I believe the answer to this problem lay in 2 fundamental things the climate people like Hansen overlooked.
The biggest failure for client science to date is arguably the PDO/AMO. This effect which is approximately 60 year cycle that raises and lowers temperatures worldwide by plus or minus 0.23C was discovered really in the last 10-15 years yet climate science is unable to explain it. The fact is it is not surprising that such an effect might have existed. The oceans are mostly unknown and they represent a huge variable that the IPCC and climate scientists said was pretty much static over these medium time periods. They really had no basis to say that. It was a convenient assumption. They were wrong and it is causing major havoc because it means almost everything they said about what caused what in the past has to be revised and it puts all their theory and models into a big black hole of uncertainty.
The computer models did not know about PDO/AMO variability. They don’t know how to model this PDO/AMO variability so they STILL have not modified models to accommodate the new reality. PDO/AMO explains a great deal of the variability over the last 250 years up and down. Since it turns out the PDO/AMO were in an upward cycle during the period 1975-2000 which is when the climate professionals thought CO2 was causing all the warming they now are in a position of having to backtrack on that claim. CO2 COULDN”T have caused all the warming between 1975-2000 because PDO/AMO had to contribute close to half the heating in this period.
Here is a chart showing how the PDO/AMO has gone up and down and will continue to do so if it continues:
PDO/AMO is currently suppressing what would otherwise without them be continuing warming. However, even taking that into account the underlying rate is vastly less than the rate they projected.
Here is what the Climate professionals thought would happen:
One of the first conclusions you should be shocked to find from all this is that:
NOBODY HAS SEEMED TO MENTION IN THE PRESS THAT THE MODELS THAT THEY TOUT DISASTROUS GLOBAL WARMING ARE BASICALLY DISPROVEN
- By the data above which shows a divergence that is too much to be explained
- By the discovery of the PDO/AMO which they didn’t know about and significantly changes everything about the models reasons for why everything happened and what will therefore happen in the future.
Today it is not scientifically possible to say what amount of heating will result from CO2 in computer models because the models don’t include fundamental factors that affect climate.
The climate professionals will say that PDO/AMO is a short term phenomenon and that if you remove this 60 year variation you are still left with a monotonically increasing global warming that is the CO2 signal. YES. Absolutely. What they don’t mention is that this remaining signal after removing PDO/AMO is less than HALF what they told us would happen. So, forget 2 degrees C. The models can’t be said to show we will get that.
You can see from the historical temperature chart above that unless something radical changes if we keep going as is the most natural thing would be a 0.3C rise by 2100. It would seem incredibly improbable at this point that the curve of temperature will somehow rise up to meet the IPCC computer model forecasts. In fact, it would be a miracle if they did without scientific basis. There is no reason to believe that would happen from a scientific point of view.
HOWEVER, CLIMATE PROFESSIONALS REFUSE TO GIVE UP ON HUGE CLIMATE IMPACT FROM CO2.
“Well whatever the short term impacts of PDO/AMO and other things going on the long term must be huge because we see in the ice ages that CO2 causes massive change in temperature.”
So, they would be saying that they don’t know why CO2 isn’t causing this massive impact now but they expect but it will because it did before during these ice ages because we have no other explanation for how the temperature changed in the ice ages so much.
Now we come to the second HUGE missing piece that climate professionals overlooked.
Again this missing piece has to do with the oceans. I consider this egregious error. People will say they didn’t know about PDO/AMO. Even though nobody knew about PDO/AMO we knew the ocean was likely to have MAJOR impact on climate and a source of major uncertainty. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE OCEAN. It is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Therefore the oceans could explain all variation in earths atmospheric temperature without flinching. A 0.01C change in the overall ocean temperature would mean 10C change in atmosphere possibly. So, the ocean could with imperceptible changes completely erase CO2, add to it, turn us into an ice ball or anything in-between and they discounted it all along. That is not simple oversight. That is major error and is inexcusable. They should have been a lot less certain.
But the basic logic of Hansen is still there. Why does all that temperature change happen during the ice ages?
Underwater Volcanoes have major impact on climate probably responsible for the ice ages and for life at all on this planet
Three separate articles have come out recently which hint at the degree to which the climate scientists got everything wrong.
These 3 studies are:
Kutterolf, S., M. Jegen, J. X. Mitrovica, T. Kwasnitschka, A. Freundt, P. J. Huybers (2012): A detection of Milankovitch frequencies in global volcanic activity. Geology, G33419.1,http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G33419.1
They are each worth reading if you are at all interested in this topic. There is another study related which describes how new ocean fissures are being discovered that dramatically increases this phenomenon that we have scant knowledge of before.
Climate Scientists considered undersea volcanoes as insignificant both now and in the past. The IPCC ranked them as having minimal impact. Unfortunately, like the ocean in general our actual understanding of undersea anything was practically zero. Recent improvements in technology have shed a lot of light on this topic. Satellites have recently allowed us to document a 10,000 fold increase in the amount and size of deep sea fissures from previously known amounts. In short there are a lot more of these cracks in the earths crust than we thought.
From the beginning I have wondered why underwater volcanoes were discarded by climate scientists as insignificant. Since over-water volcanoes have major impact on climate over years why would underwater volcanoes not have a similar effect, possibly delayed or an effect on the ocean that would be worth studying? We actually at this time have no good way of determining how much heat is released by fissures in the undersea connection to the mantle which is a major flaw in our ability to understand what has happened or will happen. For many years I saw nothing on this and couldn’t figure out why it was such a quiet area.
Even if you thought that heat escaping into the ocean from the mantle could case the rise and fall of the ice age why would they happen at 41,000 year intervals?
ICEBALL EARTH ENDING EXPLAINED
Why does this change the CO2 story?
Another paper above looked at the cyclic nature of the shifting weight of glaciers
If you imagine how during the ice ages ice melts massively around the Earth. During the cold period the glaciers are huge and pressing on some places of the mantle. When the ice melts it disburses and spreads out in the oceans. This causes a deformation in the Earths shape. It is likely that when the ice reaches a peak concentration at the poles and size that the pressure bends the mantle and opens up the fissures resulting in a counter phenomenon of releasing heat from the mantle and starting to warm the planet again.
As the planet warms the glaciers melt and the pressure on the mantle changes. It is more evenly distributed mass and this probably results in the mantle closing up or becoming more unformly shaped. This would result in less heat release. With less heat release the Earth would cool and the glaciers would start to build again.
Together these phenomenon provide significant contribution / explain the ice ages
Another riddle possibly solved
A last point on Geography
Other Interesting Reading:
Are underwater volcanoes causing global warming? Oceanic eruptions may have a greater effect on climate than first thought
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2942510/Are-underwater-volcanoes-causing-global-warming-Oceanic-eruptions-greater-effect-climate-thought.html#ixzz3zatLfLkw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook