Cliff Mass to Deniers: “It’s Not the Volcanoes”

by on August 18, 2011

Cliff Mass

University of Washington meteorologist Cliff Mass walks a fine line in his discussions of climate change.

He’s reluctant to connect singular weather events to global warming because it’s extremely hard to do so–that’s not so much due to a lack of evidence for climate change, as it is because of the immense natural variability in weather. Outlier events happen. Writes Mass:

One incident says little about long-term climate change, but some in the media are already saying that this incident is “consistent with” or “the kind of events we will experience under” global warming.

As for what kind of weather that climate change will bring with it, I like to think that running models for the existing weather conditions has imbued Mass with a healthy humility, though even he can’t resist looking ahead:

Even under global warming, this natural cooling system should still keep our summers tolerable.  In fact, if the interior of the continent heats up sufficiently, producing lower inland pressure, our local AC might get stronger!

Mass’s caution, though, is being overtaken by the sheer number of weather events. In a recent Scientific American story on extreme weather and climate change, author John Carey puts it like this:

Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were “consistent” with the predictions of climate change. No more. “Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming,” says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

That still probably leaves Mass in good company; “would not have happened the same way” is not exactly the stuff of screaming headlines. Further, you can read Mass’s criticism of apocalyptic reports as a reminder that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. As he says: “Folks, we are in the early days of the warming and most of the action is yet to come.”

(Which is not to say that we have seen nothing at all: “And for those of you  ready to make a crack about the fallacy of global warming, note that the eastern U.S. is experiencing a heat wave.  Average the whole country and we are above normal!”)

Still, because Mass does offer critiques of climate change science from time to time, he ends up on the receiving end of emails from the disinformation brigade. His recent post, “Bogus Arguments of Some Global Warming ‘Skeptics’,” focuses on the supposition that “volcanoes put out way more CO2 than human activities. So it doesn’t matter what we do!”

Responds Mass:

A number of studies have shown that global volcanic activity injects about 0.15 to 0.26 gigatons per year of CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions produced by mankind provide about 35 gigatons of CO2 in 2010. Way more.

To put it another way: current volcanic activity puts out about as much annually as our states of Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. We have a lot more states and then there is the rest of the world!

Next, he says, he’ll take up the claim that “human impacts will be dwarfed by the variability of the sun.” So we can look forward to that. My forecast is that it will make little difference to his deniers.

It may seem paradoxical, but when placed under stress from uncertain futures (the possibility of extreme weather or unending recessions), people tend to fracture along different lines, locking in on fight-or-flight strategies–on a species level, this is adaptive behavior, even if it seems unreasonable at cocktail parties. We are not placing all our predictive eggs in one basket.

People simply double down on their original bet until such time as their strategy fails them (i.e., God knocks you off your symbol of stubbornness, the donkey). The most fire-breathing denier can become a proselytizer by next week. In the climate change “debate” people have long ago taken up their positions–you’re either fighting people who say it’s happening or you’re running from it. (There’s a third head-in-the-sand option, of course, but that would argue that on some level you’re aware there’s a problem.)

In the meantime, the water keeps rising. Casually, a recent New Yorker item, “Roosevelt’s Room,” drops this news on you: “This challenge became even greater when the engineers realized that climate change had raised the water level of the East River by about four inches since Kahn made his design.”

Filed under Environment, News, NEWS_FEATURED, Science, Weather

9 thoughts on “Cliff Mass to Deniers: “It’s Not the Volcanoes””

  1. “Cliff Mass to Deniers: “It’s Not the Volcanoes”

    This article’s title is misleading, in that the primary skeptic argument about volcanoes impact on climate change has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 global volcanic activity injects into the atmosphere annually. Rather, skeptics argue that during the last century there have been significantly fewer major volcanoes. i.e. ones with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) rated 5 or higher;

    1902 – VEI6(?) – Santa Maria, Guatemala
    1907 – VEI5 – Ksudach, Kamchatka
    1912 – VEI6 – Novarupta (Katmai)
    1932 – VEI5+ – Azul, Cerro (Quizapu)
    1956 – VEI5 – Bezymianny, Kamchatchka
    1980 – VEI5 – St Helens, US
    1982 – VEI5 – El Chichon, Mexico
    1991 – VEI6 – Pinatubo, Philippines

    as compared to a period such 1580 – 1680;
    1580 ± 20 – VEI6 – Billy Mitchell
    1586 – VEI5? – Kelut, Java
    1593 – VEI5? – Raung, Java
    1600 – VEI6 – Huaynaputina
    1625 – VEI5 – Katla
    1640 – VEI5 – Komaga-Take, Japan
    1641 – VEI6 – Mount Parker
    1650 – VEI6 – Kolumbo, Santorini
    1660 – VEI6 – Long Island (Papua New Guinea)
    1663 – VEI5 – Usu, Japan
    1667 – VEI5 – Shikotsu (Tarumai), Japan
    1673 – VEI5? – Gamkonora, Halmahera
    1680 – VEI5? – Tongkoko, Sulaw

    which coincides with the depths of the Little Ice Age:
    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    The effects of volcanoes on Earth’s climate are well know, e.g. “the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

    In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The next four years after the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887 to 1888 included powerful blizzards.Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.

    The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.

    A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the population. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.

    In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601 to 1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[4]

    In 1452 or 1453, a cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.

    The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[5] perhaps that of Kaharoa, New Zealand, which lasted about five years.[6]

    The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

    Thus a portion of the warming that occurred during last century is likely due to lower levels of volcanic activity, versus increases in CO2 emissions. Does this make me a denier?…

    Reply ↓

  2. I’m glad you asked. Yes, you’re a denier. Your assertion that the “primary” argument has nothing to do with CO2 is incorrect. Deniers are now backing off this claim as research shows it not to be true.

    Now the goalposts are moving to the other end of the field, via the argument you advance. This is textbook denialism–in creating a false sense of ongoing debate, the goal is reached, which is to stall reaction to the problem.

    Your conclusion is a terrific example of what a denier does, by the way, so thanks for that. I love the weaselly formulation of “a portion” being due to volcanic activity versus CO2 emissions. How is it versus if it’s just “a” portion? How is it “likely”? Is one portion of a pie more likely than another?

    The final example of denialism I’ll go over is the use of something that’s true to cast doubt on something that’s also true. It’s absolutely true that volcanoes can affect climate. It’s been known for a long time and has long been taken into account in climate modeling. It’s a fascinating subject.

    What it doesn’t do is make all the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere just vanish.

    Reply ↓

  3. Michael van Baker on August 19, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

    I’m glad you asked. Yes, you’re a denier.”

    Then a proud one at that.

    Your assertion that the “primary” argument has nothing to do with CO2 is incorrect.

    You’ve cited one source to support your assertion, here are three refuting it:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/11/new-study-suggests-that-the-volcanic-impact-on-climate-may-be-significantly-underestimated/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2010/10/volcanic-eruptions-and-global-temperature/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/volcanoes-cause-climate-change/

    Deniers are now backing off this claim as research shows it not to be true.

    That also supports my assertion and refutes yours.

    This is textbook denialism–in creating a false sense of ongoing debate, the goal is reached, which is to stall reaction to the problem.

    Yes, the rest of us are debating while you are trying to convince yourself that your position is accurate. Good luck with that. Have you read that Richard Lindzen at MIT;
    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

    has a new paper out;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/

    that found that, “warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C ” which is “much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2″?

    Is climate sensitivity debatable, or must one accept the erroneous IPCC estimates in order to avoid your denial label?

    Your conclusion is a terrific example of what a denier does, by the way, so thanks for that. I love the weaselly formulation of “a portion” being due to volcanic activity versus CO2 emissions. How is it versus if it’s just “a” portion? How is it “likely”? Is one portion of a pie more likely than another?

    If you look at the RSS Lower Troposphere Satellite Temps, you’ll see a .143 degree Celsius per decade increase over the last 30 years:
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    Included in this are two large El Ninos that occurred in 98 and 09/10, which are called out on this UAH Lower Atmosphere Temp chart;
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif

    El Nino’s are natural oceanic oscillations, thus should also be removed from any estimate of anthropogenic CO2 related warming.

    Additionally, there was a peak in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century;
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3869753.stm

    and this likely had a slight warming influence on Earth’s climate.

    Thus if we take the trend in Lower Troposphere Temperature of .143 degrees Celsius per decade and arbitrarily assumed that half this increase was due to natural climate changes such as oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity and solar activity, that would mean that the anthropogenic contribution to Lower Troposphere Temperature would be .0715 degrees Celsius per decade, or .715 degrees Celsius per century, which is less than a 3rd of Hansen et al.’s projection of “slow growth” of “warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius” “at the end of the next century”.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Why are we trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, with great disruption to the world economy and stunting the rate of development for billions of people, when observations indicate that the impact of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are relatively small?

    It’s absolutely true that volcanoes can affect climate. It’s been known for a long time and has long been taken into account in climate modeling. It’s a fascinating subject.

    What it doesn’t do is make all the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere just vanish.

    What percentage of the .143 degrees Celsius per decade warming during the last 30 years do you think was caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

    Reply ↓

  4. That’s some good doubling down right there. As I say, I don’t think there’s much point in arguing with someone who claims not to see evidence of climate change.

    Reply ↓

  5. I’m breathlessly waiting for Just the Facts to present some facts. But then I’ve been waiting for deniers to do that for years.

    I would advise you JTF to spend a little time researching the alarming climate change related happenings in Australia. There are some places there limiting water to a few gallons a month per family. There is consideration of abandoning Perth for human habitation for lack of water in a warming world.

    There is no use arguing or having a constructive conversation with someone who is paid to sit in his basement and travel the Internet to throw up smoke in front of both facts and logic.

    The data isn’t wrong. We are living in a warming world. Let’s turn our attention to what that means and what we should do or if there is anything we can do.

    Cash your checks, JTF, and move along. Oh, and better turn on the fan. The basement won’t be staying cool much longer.

    Reply ↓

  6. This might be a good time to drop this article on ocean acidification and what it’s doing to local oyster growers:

    http://www.onearth.org/article/oyster-crash-ocean-acidification

    Reply ↓

  7. Michael van Baker on August 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm said:

    That’s some good doubling down right there. As I say, I don’t think there’s much point in arguing with someone who claims not to see evidence of climate change.

    Evidence of climate change abounds, it is the influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on Earth’s temperature that remains uncertain.

    Reply ↓

  8. RVO on August 19, 2011 at 2:34 pm said:

    I’m breathlessly waiting for Just the Facts to present some facts. But then I’ve been waiting for deniers to do that for years.

    Quite amusing considering my prior comments, but let me see if I can help. Here is a summary of all available current Global Temperature charts that I’ve compiled;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/

    and here are an array other Climate Indicators including Sea Level, Ocean Heat Content, Global Cyclone Energy, Global Sea Ice Area, etc.:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-climatic-history/

    In my review of the data I don’t see any evidence of a rapid and catastrophic warming of Earth. Can you cite any observational evidence that supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative?

    I would advise you JTF to spend a little time researching the alarming climate change related happenings in Australia. There are some places there limiting water to a few gallons a month per family. There is consideration of abandoning Perth for human habitation for lack of water in a warming world.

    “Droughts in the 19th century”

    “1829 Major drought in Western Australia with very little water available.[5]”

    “1838-39 Droughts in South Australia and Western Australia”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

    Do you think those droughts were caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or otherwise?

    There is no use arguing or having a constructive conversation with someone who is paid to sit in his basement and travel the Internet to throw up smoke in front of both facts and logic.

    No money, I do this in my free time. It is my contribution to humanity.

    The data isn’t wrong. We are living in a warming world.

    The world has been warming naturally since the Little Ice Age;
    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    what’s your point?

    Let’s turn our attention to what that means and what we should do or if there is anything we can do.

    Why should we do anything about a slight increase in Earth’s temperature?

    Cash your checks, JTF, and move along. Oh, and better turn on the fan. The basement won’t be staying cool much longer.

    Funny, I assume that you are projecting…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    Reply ↓

  9. Michael van Baker on August 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

    This might be a good time to drop this article on ocean acidification and what it’s doing to local oyster growers:

    http://www.onearth.org/article/oyster-crash-ocean-acidification

    Yes, that Natural Resources Defense Council propaganda piece should be helpful in misinforming the public.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: