Synchonized Cycles as a Driver of Climate Change

[TimBikes]

Here are some interesting explorations of the synchronization of several natural cycles and climate change. The first is a bit technical, the second a bit easier to read for the layperson and suggests an r-squared of 0.86, which if I remember my stats, is a very high correlation between these cycles and climate change.

See this, from Geophysical Research Letters here...

and here.

[tripp]

Tim,

Interesting. Do you know of any comments from the scientific community on either of these papers? In particular the first one, as it makes lots of referenes to earlier works, which of course, I'm not familiar with. The volcanic activity is an interesting component of all of this. Particularly the lack of it for the past 15 years. One thing, in the summary of the first paper they mention that these cycles are overlaid on anthropogenic forcings (the top of page 5) so that suggests that we're exacerbating a naturally occuring confluence of warming forces. In other words, we're playing with fire.

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 24 2007, 11:20 PM) [snapback]530112[/snapback]</div>

The volcanic activity is an interesting component of all of this. Particularly the lack of it for the past 15 years. [/b]

UM . . .

What has Kilauea in Hawaii been doing for the past 24 plus years! <_<
Does Soufriere Hills on Montserrat ring any bells?
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

Or how about this one which just erupted today????
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304927,00.html


Maybe if they tried to tie it to the lack of sunspots, then maybe . . .
http://www.spaceweather.com/java/archive.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/

[F8L]

Volcanic activity is always taken into consideration in any studies I have read. In fact that was one of the major criteria for James Hansen's models back in the early 90's and one of those 3 worked out almost perfectly due to volcanic activity (it was the only one that included volcanism during the modeled time period).

Where were those papers printed? I was trying to find the original source journal but I missed it I guess. My mind is in ten different places at once.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 24 2007, 11:20 PM) [snapback]530112[/snapback]</div>

Tim,

Interesting. Do you know of any comments from the scientific community on either of these papers? In particular the first one, as it makes lots of referenes to earlier works, which of course, I'm not familiar with. The volcanic activity is an interesting component of all of this. Particularly the lack of it for the past 15 years. One thing, in the summary of the first paper they mention that these cycles are overlaid on anthropogenic forcings (the top of page 5) so that suggests that we're exacerbating a naturally occuring confluence of warming forces. In other words, we're playing with fire.
[/b]

Don't know, Tripp - I am not aware of any other comments on this but I did see this discussion here.

I agree, whatever the validity of this, there will have to be consideration that it would overlay any anthropogenic forcings, though as you know I am not convinced that such forcings are the primary climate driver, as they are often claimed to be.

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 25 2007, 04:41 AM) [snapback]530147[/snapback]</div>

UM . . .

What has Kilauea in Hawaii been doing for the past 24 plus years! <_<
Does Soufriere Hills on Montserrat ring any bells?
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

Or how about this one which just erupted today????
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304927,00.html
Maybe if they tried to tie it to the lack of sunspots, then maybe . . .
http://www.spaceweather.com/java/archive.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/
[/b]

Patrick,

For the volcanic activity to have a global effect, the eruptions have to throw a considerable amount of SO2 into the upper atmosphere (80,000-100,000ft). The SO2 then becomes sulfate arosols, which reflect incoming solar radiation back into space.

The Hawaiian volcanism isn't explosive. It's too basaltic (mafic, in geo parlance) and thus no viscous enough to really blow. Small eruptions from Ryolitite and Andesite volcanoes simply lack the energy and mass of SO2 to have an impact.

We haven't had a major eruption since Pinatubo.

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 25 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]530249[/snapback]</div>

Don't know, Tripp - I am not aware of any other comments on this but I did see this discussion here.

I agree, whatever the validity of this, there will have to be consideration that it would overlay any anthropogenic forcings, though as you know I am not convinced that such forcings are the primary climate driver, as they are often claimed to be.
[/b]

Tim, they don't have to be the primary driver. They just have to be big enough to have a measurable impact. Working in concert with other processes, as they seem to be doing right now, increases our risks. I'm of the opinion that we ought to do something about it. There are several other reasons to be mitigating our impact, climate change is perhaps the most globally compelling, but hardly the only reason to take some kind of action.

[zenMachine]

Some eruptions ooze lava in picturesque, slow-moving streams. But in an event like Avellino, the conduit of the volcano is so tightly corked by solid rock that it takes an enormous amount of pressure building up from below, in the magma chamber, to blow a hole to the surface. When it does, the violence of the explosion—the boato, Italian for the enormous roar—propels liquid rock into the air so fast that it breaks the sound barrier, unleashing a sonic boom. During the Avellino eruption, the boato accompanied a blast that hurled nearly 100,000 tons a second of superheated rock, cinders, and ash into the stratosphere. It reached an altitude of about 22 miles (35 kilometers)—roughly three times the cruising altitude of commercial airliners. As this incredible cloud of material rose, it spread at the top, assuming the classic shape—classic ever since Pliny the Younger first described it in a letter to the Roman historian Tacitus about the later eruption that buried Pompeii—of an umbrella pine tree, the iconic feature of a plinian eruption.

Prevailing winds out of the west carried the bulk of the initial fallout in a northeasterly direction, toward Nola and Avellino, where pumice and lapilli deposits piled up as high as nine feet (three meters) near the volcano in several hours. The column of ash may have hovered in the air for up to 12 hours. Then it collapsed, producing an apocalyptic sequence of events that makes a plinian eruption one of the most lethal natural disasters on Earth.

When a plinian column falls upon itself, it creates a pyroclastic surge—a boiling, turbulent avalanche of debris that shoots out sideways from the slopes of a volcano. This searing cloud can travel for many miles, initially at great speed. Not too many humans have seen (much less survived) a pyroclastic surge at close quarters, but many of us have an image of its horrifying power burned into our memories: It shares many physical properties with the huge clouds of powder and ash produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001.

Unlike the collapsed towers, the material in a pyroclastic surge is baked in a subterranean magma chamber to temperatures of up to 1650°F (899°C)...

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/070...vesuvius-4.html

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 25 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]530387[/snapback]</div>

Tim, they don't have to be the primary driver. They just have to be big enough to have a measurable impact. Working in concert with other processes, as they seem to be doing right now, increases our risks. I'm of the opinion that we ought to do something about it. There are several other reasons to be mitigating our impact, climate change is perhaps the most globally compelling, but hardly the only reason to take some kind of action.
[/b]

I agree Tripp - they need not be the primary driver. However, it may be more impactful to focus on limiting for instance, regional climate influencers. For example - limiting soot output from Chinese factories since the brown cloud blows across the Pacific and arguably, is perhaps the biggest single driver of climate change in the arctic. Logically, it may be much more cost effective - not to mention practical and efficacious - to control the smokestack output from a few thousand factories than it is to control global CO2 output, wouldn't you agree?

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 27 2007, 01:58 AM) [snapback]531104[/snapback]</div>

I agree Tripp - they need not be the primary driver. However, it may be more impactful to focus on limiting for instance, regional climate influencers. For example - limiting soot output from Chinese factories since the brown cloud blows across the Pacific and arguably, is perhaps the biggest single driver of climate change in the arctic. Logically, it may be much more cost effective - not to mention practical and efficacious - to control the smokestack output from a few thousand factories than it is to control global CO2 output, wouldn't you agree?
[/b]

Oh, I think we should be picking the low hanging fruit as quickly as we can. Soot emissions would be one of a long list including solar water heating, more wind, a million easy energy efficiency gains (CFLs and things like that). We should also put a moratorium on coal plants. Period. We should also mandate vehicle efficiency (for more that just enviro reasons). This stuff requires political will. That's it. The technologies are already in place. Our future risks are quite large and we need to manage them responsibly. Unrestricted emissions growth does not mitigate our risks in anyway. The only thing that it mitigates is very short term economic losses. Given the success of the EU's economy (when looking at energy costs and consumption in Europe) it's obvious that we could cut our energy consumption by at least 25% with almost no impact (except big savings in energy costs). This makes sense for a lot of reasons, but it's going to take policy, not markets, to achieve.

The only emissions we can control are ours. Obviously, China is going to be making significant contributions but they're rapidly chewing up their coal reserves and they know it. They're going to have to change their tune or they're going to be very dependent on foreign sources of energy. that's not something that they'll stomach too easily. During that time we need to be working to make fossil fuels as obsolete as possible because 1.) We need to drastically reduce our carbon footprint 2.) we need to drastically improve our energy security 3.) It will severely weaken our most strident enemies 4.) We'll be able to stop whoring out our principles so that we can drive huge cars and buy cheap foreign shite. Those 4 reasons should be very compelling reasons to do something about our current situation.