Skip to main content

View Diary: Volcanoes, aerosols, and global warming (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmmm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't consider a link to Roy Spencer's website to be a credible source for anything.

    I am not suggesting that high energy volcanic eruptions are not significant, merely that they were not the dominant source of sulfur aerosols in the past decade.

    Your assertion that it is industrial sources of sulfur aerosols that have been primary in dampening global temperatures was tested directly in the Neely study. Their modeling of both sources pointed to greater impact from volcanic aerosols. What you cite here does not refute that evidence.  

    Be radical in your compassion.

    by DWG on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 11:03:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  About those satellite charts. (0+ / 0-)

      The UAH - University of Alabama - temperature charts are considered legit by the global warming community in spite of the fact that Roy Spencer is himself a 'Skeptic'.

      He is forced by the constraints of his job to create a legitimate chart based on satellite derived information. The University he works for won't put up with any shenanigans. There are other data sets but I have a personal liking to this one because of the irony of the situation.

      As to the difference in impact of sulfur aerosols between volcanic and industrial sources, volcanoes will overwhelm industrial sources while they're erupting and for a couple years after as they fall out of the atmosphere. After that it's back to non-volcanic normal.

      Here is a link showing the general temperature trend (GISTEMP not UAH) in the past 30 years with Mount Pinatubo's eruptive effects superimposed on it (in blue):

      The other down dips, before and after Mt. Pinatubo (in red), are La Nina weather events which temporarily cool the Earth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site