Pause Excuse #56: Underestimating Cooling From Volcanoes

Another week,  another excuse

(The Hockey Schtick ) New excuse #56 for the “pause” in global warming: Satellites underestimate cooling from volcanic aerosols

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters states, 

“Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming”

and finds

“recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases” which “translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 °C.”

By way of comparison, the IPCC formula claims post-2000 warming from CO2 was 5.35*ln(400/369) = 0.43W/m2 *(3C/3.7Wm-2) = 0.35C warming, which is at least three times larger than the estimated volcanic cooling found from this paper. Therefore, volcanic cooling would not be sufficient to account for the zero degrees global warming post-2000 (actually post-1996). This implies that either this new paper is incorrect regarding volcanic cooling account for the “pause,” or that the IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity to CO2. 

It’s always interesting how Warmists so often blame nature for the Pause, but hyper-ventilatingly blame Humanity for the warming. It’s almost like they aren’t actually interested in science.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Pause Excuse #56: Underestimating Cooling From Volcanoes”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Scientific studies are not intended to please you or me but rather to help us all arrive at the truth.

    Did the Hockey Schtickler find any methodological problems in the study?

    Guess not.

    You, me and Dupree all know that atmospheric aerosols reduce insolation, so what’s the gripe?

    The Earth is warming, but the surface is warming more slowly than predicted by CO2 alone.

    What Deniers call excuses, rational people call data.

  2. jl says:

    Seems if “the science were settled” these rocket scientists would have known about the cooling effects of active volcanoes, no? Obviously a ton more stuff they no nothing about.

  3. Jeffery says:


    Typed like a known “no”-nothing Denier who knows little.

    Science is never settled.

    And not knowing everything isn’t the same as knowing nothing.

    Here’s a little of what we do know, in the form of a grammar school quiz:

    1. T of F: Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased rapidly and steadily from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

    2. T or F: This rapid CO2 increase resulted from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

    3. T or F: In the atmosphere, CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas, i.e., it slows the movement of infrared radiation from the Earth into space.

    4. T or F: The Earths surface temperature (about 2% of the Earth’s exchangeable heat content) has increased over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

    5. T or F: The Earth’s surface temperature is controlled solely by the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    6. Essay: A small number of very vocal individuals claim that global warming is a conspiracy between the American Democratic Party, the scientific community, social progressives and the worldwide Communist movement to take money and guns from American white people. Using only your knowledge of 5th Grade Earth Science please refute or support this claim.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Answer sheet:

    1 through 4 are True.

    5 is False.

    6 is bit of a trick question. You can refute the conspiracy theory by listing questions 1 through 4. You cannot support the conspiracy theory using 5th Grade Earth Science.

  5. Nighthawk says:

    T of F

    You know, if you are going to make fun of someone that makes a typo at least make sure your condescending post doesn’t contain typos.

    You say that science is never settled but then go on to say that number 2 is true. Do you have 100% proof of that? You know for a fact that it could not possibly be mostly/wholly natural?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7894 access attempts in the last 7 days.