Increased volcanic and seismic activity is theoretically due to a increased heat in the earths mantel causing the crust to be thinner. We only recently have been able to start monitoring neutrinos in the mantel to see what radioactive break down of natural nuclear material is doing. For this reason science cannot say with any certainty that this heating is the cause of these things but I would say its a good educated guess/hypothesis that deserves exploring. If this is proven to be true we could then adress whether or not these reactions are contributors to past heating and cooling cycles. If they are we can then determine the peaks to each cycle using "in part" mantel heating as a guide. If you can determine the peak, you can also determine when the cooling will begin.
Our diminishing magnetic field may also play a role, but as it is not well understood any interaction is pure speculation.
Let me explain how temperature works. When there is no long-term temperature growth short-term trends like ocean currents, solar cycles, and volcanic activity creates temperature cycles with temperature sometimes going up and sometimes going down as shown below. Short-term trends have the strongest forcing but over the long-term they are powerless because they eventually reverse themselves. When a long-term forcing is added we don't see a straight continuous rise in temperature, what we see is a upward trend with periods of strong growth and other periods of weaker decline of stagnation. Here is an example of a contain weak upward trend. Sometimes the upward trend is so strong that the downward part of the cycles don't go down much and are just hiatuses as shown below: When we look at global temperatures we see the same temperature graph with strong upward increases and periods of hiatus or even decline as shown in NASA's data below:
It coincides for time periods prior to 1960. Ironically, it was the about the middle of the 20th century in which the anthroprogenic component to global temperatures really began in earnest. This is ironic because it matches up quite well with the solar grand maximum peak in 1958. For the last 60 years there has been an ever increasing divergence between solar output and global temperatures.
Keep in mind that Kilauea's VEI is a 1 and Fuego's is a 3. Neither of these eruptions are likely to a have significant impact of the global mean temperature because they are relatively small. The best analogs for the volcanic influence is El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 which had VEI's of 5 and 6 respectively. It was Hansen (the guy in charge of the NASA GISS dataset) who correctly predicted the timing and magnitude of Pinatubo's cooling effect immediately after the eruption. He used El Chichon as an analog for making the calculation. Other groups using numerical simulations also correctly predicted the cooling. Every single dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature shows the cooling effect from these large volcanic eruptions so it's not like climate scientists aren't aware of it happening. And yes, volcanoes do have a cooling effect, but it is short lived because aerosols don't have long residence times in the atmosphere. Contrast this with CO2 in which the residence times are measured by centuries.
It's important to note that the hiatus from 1998 to 2012 was for the atmosphere only. And that's if you really want to focus on an El Nino start date and a La Nina end date which wreaks of cherry picking anyway. But, when you consider the oceans, which by the way absorb over 90% of the solar energy, it's clear there was no hiatus. The oceans warmed significantly during this period and continue to today.
The cooling effect on our planet from even a HUGE eruption would be completely offset by current Methane release even if it lasted as long (about a decade), nevermind CO2 or sulfur dioxide.
The other interesting thing worth mentioning is that there was actually a lot of VEI 4 eruptions during the 1998-2012 period...at least 15. There have only been 3 in the last 6 years. It is believed the increased volcanic activity in the early 2000's at least partly explains "the pause" and why models did not predict the global mean temperature very well during this period. Note that volcanoes cannot be predicted deterministically so specific aerosols emissions are generally left out of numerical simulations for forecasting. However, the exact aerosol emissions are included in hindcasting or least can be. This is one reason why models track well for hindcasting but can be a source of error for forecasting. The cool thing (the pun was intended) about this is that it allows us to quantify the cooling effect of volcanoes from numerical simulations and get real world confirmation that models produce reasonablely useful results of the effect all at the same time.
By the way, if you were to add the most recent data points for the global mean temperature to that chart it would be above the peak in 1300 AD and even the peak in 1100 BC. Just saying...
Because the years 2012 through 2017 actually happened. It looks abrupt compared to the rest of the graph because the graph uses a moving average for historical data that smooths out natural variability like ENSO cycles. The most recent data points in that graph didn't get the same treatment. Nevermind that half of that recent cool down as depicted in that graph was a prediction and not an observation which, by the way, failed badly. using the labels 58.3F, 57F, and 54.3F in the graph the additional 0.4C or 0.7F of warming on top of the 1998 peak of 58.3F would put the most recent data point (2017) in the blue box labeled "MOUNT PINATUBO ERUPTION" easily eclipsing the Medieval Warm Period and even the Minoan Warm Period. Also interesting is that several of those volcanic eruptions were known to cause dramatic cooling which isn't portrayed in the graph at all. For example, Tambora in 1815 caused the "year without a summer", but there was no attempt by the authors to depict this. Again, this is because they smoothed out abrupt changes in the past. I don't about you but this looks like fraudulent manipulation at it's finest. What do you think?
You misspelled "scientist" (singular). Only _one_ solar scientist, the Russian Dr. Abdussamatov, is making such a claim. He's provided no sensible evidence to back it up. The evidence indicates he's stating nonsense about a topic -- climate -- that he has no experience in. And he's a greenhouse effect denier. And he predicted the new min-ice age would commence in 2014. Is it here yet? http://russia-ic.com/news/show/13717#.T0YPI1HHPOG Hans Svensmark and Nir Shaviv have dabbled in climate with their cosmic ray climate theory, but they've never made any cooling predictions. And their cosmic ray theory of climate is considered debunked, being that temperature has been going the opposite way of what their theory predicted. It was possible to still cling to it prior to the recent warming, but the record temps in 2014-2015-2016 pounded the coffin nails into that theory. So, got any other solar scientists on your side?
That's the magical hiding heat theory, which states the warming magically hides somewhere in the oceans, invisible to all our thermometers there, and then it suddenly leaps out 30 years later. Too bad we've measured the temperatures in the oceans for many years, and the data from such measurements debunks your theory. If we didn't measure temperature in the oceans, you might have been able to pass off such pseudoscience. But since we do have that data, only your fellow cultists will pretend to believe your theory.
Scientists. Yndestad and Solheim, 2017 Summary “Deterministic models based on the stationary periods confirm the results through a close relation to known long solar minima since 1000 A.D. and suggest a modern maximum period from 1940 to 2015. The model computes a new Dalton-type sunspot minimum from approximately 2025 to 2050 and a new Dalton-type period TSI minimum from approximately 2040 to 2065. … Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.” Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2 1 HTW, University of Applied Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany 2 CINVESTAV, Querétaro, Mexico; visiting from PTB Braunschweig, Mexico, Germany Abstract The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 - year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 - year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin. Usoskin et al., 2014 “[T]he modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950–2009) was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia. Except for these extreme cases, our reconstruction otherwise reveals that solar activity is well confined within a relatively narrow range.” Chen et al., 2015 “We explored the sources and characteristics of each pigment, reconstructed an 800-year record of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and total incoming light intensity, and identified the possible factors that may have influenced historical UVR changes in this region. The results indicated at least four UVR [ultraviolet radiation] peaks during the past 800 years, corresponding to c. AD 1950–2000, 1720–1790, 1560–1630 and 1350–1480, with the intensity from the most recent [1950-2000]sediments being the highest.” Wang et al., 2010 “It is seen that a very active period that began in 1920, the so-called ‘current grand solar maximum’, will probably end during 2011-2027, since a variety of indices related to solar activity have significantly shifted since 1987. … [T]he current grand solar maximum has already lasted for eight 11-year solar cycles and might end in the coming one/two 11-year cycles; a grand solar minimum might prevail in the next 100–200 years.” Zharkova et al., 2015 “The longest direct ervation of solar activity is the 400-year sunspot-number series, which depicts a dramatic contrast between the almost spotless Maunder and Dalton minima, and the period of very high activity in the most recent 5 cycles [1950s – 2000s], prior to cycle 24. … The records show that solar activity in the current cycle 24 is much lower than in the previous three cycles 21–23 revealing more than a two-year minimum period between cycles 23 and 24. This reduced activity in cycle 24 was very surprising because the previous five cycles were extremely active and sunspot productive forming the Modern Maximum.” “We predict correctly many features from the past, such as: 1) an increase in solar activity during the Medieval Warm period; 2) a clear decrease in the activity during the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum; 3) an increase in solar activity during a modern maximum in 20th century. .. We note, in particular, a decreasing activity for solar cycles 25 and 26 coinciding with the end of the previous 350–400-year grand cycle and then increase of the solar activity again from cycle 27 onwards as the start of a new grand cycle with an unusually weak cycle 30. Hence, cycles 25–27 marks a clear end of the modern grand period that can have significant implications for many aspects of solar activity in human lives including the current debate on climate change.”
So, a new one. But once they start talking about Jupiter affecting climate, it became climastrology nonsense. Wait. You're relying on _models_? Oh, the hypocrisy. Anyways, they don't actually predict cooling. Curve fitting is mathturbation. And they don't predict cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling.
Nothing about predicting cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling. Nothing about predicting cooling.[/QUOTE] Yep, ignore all science that doesn’t fit the dogma. True science denial.
You clearly couldn't debunk my takedown of your nonsense pseudoscience, so you just whined and ran. Same old same old. So, tell us how the heat hides out in the oceans for 30 years, invisible to our thermometers, and then suddenly pops out. There's probably a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can explain your magical hidden heat theory.
I won't spend a lot of time on you over this issue, but have you never heard of temperature inversions? We pilots were trained on this condition.
They do not care at all about climate. They only care about the control over other humans. Climate gives them an edge.
A temperature inversion is when a layer of warmer air sits on top of a layer of cooler air. There are several processes that cause this, but none of them have inertial lags of 30 years. The longest inertial lag is typically a few hours or a few days at most depending on the process which causes the inversion. Ocean-to-air or air-to-ocean heat fluxes can work to reduce or reinforce the inversion depending on the state of both the ocean and the air, but atmospheric states rarely persist longer than a few days that would favor one scenario over the other except on a specific case-by-case local basis. So I'm not sure how this would be related to the ocean allegedly warming the atmosphere during periods of reduced solar radiation especially since the ocean is also warming. Afterall, if the ocean were truly responsible for the warming we see today then we'd expect the ocean to be cooling as it transfers it's heat to the atmosphere.
could be, we are adding more co2 to the atmosphere, this causes warming, now, will it prevent or delay the next ice age, who knows at this point, may get very hot and severe weather before that time though, we just do not know yet
