Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SIX-MONTH Icelandic lava field eruption could provide the crucial key for scientists to unlock the role aerosols play in climate change, through their interactions with clouds.
An international team of climate scientists, led by the University of Exeter, have meticulously studied the effects that the 2014-15 eruption at Holuhraun, in Iceland had on cloud formations in the surrounding region.
They found that the 2014 Holuhraun fissure eruption, the largest since Laki which erupted for eight months in 1783-4, emitted sulphur dioxide at a higher rate than all 28 European countries added together causing a massive plume of sulphate aerosol particles over the North Atlantic.
As would be expected, these aerosols reduced the size of cloud droplets, but contrary to expectations did not increase the amount of water in the clouds.
The researchers believe these startling results could significantly reduce uncertainties in future climate projections by outlining the impact of sulphate aerosols formed from human industrial emissions on climate change.
The study was published in the scientific journal ‘Nature’ on Thursday.
Dr Florent Malavelle, lead author of the study and from the Mathematics department at the University of Exeter said:
“The huge volcanic eruption provided the perfect natural experiment in which to calculate the interaction between aerosols and clouds.
We know that aerosols potentially have a large effect on climate, and particularly through their interactions with clouds. However the magnitude of this effect has been uncertain.
“This study not only gives us the prospect of ending this uncertainty but, more crucially, offers us the chance to reject a number of existing climate models, which means we can predict future climate change far more accurately than ever before.”
Aerosols play a pivotal role in determining the properties of clouds as they act as the nuclei on which water vapour in the atmosphere condenses to form clouds.
Sulphate aerosol has long been recognised as the most significant atmospheric aerosol from industrial sources, but other natural sources of sulphate aerosol also exist, including that formed from sulphur dioxide release as a result of volcanic eruptions.
The 2014-15 Holuhraun eruption is thought to have emitted between 40,000-100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide every single day during its eruptive phase.
Using state-of-the-art climate system models, combined with detailed satellite retrievals supplied by NASA and the Université libre de Bruxelles, the research team were able to study the complex nature of the cloud cover formed as a result of the eruption.
They found that the size of the water droplets produce was reduced, which in turn led to cloud brightening – which results in an increased fraction of incoming sunlight being reflected back into space and, ultimately, providing a cooling effect on the climate.
But these aerosols had no discernible effect on many other cloud properties, including the amount of liquid water that the clouds hold and the cloud amount.
The team believe the research shows that cloud systems are “well buffered” against aerosol changes in the atmosphere.
Professor Jim Haywood, co-author of the paper and also from the University of Exeter added: “Explosive and effusive volcanic eruptions are very different. The massive explosive eruption of Pinatubo in 1991, which injected aerosol to altitudes of 25km+ into the stratosphere, has been the go-to event for improving our model simulations of the impact of explosive volcanic eruptions on climate.
“Now volcanoes have provided a new clue in the climate problem: how aerosols emitted at altitudes similar to those from human emissions impact the climate. Without a doubt, the effusive eruption at Holuhraun will become the go-to study in this regard.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Planetary climate is common to all planets in the solar system and unfortunately with researchers still with their heads stuck in the ‘climate change’ bandwagon all other sciences suffer or become vehicles for the idea that humans can control planetary temperatures.
The Earth has a 26 mile spherical deviation (equatorial bulge), plate tectonics where the crust is created and destroyed and some volcanic activity while its sister planet Venus is perfectly spherical, has no plate tectonics but a huge amount of volcanic activity. If the education and research organizations were in normal mode they would be making planetary comparisons for geological evolution just as they should be for climate research but all information goes into the intellectual crematoria of ‘climate change’ .
@Gerald Kelleher: That’s the most discombobulated thing I’ve read all day.
“bandwagon all other sciences suffer or become vehicles for the idea that humans can control planetary temperatures.”
Humans can and do influence global temperatures. Increased atmopsheric CO2 levels as a result of human activity has increased global temperatures and demonstrably affected the Earth’s climate as a whole.
This isn’t a “bandwagon”. It’s the clear consensus of climatologists, meteorologists and everyone in between who study this subject day in and day out.
http://climate.nasa.gov is a great resource for anyone who’s interested in looking at scientific data, rather than conspiracy nuts on youtube.
@Gerald Kelleher:
With respect, expecting two completely different planets (with different atmospheric compositions, different distances from the sun, different organic components etc. etc. etc.) to behave in an identical way in terms of climate is ridiculously naive nonsense.
Makes me laugh about Journal readership ‘shaping the news’ as any response worth making is blocked and that is no place for me.
@Seán Ó Briain:” Humans can and do influence global temperatures.”
Long response blocked. Don’t be a coward, if you believe that humans can control planetary temperatures then good for you but that is what the ‘climate change’ bandwagon amount to.
@Gerald Kelleher: if you continue losing coherence at this rate you’ll just be mashing your fist into a keypad in about twenty minutes. I’m guessing your long comments were over 8000 characters and that’s why they didn’t post. Try being concise. I know it’s tough but it’s worth it.
@Gerald Kelleher:
We can’t “control” the Earth’s climate, but we can influence it. It’s not a “belief” I have. It’s something that’s backed by peer-reviewed science. Increased atmospheric CO2 traps heat. If we as a species increase CO2 production, then global temperatures will continue to rise as a result of it.
It appears you just don’t understand basic climate science. I’m sorry. I have a feeling no matter what evidence I point you towards, or data sets to examine – you’ll just ignore it and claim it’s part of a “global conspiracy”.
@Seán Ó Briain: This website sucks in terms of the ability to respond.
@Gerald Kelleher: I keep getting errors also. It takes me 5 or 6 attempts before it submits my responses.
@Gerald Kelleher: I have the same problem when trying to copy and paste links into a comment , it’s very frustrating .
I copy all my comments now , and if it fails I just try tweek the wording a bit , sometimes if you’re ”replying” it helps to remove a part of the persons name .
@Ken Hayden:
You can only place one link per comment – presumably to prevent spam.
Anyone who believes we can legislate outside air temp needs to get help. Check out Henrick Svensmarks Cloud Mystery. Then check out the collaboration between Nir Shaviv and Jan Viser on cosmic rays and the planets position in the galaxy. Pure genius. Real science.
@Joe Caulfield: And how does any of the above disprove increased CO2 levels affecting global temperatures? I’m all ears.
@Joe Caulfield:
As opposed to the ‘fake science’ from the 97% of climate scientists who (in your unqualified opinion) are ‘in need of help’?
@Joe Caulfield: @ sean Sahviv Viser and Svensmark clearly expose the irrelevance of co2 and outside air temp. The ice core samples demonstrate how co2 follows temperature. Not the other way round.
@Joe Caulfield: @ Avina . You are referring to a group of political activist’s not scientists.
@Joe Caulfield: Never heard of Carbolic acid?
@Alois Irlmaier: Yes and ?
@Joe Caulfield:
So people with masters degrees and doctorates who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject and publishing peer-reviewed research are (in your opinion) ‘polical activists’ and not scientists??
Can you please tell me what your own qualifications are in this field? (I’ll wait, but I don’t expect you’ll give me an answer, as ‘none whatsoever’ doesn’t really strengthen your case).
have your say