I can’t help but wonder what the net offset is in reality. I mean, sure the particulate ejection may block some sunlight, but the massive quantity of CO2 released during eruptions would seem to offset most of any benefit achieved due to reflection. I don’t have any science to back this assertion up, but then, neither do they.
The impact of volcanic eruptions on global warming could provide a new explanation for the so-called “pause” used by sceptics to deny climate change is happening, scientists have said.
According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.
Rather than contributing to global warming, eruptions release particles into the air that reflect sunlight – causing temperatures to drop.
Experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California said this phenomenon was not taken into account when predictions were made – offering an explanation for why the world seemed to stop heating up.
I swear these people think we are fools. They throw excuse after excuse into the public domain – even blaming reality for f-k’s sake – to explain why their shitty models don’t match up with hard data. Here’s a novel concept: Stop front-loading your models to achieve a political objective and try practicing some real science. You know, “science”… that stuff you’re supposed to use a method for, which must be observable and repeatable? Otherwise, it’s just a theory at best and pure ideological hokum, at worst.