Of course, this dumped cooling, reflective ash into the atmosphere, too, further minimizing any warming impact. I would imagine this eruption is being studied for that by those who think SAI is the direction to go in, or an inevitable experiment. Wrote about that in relation to the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 for those interested. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/stratospheric-aerosol-injection-earths
The eruption was underwater. Volcanic gases are relevant, but ash isn't- although it's highly likely that the eruption will have had a significant effect on marine life in the region, due to changes in pH. There is a nifty bit of Carnegie Science out there which studies corals in an inland lagoon. The corals were significantly degraded. They added hydrogen peroxide, in effect reducing the PH change from ocean acidification. The corals recovered. This showed that corals can fair better when faced by temperature rise OR pH change, but have difficulty dealing with both at the same time.
For all those sci fi geeks out there, this means that Great Filter events suggested as a plausible reason for the Fermi Paradox, are likely a result of multiple filters operating in conjunction rather than a single Great Filter event (barring major stellar events or level event impacts, of course).
Thanks for the link. Although it was an underwater volcano, ash went into the atmosphere 20 miles. Yes, our coral reefs are dying from both heat and acidification. It's a tragedy on many levels.
Also thanks for clearing up the issue of particulate matter. I had previously thought underwater eruptions were comprised of water vapour and gases exclusively (in terms of what made it into the atmosphere). Is it primarily the finer particles?
There are a couple of glimmers of hope. First, the Great Barrier Reef has largely recovered. Second, there have been indicators of the formation of corals in previously colder waters- although its worth pointing out that it would likely take decades or even centuries for the same sort of complex ecosystems and fisheries to develop in these new potential marine nurseries.
The filtering effect was something of a hobbyist interest for me. I found a couple of system which were proposed for ways to lend nature a hand in recovery of corals. One was from a scientist who noticed that fractured coral regrows at a significantly faster pace (because it increases the surface area). Another was from a woman scientist testing coral in a marine lab environment, and then promoting the growth of the most acidification adaptive coral in situ.
Combining the two approaches would definitely be the sought of thing where one needs a billionaire philanthropist to step in. Around a billion people globally are dependent upon fish which thrive in coral for a major source of protein- a situation made all the more critical given that alternative sources of protein would in most cases lead to an increase in nitrogen flowing into the world’s seas.
On the subject of nitrogen, only around 6% of the farmers whose runoff enters the Mississippi currently use cover crops. Some sort of subsidy-based scheme run through the commercial insurance industry to compensate farmers for labour and costs of trialling cover crops could be transformative in terms of preventing and/or reducing the formation of N2O producing ocean dead zones.
There also needs to be research into trialling various mixes of animal waste/plant matter with synthetic fertilizers, also potentially trialling a two-step process. Recent research has show that animal waste/plant matter changes the microbiology of the soil, making it nitrogen fixing. Finding the optimum ratios and looking at the feasibility of a two step approach could drastically reduce the demand for synthetic fertilisers globally, whilst simultaneously representing a significant cost-saving for farmers, many of whom are situated in the least economically developed countries in the world.
As the source shows, soil only retains about half the nitrogen from synthetic fertilisers, compared to nitrogen for manure or plant matter. Let’s say experimentation with mixed source fertilisers or a two step process shows that one can obtain the same effect from a mix which is one-third manure or plant matter. Paired with cover crops, this could mean a gamechanger on global nitrogen- because although, at face value, half of global farming nitrogen would still need to come from synthetic fertiliser, this could be halved again, because half of the nitrogen from synthetic fertilisation is currently wasted.
It becomes a particularly interesting proposition when one considers grass mills, which are rapidly becoming an increasingly viable source for future renewable energy.
Great explainer! I’ve wondered about the effect of HT and seen lots of analysis and comment ranging from rational to the sort of denier nonsense you showed. Hope this settles the matter.
So here is a WAGNER (Wild Assed Guess No Explanation Required). Adding water vaper to the stratosphere will
1. Increase IR radiation to space (cool the strat) This is the same mechanism by which additional CO2 cools the stratosphere)
2. Increase near Near IR/Vis absorption in the strat (warming it)
Maybe a push BUT
absorption in the strat decreases the amount of NIR/Vis reaching the trop for a net cooling. There is a lot of water vapor absorption in the near IR below 3 microns extending to the visible in the red.
So back of the envelope says that the net effect will be neutral in the stratosphere but cooling in the troposphere and surface.
consensus is that adding H2O to the stratosphere cools it b/c of radiation to space. it also warms the troposphere due to increased downward radiation (although partially offset by cooler temps).
"But HT also injected cooling aerosols into the stratosphere, which offset its warming."...But those aerosols have a much shorter lifecycle and have probably been removed from the atmosphere by now. While the Aura MLS data shows the additional stratospheric water vapor may take decades to return to normal levels.
I'm not saying HT is the sole reason for the last 12 months of temperature anomaly, but I think it is contributing more than you do.
I saw that paper & I suppose it could have regional effects. But, if it's warmer in one place, that's going to be balanced by cooling somewhere else such that the global average is near zero.
It seems to me to be an entirely political debate.
The right say that everything the left says (about climate change) is wrong; the right are clearly wrong to say this. The left say that everything the right says (about covid, vaccines and political corruption by pharma) is wrong; the left are clearly wrong to say this too.
Nah, the right are not right about anything, but the left are wrong about stuff, true.
SARS-CoV-2 is a nasty virus, vaccines prevented millions from dying of Covid-19, earlier orthodox preventive measures like masks and isolation helped, and politics in America looks corrupt to the core.
However, killing off old, sick, weak and useless people would benefit the species. So maybe the right is right after all. (Evolution doesn't "care" about the individual.)
Your comment, Dennis, illustrates so eloquently my point about political polarisation of scientific opinion.
It also emphasises the swallowing without question the narrative from a giant industry whose stated aim in 2016 was to create a market for a coronavirus vaccine using the media to create hype.
Climate deniers blamed HT for severe floods in Auckland (where live) in January 2023 but rough calculation suggested the amount of water that fell was orders of magnitude greater than that ejected into the stratosphere - and Kevin Trenberth agreed.
BoM (Australia) had some explanation how HT affected weather pattern around Australia - I've forgotten. Old age. Again, it was an indirect effect.
Your data seems to be inaccurate. You fail to account for the fact that much of the water vapour erupted into the normally relatively dry stratosphere- increasingly stratospheric water vapour by 10%. It took me a lot of wrangling- the AI language models really didn't want to give me the data which I requested, without the cooling aerosols you mention in your essay- but after an hour of wrestling, with one of the two best known AI language, I finally received the answer that a 10% increase in stratospheric water vapour was equivalent to 1.4 W/m2 of radiative forcing.
I may well be wrong. If so please link me source from physics which contradicts this conclusion, and which differentiates tropospheric water vapour from stratospheric water vapour, focusing only on the effect of stratospheric water vapour. Please also ensure source material predates December 2021.
You’re probably wondering why the huge amount of water injected into the stratosphere isn’t warming the climate much. The reason is where the water went: most of the water was sent really high into the stratosphere, above 25 km. At that height, water has a minimal effect on the climate.
The graph was really handy as well. I don’t like taking things at face value- I always feel the need to push until I understand the underlying mechanics. One of the basic problems with the internet is that the value of the information a particular individual can extract with searches, is somewhat exponentially dependent on their depth of knowledge in a given area.
But thanks for clearing that up. In many ways I prefer having my knowledge corrected than having it confirmed. Did you see my link on pH changes?
IIRC the argument was that much of that water vapor made its way to the stratosphere, where it has a bigger impact than elsewhere in the atmosphere. Does the argument hold water? (Sorry for the pun.)
The “essential questions” you list near the end of your piece are the things that bother me about solar radiation management! Well outlined. Can humankind really pull this off without catastrophic mistakes?
Of course, this dumped cooling, reflective ash into the atmosphere, too, further minimizing any warming impact. I would imagine this eruption is being studied for that by those who think SAI is the direction to go in, or an inevitable experiment. Wrote about that in relation to the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 for those interested. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/stratospheric-aerosol-injection-earths
I found a source on the pH effect. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01140 .
A 0.2 pH may not seem like a lot, until one considers that the pH scale is logarithmic.
The eruption was underwater. Volcanic gases are relevant, but ash isn't- although it's highly likely that the eruption will have had a significant effect on marine life in the region, due to changes in pH. There is a nifty bit of Carnegie Science out there which studies corals in an inland lagoon. The corals were significantly degraded. They added hydrogen peroxide, in effect reducing the PH change from ocean acidification. The corals recovered. This showed that corals can fair better when faced by temperature rise OR pH change, but have difficulty dealing with both at the same time.
For all those sci fi geeks out there, this means that Great Filter events suggested as a plausible reason for the Fermi Paradox, are likely a result of multiple filters operating in conjunction rather than a single Great Filter event (barring major stellar events or level event impacts, of course).
Thanks for the link. Although it was an underwater volcano, ash went into the atmosphere 20 miles. Yes, our coral reefs are dying from both heat and acidification. It's a tragedy on many levels.
Also thanks for clearing up the issue of particulate matter. I had previously thought underwater eruptions were comprised of water vapour and gases exclusively (in terms of what made it into the atmosphere). Is it primarily the finer particles?
There are a couple of glimmers of hope. First, the Great Barrier Reef has largely recovered. Second, there have been indicators of the formation of corals in previously colder waters- although its worth pointing out that it would likely take decades or even centuries for the same sort of complex ecosystems and fisheries to develop in these new potential marine nurseries.
The filtering effect was something of a hobbyist interest for me. I found a couple of system which were proposed for ways to lend nature a hand in recovery of corals. One was from a scientist who noticed that fractured coral regrows at a significantly faster pace (because it increases the surface area). Another was from a woman scientist testing coral in a marine lab environment, and then promoting the growth of the most acidification adaptive coral in situ.
Combining the two approaches would definitely be the sought of thing where one needs a billionaire philanthropist to step in. Around a billion people globally are dependent upon fish which thrive in coral for a major source of protein- a situation made all the more critical given that alternative sources of protein would in most cases lead to an increase in nitrogen flowing into the world’s seas.
On the subject of nitrogen, only around 6% of the farmers whose runoff enters the Mississippi currently use cover crops. Some sort of subsidy-based scheme run through the commercial insurance industry to compensate farmers for labour and costs of trialling cover crops could be transformative in terms of preventing and/or reducing the formation of N2O producing ocean dead zones.
There also needs to be research into trialling various mixes of animal waste/plant matter with synthetic fertilizers, also potentially trialling a two-step process. Recent research has show that animal waste/plant matter changes the microbiology of the soil, making it nitrogen fixing. Finding the optimum ratios and looking at the feasibility of a two step approach could drastically reduce the demand for synthetic fertilisers globally, whilst simultaneously representing a significant cost-saving for farmers, many of whom are situated in the least economically developed countries in the world.
https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/news/no-laughing-matter-nitrous-oxide-emissions-are-higher-soils-lacking-organic-matter
As the source shows, soil only retains about half the nitrogen from synthetic fertilisers, compared to nitrogen for manure or plant matter. Let’s say experimentation with mixed source fertilisers or a two step process shows that one can obtain the same effect from a mix which is one-third manure or plant matter. Paired with cover crops, this could mean a gamechanger on global nitrogen- because although, at face value, half of global farming nitrogen would still need to come from synthetic fertiliser, this could be halved again, because half of the nitrogen from synthetic fertilisation is currently wasted.
It becomes a particularly interesting proposition when one considers grass mills, which are rapidly becoming an increasingly viable source for future renewable energy.
Great explainer! I’ve wondered about the effect of HT and seen lots of analysis and comment ranging from rational to the sort of denier nonsense you showed. Hope this settles the matter.
"Hope this settles the matter." LOL, of course it won't! Those claiming it's HT will just keep insisting it's important.
So here is a WAGNER (Wild Assed Guess No Explanation Required). Adding water vaper to the stratosphere will
1. Increase IR radiation to space (cool the strat) This is the same mechanism by which additional CO2 cools the stratosphere)
2. Increase near Near IR/Vis absorption in the strat (warming it)
Maybe a push BUT
absorption in the strat decreases the amount of NIR/Vis reaching the trop for a net cooling. There is a lot of water vapor absorption in the near IR below 3 microns extending to the visible in the red.
So back of the envelope says that the net effect will be neutral in the stratosphere but cooling in the troposphere and surface.
consensus is that adding H2O to the stratosphere cools it b/c of radiation to space. it also warms the troposphere due to increased downward radiation (although partially offset by cooler temps).
"But HT also injected cooling aerosols into the stratosphere, which offset its warming."...But those aerosols have a much shorter lifecycle and have probably been removed from the atmosphere by now. While the Aura MLS data shows the additional stratospheric water vapor may take decades to return to normal levels.
I'm not saying HT is the sole reason for the last 12 months of temperature anomaly, but I think it is contributing more than you do.
HT volcano has has some effect on weather in Australia:
https://theconversation.com/tongas-volcanic-eruption-could-cause-unusual-weather-for-the-rest-of-the-decade-new-study-shows-231074
I was searching for some comments from BoM made some time ago but off to dinner now (I am in the UK).
I saw that paper & I suppose it could have regional effects. But, if it's warmer in one place, that's going to be balanced by cooling somewhere else such that the global average is near zero.
It seems to me to be an entirely political debate.
The right say that everything the left says (about climate change) is wrong; the right are clearly wrong to say this. The left say that everything the right says (about covid, vaccines and political corruption by pharma) is wrong; the left are clearly wrong to say this too.
Nah, the right are not right about anything, but the left are wrong about stuff, true.
SARS-CoV-2 is a nasty virus, vaccines prevented millions from dying of Covid-19, earlier orthodox preventive measures like masks and isolation helped, and politics in America looks corrupt to the core.
However, killing off old, sick, weak and useless people would benefit the species. So maybe the right is right after all. (Evolution doesn't "care" about the individual.)
Your comment, Dennis, illustrates so eloquently my point about political polarisation of scientific opinion.
It also emphasises the swallowing without question the narrative from a giant industry whose stated aim in 2016 was to create a market for a coronavirus vaccine using the media to create hype.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax?utm_source=publication-search
Thanks for the compliment "eloquent" about my English.
"who's stated aim in 2016"? You mean "whose".
Please read the post and check for errors in grammar or logic there too.
Yeah it’s a typo.
Climate deniers blamed HT for severe floods in Auckland (where live) in January 2023 but rough calculation suggested the amount of water that fell was orders of magnitude greater than that ejected into the stratosphere - and Kevin Trenberth agreed.
BoM (Australia) had some explanation how HT affected weather pattern around Australia - I've forgotten. Old age. Again, it was an indirect effect.
Your data seems to be inaccurate. You fail to account for the fact that much of the water vapour erupted into the normally relatively dry stratosphere- increasingly stratospheric water vapour by 10%. It took me a lot of wrangling- the AI language models really didn't want to give me the data which I requested, without the cooling aerosols you mention in your essay- but after an hour of wrestling, with one of the two best known AI language, I finally received the answer that a 10% increase in stratospheric water vapour was equivalent to 1.4 W/m2 of radiative forcing.
I may well be wrong. If so please link me source from physics which contradicts this conclusion, and which differentiates tropospheric water vapour from stratospheric water vapour, focusing only on the effect of stratospheric water vapour. Please also ensure source material predates December 2021.
those numbers are indeed wrong: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Cool. This was the bit I was missing:
You’re probably wondering why the huge amount of water injected into the stratosphere isn’t warming the climate much. The reason is where the water went: most of the water was sent really high into the stratosphere, above 25 km. At that height, water has a minimal effect on the climate.
The graph was really handy as well. I don’t like taking things at face value- I always feel the need to push until I understand the underlying mechanics. One of the basic problems with the internet is that the value of the information a particular individual can extract with searches, is somewhat exponentially dependent on their depth of knowledge in a given area.
But thanks for clearing that up. In many ways I prefer having my knowledge corrected than having it confirmed. Did you see my link on pH changes?
IIRC the argument was that much of that water vapor made its way to the stratosphere, where it has a bigger impact than elsewhere in the atmosphere. Does the argument hold water? (Sorry for the pun.)
The first part of that is right — it was injected into the mid stratosphere — but the climatic impact of water vapor at those altitudes is small. I talked about that here: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
That's also obviously included in our peer-reviewed analysis of the climate impacts: https://essopenarchive.org/users/523044/articles/741323-evolution-of-the-climate-forcing-during-the-two-years-after-the-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-eruption
Thank you for the links Andrew.
The “essential questions” you list near the end of your piece are the things that bother me about solar radiation management! Well outlined. Can humankind really pull this off without catastrophic mistakes?