Volcanoes With ENSO This Time!

Last year, I wrote a post about volcanoes and the temps HadCrut had recorded in the direct aftermath.  Given the recent proclamations about volcanoes and their impact by a couple of pinheads posing as scientists, (Rahmy, Foster, Muller….. ) I thought we could revisit this for a bit while giving some ENSO information for some of the time periods.

Time and again, we see people stating that volcanoes impact our global temps, stating that they cause cooling.  It is often simply accepted as fact.  Let’s see if we can find any proof such a statement should be accepted as fact.

We looked at every VEI 5 or 6 volcanic eruption in the 20th century.

Here is the listing of 5-6 volcanic eruptions last century.

6 Santa Maria 1902
5 Ksudach 1907
6 Novarupta 1912
5 Colima 1913
5 Cerro Azul 1932
5 Kharimkotan 1933
5 Bezymianny 1956
5 Mount Agung 1963
5 Mount St. Helens 1980
5 El Chichon 1982
6 Mount Pinatubo 1991
5 Mount Hudson 1991

We’ve a couple of fair sources for what ENSO was doing during these years, though, I’m less sure about them the further we go back in time.  Latitude brings us this….


found here.  This coincides pretty well with Hank’s offering found here.  This gives the year by year positive, negative, or neutral status of ENSO.  For more precise details, Robin directed us here.  Note this statement from the link Hank offered.

Table 1: The years in each category correspond to the first three months of the ENSO year namely October, November, and December. For example, the ENSO year 1970 starts October 1970 and ends September 1971.

Okay, so Santa Maria is the first major eruption of the 20th century.  It occurred in 1902.


Here we see nothing unusual in the temp variations, and ENSO can easily explain the observed variations.

The next volcano eruption was Ksudach in 1907.


As we can see, the ENSO values can easily account for the small drop indicated during the immediate aftermath of Ksudach. 

1912 and 1913 each saw a major eruption.  Novarupta and Colima, respectively.  Now, this is interesting, in that while 1912 was listed as neutral for ENSO, the values were positive early in the year, then went negative, then back to neutral.  1913 is listed as positive ENSO and 1914 as neutral.


While much of this can be easily explained by ENSO, these volcanoes, if they did anything, warmed the temps.

We then went quite a while between eruptions.  All the while HadCrut recorded a gentle warming.  We once again saw a tandem of eruptions for 1932 and 1933.  Now, the link for COAPS states that ENSO was neutral from 1931-1937.  However, the NOAA table, (stuff with actual numbers) shows negative values from the end of 1932, all of 1933, and about 1/2 of 1934.


So, once again, we see the temps can be explained by ENSO.  And, once again, we see 2 consecutive years with major volcanic eruptions and no decrease in the temps beyond the norm.

In 1955-1956 Bezymianny erupted.  1955 and 1956 were negative ENSOs, and 1957 saw positive values continuing to the end of 1959.  Again, attribution, especially with crap concepts like a global temp average is probably impossible to attain, but we can rule things out.  Did Bezymianny cause any cooling?  Absolutely not.  Did it cause the increase in average temps?  Maybe.


Volcanoes cause cooling….. keep repeating until the world believes it!

1963 saw the eruption of Mount Agung.  Here we see a strong cooling signal, but, guess what?  Yep, 1964 was marked with strong negative ENSO values.  Not quite strong enough to call it La Nina, but persistent -1 and less from May through November.  So, while one can say things cooled after Agung, again, attribution seems a bit of a stretch.


The next two volcanoes are interesting.  They don’t occur one year apart, but two.  Those old enough to remember, have no problem recalling the eruptions.  Mount St. Helens in 1980 and El Chichon in 1982.  COAPS lists ENSO as neutral, but I don’t see how with the NOAA numbers.  They are strongly positive and explains the spike in 1983.  1984 and 1985 had all negative numbers save for two months. 


Recall the drops in temps we see are relative and shows a very limited time frame.  Again, ENSO can explain the variations.

The last two eruptions are the only two which happen in the same year.  A VEI 6 and what is called a 5+.  Mount Pinatubo and Mount Hudson, both occurring in 1991.  If volcanoes cause cooling, surely we would see significant cooling in the subsequent year, 1992 and beyond.  Pinatubo was the largest eruption we’ve seen in our lifetime and Hudson was the next.


This case, is the only case I can find where the temps responded against the ENSO values ….. sort of.  As we can see, the temps only dropped about 0.2 C.  But, it certainly wasn’t linear as one would expect.  From 1991-1994 the ENSO values were positive.  Pinatubo is described as the “largest stratospheric disturbance since Krakatoa eruption in 1883

Hudson as….in addition to the ash, a large amount of sulfur dioxide gas and aerosols were ejected in the eruption. These contributed to those already in the atmosphere from the even larger Mount Pinatubo eruption earlier in the year and helped cause a worldwide cooling effect over the following years.

Yeh, a whopping -0.2C ending 2 years later.  That’s it?  The biggest eruptions of our life time, both in the same year, and it caused cooling well within the normal year-to-year variations?  While it is probably true ENSO can’t by tied to the temp recordings, simply assuming the eruptions caused the decrease in temp recordings is complete sophistry.  Turns out, volcanoes and ENSO aren’t the only natural variants occurring in the chaotic system we call our climate.  The attribute the decrease in temps to eruptions when out of 12 eruptions last century, an unexplained decrease occurred only once.  Moisture content of the air?  Cloud cover not related to volcanism?  Solar variations?  Alterations or reversals of circulatory events?

There’s no reason to believe volcanoes cause much of anything other than a local phenomena.  There is no signal to state otherwise.  Anecdotal evidence of one event, against 10 other eruptions simply isn’t cause to make emphatic statements that volcanoes cause cooling.  I understand the theory and it’s a fine, very plausible theory.  It’s just that the facts (Note to Muller:  this is what we call an empirical approach.) don’t back up the theory.

Should the statement “volcanic eruptions cause global cooling” be accepted as fact?  I don’t see it.

My thanks to the Lat, Hank, and Robin!  All temp graphs were generated by the WFT site. (Which appears to be temporarily down.)

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Volcanoes With ENSO This Time!

  1. Howdy sayts! few things are always missing in the Warmist calendar; because they only produce fodder for their mushrooms. Therefore, the other side needs to complete more, complete facts.

    1] 90% of the Faulty line is on the bottom of the sea b] the bottom of the sea is on average, over 3-4-5 -6 km closer to the molten lava below – than the mountains with the active volcanoes on dry land – therefore 98% of volcanoes + hot vents are on the bottom of the sea. 2] depends where in the sea they get more active -> THEY create El Nino or La Nina. nothing to do with the ”average GLOBAL temp!” they rearrange the localized ”CLIMATE” not the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. .

    You are saying: ”especially with crap concepts like a global temp average is probably impossible to attain” === Well mate, when you change from ”probably impossible to attain” TO: ”’definitely imposable to attain”’ = you will start giving insomnia to the Green / Reds. BUT, guessing the GLOBAL temp ”correctly / precisely” for 50-100y ago, is the best Christmas present for the Reds. Suyts, try to guess the correct temp in your room now; go on – then look at the thermometer../ you will be wrong by 1-2-3C. That is: for your room, with walls that are shielding from the sun / wind – for now. But guessing for the WHOLE planet, for the last 50-100y ago… ? Hank, for fanatically believing in the phony ”GLOBAL” temp; must have too big medal from Hansen & Mann – cannot carry it with him; to show it to us… Hank, what was the ”GLOBAL” temp on the 4 July 1905?! The phony knowledge of knowing the ”global” temp, is the best aphrodisiac for the Warmist.

    (I’m just reading now an article, that: ”somebody found different beetles in a hectare of some pit-moss in England – dated 4000BC, than beetles from few years after = ”reason” they declared: the planet was warmer by 2C 6000y ago… One – two hectares of swamp, in England ==== telling the ”GLOBAL” temp… The ”discoverer” added another cycle on the global phony variation in temp… from discovering 3-4 unlucky, preserved beetles, that run away from their predator… ) what a science

    • suyts says:

      Hello Stephan! It’s difficult to put all the information in a post and still hold all of the reader’s attention. So, I leave some of it out, hoping the typical reader will understand some of the things not stated.

      Yes, even the concept of a “global temp average” is absurd, I wanted to specifically address some of the things Rhamstorf and Foster, and Muller were saying and demonstrate that even their own crap records don’t agree with their assertions. It’s an argument tactic I find most effective at times.

      As far as the beetles go, nothing surprises me anymore. They’ll take ice cores from the poles and believe they reflect on what happened in the rest of the earth. As if the ice stayed in one spot for millions or thousands of years.

  2. suyts, now you hit the nail on the head ” the ice cores from the poles; and their CO2 content ”

    1] CO2 distribution is not even – no need to go 5-10000y back; for example: in Beijing is too much of it / where I’m, is not enough CO2 for healthy vegetation.

    2] They never take in consideration that: ice on the polar caps CONSTANTLY melts, from below – by the geothermal heat on land / by the salty sea-current ice is melted on the water. Ice is replenished regularly, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air. For them: if is a 1km of ice / 2cm a year snowfall = 500000y old ice on the bottom – CO2 trapped half way to the bottom must be from 250000years ago. In reality: 1-2m of ice is melted from the bottom, in ONE year / and similar amount replenished on the top = which makes the CO2 in the ice on the bottom 300y old, NOT 250000 years.

    Because for those ”researchers” the truth is irrelevant – they don’t need to get the truth from that ice – they say what suits their agenda and what suits the occasion. Hopefully this year, many more people will realize that: all data is crap / needs proving that: ”THE data is crap = Warmist don’t have a case”. As long as the skeptic’s camp uses the phony data – Warmist will flourish and lough all the way to the bank. i heard many times from skeptics saying: Warmist are losing / we are winning!!! if the ”loser” takes billions of dollars a year… those ”skeptics” are either blind / or standing upside down…

    • suyts says:

      Yes, ice is melted, ice is replenished, and ice moves to the sea! It moves vertically and laterally.

      As to the winning and losing, they’ve won the billions, but we just need them to stop taking it to the bank. I think we’re getting there, but progress is slow. .

  3. Latitude says:

    the one thing that hits me every time I look at a ENSO graph……how much red there is after 1979

  4. Pingback: Why Are Rahmstorf And Foster Wrong? The Same Reasons All The Models Are Wrong | suyts space

  5. Pingback: Warmists Revise CO2 Sensitivity Down ….. But, Are They Right? Of Course, Not. | suyts space

  6. Pingback: A Question For The Lunatics And Their Carbon Control Knob Stupidity … Didn’t Atmospheric CO2 Increase Prior To 1975? | suyts space

  7. Pingback: Heh!!! The Beginning Of The End … And Bonus About Fox Climate Coverage | suyts space

  8. Pingback: Heh! Willis Is Only A Few Years Behind Suyts!!! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s