The influence of Krakatoa (1883) is still misclassified.

If one wants to put a definite date as to when the study of atmospheric processes began to become a science, it was the main explosion of the Krakatoa volcano in August 1883 in the Indonesian archipelago. If you now look at three recently published essays on “volcanic effects on climate”, you can only be amazed. Analyzes of the Krakatoa’s effects at the time overlooked an important aspect of the relatively moderate temperature changes in the years that followed, and the more recent papers fail as well to come up with a more competent overall analysis.. Then as now, the atmospheric processes are analyzed, but the influence of the ocean on them is ignored. After 140 years climate research a very poor scrutiny. The US EPA for example states: Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term climate change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than greenhouse gases. More precisely argues Willis Eschenbach (wuwt, 2017),:”In particular, Krakatau, largest eruption in recent history, shows almost no effect on the winter. It’s just about average.” , whereby missing completely the most relevant point: the ocean’s impact. Relying on statistics is presumably one of the best ways to kill any reasonable research in this case.. Research on Krakatoa and other volcanic activities deserve better.

Let’s briefly view what happen in 1983 after Krakatoa exploded. A notable starting point is the first article in the Meteorologische Zeitschrift, which has been appearing since January 1884. The first sentence reads: “The year 1883 will take a remarkable place in the history of earth with respect to the effects of the earth’s interior on the crust and everything found upon it.” Although the eruption of Krakatoa caused a notable reduction in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface for a number of years, while the weather continued just as it had before. meteorological interest soon dwindled away. A proper analysis indicate that this was a failure.

In the year following Krakatoa in August 1883, the circulation in the atmosphere was above normal and then sank to a powerfully developed minimum in 1888.

Here are some examples from ship logs from all over the world in 1883:

3 September: During the past few days, there has been a fairly even gray cloud mass, normally covering the entire sky, above the cumulus and stratus clouds;

3 September: At midday hazy gray air. Hazy, gray air condensing into dew towards evening;

5 September The air appears yellow and watery;

7 September: The atmosphere appeared to be filled with very small, evenly distributed clouds of vapor;

13 September: The yellowish “haze” continues in the upper atmosphere;

11 October: Fiery atmosphere, cloudless sky;

5 November: Pale atmosphere;

10 December: The air was very clear and looked like the air in the southern Indian Ocean during the typhoon season;

13 December: Lead-colored sky.

The observations were continued, collected, evaluated, and thoroughly discussed.

Five years after the eruption of Krakatoa, the scientific work on the events of the year 1883 were temporarily brought to a close with the “Report of the Krakatoa-Committee of the Royal Society.” The most amazing aspect of the report is that it does not contain any mention of possible relevance of the oceans. Furthermore, the question of a possible change in the average temperature of the atmosphere does not appear to have interested anyone. Although it was quickly determined that the amount of solar energy received was clearly reduced for a period of several years, little attention was paid to the development of the atmospheric temperature. The blockage must have fluctuated strongly and have varied greatly, depending on the observation point. In total, the blockage effect has been calculated at an average of approximately 10% over a span of four years, whereby the reduction of solar energy in the northern hemisphere (Paris) was at its greatest in fall of 1885, reaching a value of 25%.

It would seem that a reduction of solar radiation of such proportions would necessarily have a long-lasting effect on atmospheric dynamics. But supposedly the average temperatures fell only slightly and the atmospheric circulation in 1884 was above normal and did not sink to a strongly developed minimum until 1888. While the equilibrium of the world of statistics may not have been disturbed by Krakatoa, events were rather different in the world of nature. Without the stabilizing effects of the ocean, the effect of Krakatoa would have been catastrophic.

A cooling-off effect will only become noticeable after the passage of some time and continued blockage of solar radiation. The influence of the oceans was shown clearly by the fact that coastal areas had above-average temperatures in 1884, whereas continental land masses such as Russia, Siberia, India, China, Canada, and the USA (inland areas far from the Atlantic) recorded very cold winters in the years up to 1888..

This could be dismissed as coincidence if the time until 1886 had not been accompanied by another phenomenon, a “hazy fog”, which appeared as a constant companion of the extraordinary optical phenomena in the atmosphere during the entire period of the atmospheric-optical disturbance”, then one can say — speaking non-technically — that Nature had “popped a lid over it” and so protected the oceans from cooling off too quickly. The lid consisted of ingredients provided by Krakatoa and water vapor provided by the ocean. As a result of the “dirtying” of the atmosphere by the volcano’s eruption, the atmosphere displayed characteristics and behavior deviating from the norm. Just as fog over a water surface sharply limits the transfer of heat energy, the hazy fog must have had a long-lasting effect. This also becomes clear when it is seen that three years after Krakatoa the temperatures above land rose more sharply than above the oceans.

The fact that the sum of the statistical values (particularly the global average temperature) showed little or no deviation cannot be proof that the event did not have any climatic quality whatsoever. An event which reduced the solar radiation by about 10% for more than three years cannot have failed to influence ocean currents and must have had to one extent or another short- as well as long-term consequences. Naturally, someone should have thought of the oceans.

The world is fortunate that no major volcano has erupted since Krakatoa. The next one is sure to come, and after more than a hundred years, climate science is unable to comprehensively describe the potential danger and the influence of the oceans in such an event. In doing so, science irresponsibly prevents the important role of the oceans in the climate debate in particular from being adequately taken into account. It is time for climate research to close this gap.

Relying solely on weather statistics in climate research is probably one of the best ways to prevent reliable understanding and important insight.

Eschenbach https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/volcanic-northern-winters/

EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change