Connect with us

Published

on

Volcanic eruptions pose a fundamental challenge for scientists and their climate models.

It is well known that explosive eruptions can cause sudden cooling at the Earth’s surface and that multiple eruptions shape climate variability over decades and centuries.

When sulphur dioxide is injected into the stratosphere during an eruption, it forms aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface.

Unlike human influences on climate change, which occur slowly and can be accounted for in climate models under a range of socioeconomic scenarios, the sporadic nature of volcanic eruptions poses a challenge for climate projections.

Scientists cannot currently forecast the occurrence of volcanic eruptions – including when and where they will occur and how much sulphur they will emit.

How, then, to account for the climate impact of volcanic eruptions when projecting into the future?

In a recent study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, we show that volcanic eruptions make a substantial contribution to the uncertainty in projections of global temperatures.

Our findings suggest that, when sporadic volcanic eruptions are included in climate projections, breaching of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming limit is slightly delayed – but we will also see more decades with rapid rates of warming and cooling.

Volcanic forcing in climate projections

Climate scientists refer to the influence volcanic eruptions have on the climate – largely through the release of sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere – as “volcanic forcing”.

Current climate models apply a constant volcanic forcing value when running future projections. This value is calculated based on the historical average of forcings from 1850 to the present day.

This is the case with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), the international modelling effort that feeds into the influential assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, this approach has significant limitations.

For starters, historically averaged forcing does not capture the episodic nature of eruptions.

Large-magnitude volcanic eruptions happen sporadically – sometimes clustering within decades and other times leaving century-long gaps between events.

Meanwhile, the reference period of 1850 to the present day has seen a relatively low frequency of large-magnitude eruptions that emitted more than 3 teragrams (Tg) of sulphur dioxide (SO2), when compared to multimillennial records.

Finally, volcanic forcing reconstructions used in earlier generations of CMIP climate models did not include small-to-moderate magnitude eruptions that emitted less than 3Tg of SO2.

This is because these eruptions went largely undetected before the satellite era began in 1980. Nonetheless, these smaller, but more frequent, eruptions contribute to 30-50% of long-term volcanic forcing.

Taking a new approach

Traditionally, climate scientists have recognised three main sources of uncertainty in climate projections: internal variability, model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty.

Here, “internal” variability refers to natural fluctuations that are generated within the climate system, such as by El Niño; model uncertainty refers to the differences in the results between multiple climate models; and scenario uncertainty refers to the different ways that the world could develop over the decades to come.

Our results show that volcanic eruptions should be specifically considered as a fourth significant source of uncertainty in climate projections.

To explore how climate projections change when accounting for volcanic forcing uncertainty, our study uses a probabilistic approach that builds on a 2017 methodology developed by Bethke et al.

To do this, we develop “stochastic forcing scenarios” – essentially, 1,000 different plausible timelines of volcanic activity extending to the end of the century.

These scenarios draw from past volcanic activity recorded in ice cores going back 11,500 years, along with satellite measurements and geological evidence. Each scenario represents different combinations of eruption magnitudes, location, timing and frequency.

(In mathematics, “stochastic” systems involve randomness or uncertainty of outcome, making them unpredictable. This is in contrast to “deterministic” systems, which are characterised by having outcomes that are completely predictable based on initial conditions and a set of rules or equations.)

We then simulate climate projections using both stochastic and historically-averaged volcanic forcing between 2015 and 2100, exploring temperature rise under three different emissions scenarios drawn from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). These are a low-emission scenario (SSP1-1.9), an intermediate scenario that is in line with current climate policies(SSP2-4.5) and a very-high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5).

For this step, we use a simple climate model, or “emulator”, called FaIR.

By simulating 1,000 different volcanic futures, we find that the climate uncertainty caused by future 21st century eruptions could exceed the internal variability of the climate system itself over the same period.

We also find that volcanic eruptions could account for more than one-third of total uncertainty in global temperature projections until the 2030s.

You can see these results in the plot below. It shows the contribution to the total uncertainty from the different sources. The colours represent volcanoes (orange), internal variability (dark blue), climate model response (yellow) and scenarios of future human emissions (green).

Chart: Annual mean contribution of uncertainties
Annual average contribution to the total uncertainty in global average surface temperature from volcanic eruptions, internal variability, climate model response and human emissions scenarios from 2020 to 2100. Credit: Amended from Chim et al. (2025).

What this means for the 1.5C threshold

Our simulations demonstrate that incorporating possible timelines of volcanic activity slightly reduces the probability of crossing the Paris Agreement’s aspirational 1.5C temperature limit in the near term.

We find that – depending on the emissions scenario – the probability of exceeding 1.5C decreases by 4-10%, compared to projections using constant volcanic forcing.

While this might sound encouraging, future volcanic activity does not provide any long-term mitigation of human-caused warming.

The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 offers a dramatic illustration of this point. While the event cooled global temperatures by an average of 0.8C, it led to a “year without a summer” and caused crop failures and widespread famine across Europe, North America and China.

Eruptions produce temporary cooling lasting just a few years. They do not alter the underlying warming trend driven by human emissions.

Our study finds that, taking into account a range of future volcanic activity, global warming will still exceed 1.5C within decades under all but the very lowest emissions scenarios.

A high level of volcanic activity over the 21st century would help offset just a small fraction of global warming – meaning that emission reduction remains essential for meeting long-term climate goals.

The charts below show the probability of scenarios exceeding 1.5C using stochastic volcanic forcing (solid lines) and constant volcanic forcing (dashed lines) under three emissions scenarios (top) and the difference in probability between the two forcing approaches (bottom).

Charts: Probability of exceeding 1.5C
The top chart (a) shows the probability of scenarios exceeding 1.5C using stochastic volcanic forcing (solid lines) and 1850-2014 mean historically-averaged forcing (dotted lines) for SSP1-1.9 (very low emissions), SSP2-4.5 (approximate current policies) and SSP5-8.5 (very high emissions) scenarios. The lower chart (b) shows the difference in probability in exceeding 1.5C between the simulations and historically-averaged forcing and stochastic volcanic forcing. Credit: Chim et al. (2025)

Decadal-scale temperature variability

Another important insight from our research is that extreme warm and cold decades become more likely once the variability of volcanic forcing is accounted for.

We find that the chance of a negative decadal trend – a decade where global surface temperature cools on average – increases by 10-18% under the intermediate emissions scenario.

We also find a corresponding increase in the probability of extremely warm decades, reflecting how volcanic forcing variability enhances the likelihood of both cooling and warming extremes.

This underscores how volcanic eruptions could introduce significant variability into the global temperature trends over decadal timescales.

Toward better climate projections

Understanding volcanic effects on the climate is essential for comprehensively assessing future risks to agriculture, infrastructure and energy systems.

Running thousands of volcanic scenarios with full-scale Earth system models is not practical as it requires too much computing power. On the other hand, current approaches have significant limitations, as described above.

However, there is a middle ground for future climate modelling efforts.

The next phase of future climate modelling experiments – the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7 – can use a more representative “average” volcanic forcing baseline that incorporates the effects of small eruptions often missed in historical records. This bias has now been addressed in the historical volcanic forcing dataset that will underpin the next generation of climate model simulations.

Additionally, modelling teams should run additional scenarios with high and low future volcanic activity to capture the range of volcanic uncertainty on climate projections.

While human-caused greenhouse gas emissions remain the dominant driver of climate change, properly accounting for volcanic uncertainty provides a more complete picture of possible climate futures and their implications for society.

The post Guest post: Investigating how volcanic eruptions can affect climate projections appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Guest post: Investigating how volcanic eruptions can affect climate projections

Continue Reading

Climate Change

NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?

Published

on

The country’s most valuable utility didn’t like offshore wind. But a proposed merger with Dominion would include a $11.4 billion project in Coastal Virginia.

A utility megamerger announced this week would mean that the largest offshore wind project in the United States would be owned by the same company that already is the nation’s leading developer of renewables and battery storage.

NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Australia’s nature is in trouble.

Published

on

Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.

We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.

Pygmy Blue Whales in Western Australia. © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace
Pygmy Blue Whales continue to slide towards extinction © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace

Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.

A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.

But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.



Lonely Koala on a Tree Stump Animation in Australia. Still from a stop-motion animation. © Greenpeace


Speak up for nature

It just takes a few minutes


Make a submission

Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.

So what are these standards, exactly?

The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.

In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:

  • What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
  • How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
  • When should a project simply not go ahead?
  • What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
  • How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?

If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.

But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.

Spotted-tail Quolls are a threatened species severely impacted by deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

The biggest problem: process over outcomes

The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.

Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?

But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.

 This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.

A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed

Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.

Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.

But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.

For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.

The home of the near-threatened Red Goshawk has shrunk due to deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting

Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.

You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.

The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.

Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature

The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.

Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.

Strong standards could help turn things around by:

  • stopping destruction in critical habitat,
  • setting firm limits on environmental harm,
  • requiring genuine recovery for nature,
  • and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.

If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.




Speak up for nature

Have your say on nature laws


Make a submission

What needs to change?

The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:

  • ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
  • ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
  • ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
  • ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort

Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.

Australia’s nature is in trouble.

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’

Published

on

The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.

DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.

Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com