By Javier Vinós
The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history.
1. Off-scale warming
Since the planet has been warming for 200 years, and our global records are even more recent, every few years a new warmest year in history is recorded. Despite all the publicity given each time it happens, it would really be news if it didn’t happen, as it did between 1998 and 2014, a period popularly known as the pause.
Figure 1. Berkeley Earth temperature anomaly
Since 1980, 13 years have broken the temperature record. So, what is so special about the 2023 record and the expected 2024 record? For starters, 2023 broke the record by the largest margin in records, 0.17°C. This may not sound like much, but if all records were by this margin, we would go from +1.5°C to +2°C in just 10 years, and reach +3°C 20 years later.
Figure 2. Berkeley Earth 2023 temperature anomaly
Moreover, to produce so much warming, almost the entire globe experienced above-average warming. 2023 was a year of real global warming, although most of the warming occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.
Figure 3. 2023 global surface temperature anomaly over pre-industrial baseline in six datasets.
As a result, one of the major databases, Berkeley Earth, has exceeded the +1.5°C limit for a full year for the first time, and 2024 promises another temperature record. Crossing the dangerous warming threshold so early has caused some confusion, exacerbated by the fact that not much difference seems to be noticeable. Even Arctic ice remains above the average of the last decade. And if we’ve already crossed the line and the climate is beyond repair, what’s the point of trying?
Figure 4. Global temperature calculation by Copernicus system.
But the authorities have been quick to point out that even if we are above +1.5°C in 2023 or 2024, we will not have crossed the threshold. There is a catch. The global temperature is not the temperature of one month or one year, but the temperature of the linear trend of the last 30 years, which according to the European Copernicus system is +1.28°C and is expected to exceed +1.5°C in 10 years.[i]
2. Uncharted territory
In June 2023, the North Atlantic experienced a heat wave unprecedented in 40 years, with temperatures 5°C warmer than usual. Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, said the world was “entering uncharted territory. We have never seen anything like this in our life”.[ii] To understand what has puzzled scientists so much, it is necessary to look at the evolution of the temperature of the Earth’s oceans throughout the year since 1979.
Figure 5. 60°N-60°S global ocean surface temperature by year since 1979.
On average, the Earth’s oceans are warmest in February-March and coldest in October-November, with an intermediate maximum in August. This is an annual cycle caused by the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the arrangement of the continents, and seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation and albedo. A cycle that has never been broken as long as measurements have been kept until 2023. This year shows an accentuated warming since January, leading to daily temperature records since the beginning of April. But what is absolutely astonishing is that the ocean continued to warm in June and July and reached an annual maximum in August, something that has never happened before. And the warming through August is staggering, about 0.33°C above the 2016 record, which is huge for the ocean. After that, the annual cycle begins to behave normally, but at a much higher temperature, which is slowly falling. In June 2024, after 415 days of record temperatures, the ocean is still about 0.2°C warmer than it should be.
Buontempo means good weather in English, and his phrase “we have entered uncharted territory” has become very popular. However, it assumes that we have reached and will remain in this situation, whereas the data suggest that this is a one-off anomaly with diminishing effects. For now, it tells us that nothing dramatic is happening as we approach the politically established warming threshold.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s climate monitoring institute, also uses the expression “uncharted territory” when he explains that the 2023 anomaly worries scientists, saying that climate models cannot explain why the planet’s temperature suddenly spiked in 2023. Not only was the temperature anomaly much larger than expected, but it occurred months before the onset of El Niño. In his own words: “The 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”[iii] According to Gavin, we could have broken the climate and the models would no longer work.
Instead of abandoning science for wild speculation let’s examine the possible factors responsible for the abrupt warming that Gavin Schmidt dismisses by saying they could explain at most a few hundredths of a degree, for which he has little evidence.
3. The little boy is innocent
El Niño is unlikely to be responsible for the simple reason that such abrupt global warming is unprecedented in our records, and El Niño has many precedents. In addition, El Niño warms a specific region of the equatorial Pacific and primarily affects the Pacific, while the “2023 event” warmed parts of the North Atlantic to an extraordinary degree. This does not prevent scientists like Jan Esper and Ulf Büntgen from saying that 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gas-induced warming trend amplified by an El Niño.[iv] They clearly did not examine the data before writing this, nor did the reviewers of their Nature paper.
The relationship between the temperature of the equatorial Pacific and that of the global ocean during an El Niño is shown in the figure below.
Figure 6. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended satellite global ocean temperature anomaly (black).
The temperature anomaly in the Pacific Niño 3.4 region shows the very strong Niños of 1983, 1998, and 2016, and the strong Niños of 1988, 1992, 2009, and 2024. The years correspond to the month of January during the event. When the satellite global ocean temperature anomaly is plotted without its long-term trend, we observe a very close correspondence. The long-term trend responds to other causes, but the temperature variations correspond to the export of heat from the equatorial Pacific to the rest of the globe.
We also observe two things. The first is that the correspondence fails in two periods, in 1992 as a result of the Pinatubo eruption a year earlier, and in 2024. The second observation is that in all strong or very strong Niños, the source of the heat, the equatorial Pacific, warms earlier and warms more or as much in relative terms as the global ocean warms later. This does not happen in the 2024 El Niño. The warming is simultaneous and greater than it should be outside the equatorial Pacific.
Figure 7. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended ERSST PDO (blue).
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is often described as a long-lived pattern of climate variability similar to El Niño in the North Pacific. And this is evident when we compare the two after removing a long-term trend that the PDO should not have. The agreement is very strong, and again we see a significant anomaly in 1991 due to the Pinatubo eruption. But even more important is the anomaly in 2023-24, when the PDO shows extraordinarily small changes and remains negative when it should be positive.
Figure 8. During the 2023 event the North Pacific stayed in negative PDO conditions, while the equatorial Pacific displayed El Niño conditions.
To understand this response, one must consider that the warm phase of the PDO requires the Northwest Pacific to be cold, but as we have shown above, the Northwest Pacific was very warm in 2023, causing the PDO to remain in a cold phase. A negative phase of the PDO during El Niño is unprecedented and categorically rules out El Niño as the cause of the abrupt warming that has puzzled scientists. In fact, it is possible that the ocean warming that began in March 2023 was the cause of the 2024 El Niño by weakening the trade winds in the equatorial Pacific.
I’d like to thank Charles May for bringing this data to my attention and for doing such an excellent job analyzing it each month.
4. Sulfate aerosols are not responsible
Another possibility that is under consideration is the reduction of sulfate aerosols as a result of the change in marine fuel regulations in 2020.
Figure 9. Global sulfur emissions for the past 64 years
The reduction in sulfur emissions since the late 1970s is considered a significant warming factor by reducing emissions of shortwave radiation reflected from the atmosphere. However, the reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from marine fuels since 2020 is estimated at 14% of total emissions.
Figure 10. Model-calculated global temperature effect of an 80% reduction (red curve) in marine fuel sulfur content from pre-2020 situation (blue curve), and decadal mean difference (green bars).
A recent study, still under peer review, used a climate model to calculate that sulfur emission reductions from 2020 could cause global warming of 0.02°C in the first decade.[v] Since the warming in 2023 was 10 times greater, it is difficult to believe that emissions reductions since 2020 could have been a major factor in the abrupt warming in 2023.
In the figure, the blue curve is the global warming predicted with the previously used marine fuel, and the red curve is the one predicted with the fuel with 80% less sulfur. The difference between the two curves for the decade 2020-30 is the green bar of 0.02°C.
5. CO₂ increase didn’t do it
The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased slightly by about 2.5 parts per million in 2023.
Figure 11. Monthly (red) and 12-month (black) CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa.
The increase from 418.5 to 421 ppm represents an increase of 0.6% and is similar to the increase that has occurred each year for the past several decades. Nothing in our knowledge of the effect of CO₂ increases on climate suggests that such a small increase could have led to such a large and abrupt warming. There is no study to suggest that the gradual increase in CO₂ could lead to a sudden increase in climate variability. Therefore, all model predictions are long-term and affect the statistics of weather phenomena. The proof is that scientists and models cannot explain what happened in 2023.
6. Tonga volcano prime suspect
Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga. How unusual? It was an eruption of VEI 5 explosivity, capable of reaching the stratosphere, which occurs on average every 10 years.
Figure 12. Time and cone elevation of VEI ≥5 volcanic eruptions of the past 200 years, their distribution by altitude (yellow bars), and the suggested depth for a submarine eruption capable of projecting a large amount of water to the stratosphere (red line).
There have been a number of eruptions with VEI 5 or higher in the last 200 years, although not all of them have affected the global climate. This figure shows with dots the date they occurred and the elevation at which the volcanic cone was located. The yellow bars show the distribution of eruptions in 500 m elevation bins. The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere.
In our 200 years of records there is only one other submarine eruption with VEI 5, which occurred in 1924 off the Japanese island of Iriomote at a depth of 200 m and did not affect the atmosphere. Only surface effects were observed. NASA scientists believe that the Tonga explosion occurred at the right depth to project a lot of water into the stratosphere.[vi] This depth is indicated by the red line. So, the Tonga eruption is a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium. Science was very lucky. We are not so lucky.
We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year. The eruption of Mount Tambora in April 1815 had a global effect on the climate, but it took 15 months for the effect to develop, during the year without a summer of 1816. These delayed effects coincided with the appearance of a veil of sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere due to seasonal changes in the global stratospheric circulation.
Figure 13. Stratospheric water vapor anomaly at 45°N.
In this image on the vertical axis, we observe the water vapor anomaly in the stratosphere between 15 and 40 km altitude with ocher tones for negative values and greenish for positive ones. The measurement takes place at 45° latitude in the northern hemisphere. On the horizontal axis is the date, and we can see that the large anomaly created by the Tonga eruption does not appear in the Northern Hemisphere until one year later, in 2023, when the warming occurred. Thus, there are dynamical events in the stratosphere that have the appropriate time lag to coincide with the abrupt warming in 2023.
Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.
As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%.[vii] And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.
Figure 14. Global water vapor anomaly above 68hPa.
The stratosphere has already begun to dry out again, but it is a slow process that will take many years. In 2023 only 20 million tons of water returned to the troposphere, 13%.[viii]
7. Dismissing natural warming
On the one hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented abrupt warming that the models cannot explain and that has scientists scratching their heads. Such anomalous warming cannot logically respond to the usual suspects, El Niño, reduced sulfur emissions, or increased CO₂, which have been going on for many decades.
On the other hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented volcanic eruption, the effects of which we cannot know, but which, according to what we know about the greenhouse effect, should cause significant and abrupt warming.
Of course, we cannot conclude that the warming was caused by the volcano, but it is clear that it is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.
So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.
This article can also be watched in a 19-minute video with English and French subtitles.
[i] Copernicus Global temperature trend monitor.
[ii] CNN July 8, 2023. Global heat in ‘uncharted territory’ as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record.
[iii] Schmidt, G., 2024. Why 2023’s Heat Anomaly Is Worrying Scientists. Nature, 627.
[iv] Esper, J. et al., 2024. 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years. Nature, pp.1-2.
[v] Yoshioka, M., et al., 2024. Warming effects of reduced sulfur emissions from shipping. EGUsphere, 2024, pp.1-19.
[vi] Lee, J., & Wang, A., 2022. Tonga eruption blasted unprecedented amount of water into stratosphere. NASA Jet Propulsion Lab.
[vii] Solomon, S., et al., 2010. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science, 327 (5970), pp.1219-1223.
[viii] Zhou, X., et al. 2024. Antarctic vortex dehydration in 2023 as a substantial removal pathway for Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha’apai water vapor. Geophysical Research Letters, 51 (8), p. e2023GL107630.
[ix] Guterres, A., 2024. Secretary-General’s special address on climate action “A Moment of Truth”.
Superlative analysis. Thanks Javier.
Your views on stratospheric transport make me wonder what new procedures structural geologists, or core-mantle geophysicists with doctorates might devise if they took up neurosurgery as a hobby after discovering that Egas Moniz’s novel ideas won the Nobel Prize?
For a reality check on Tonga, you should read Dessler:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-real-lesson-of-the-hunga-tonga
Which is more relevant to your concerns than my brief paper on stratospheric transport,
Shocked quartz grains at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary Not volcanic or atmospherically transported
Naturwissenschaften Volume 75, pages 307–308, (1988)
Andy Dessler shows there he really has no clue, which is shocking. And comparing the water vapor put in the stratosphere with the total water vapor of the atmosphere indicates how manipulative he is.
What part of “optical depth ” and “residence time ” don’t you understand? Refusal to quantify atmospheric transport using stokes law and 3D finite element models is a Bad Idea.
“optical depth” and “residence time” are not mentioned in the Dessler’s article you link.
You should read more articles on non-radiative effects of stratospheric-reaching volcanic eruptions.
Andy Dessler is a pathetic pseudo-scientist activist. I stopped reading any of his work after his ridiculous non-response to Roy Spencer’s about 15y ago.
Javier Vinós: “Crossing the dangerous warming threshold so early has caused some confusion”
If you are going to adopt their MSM BS lies there is not point in attempting to argue the science. 1.5deg is NOT “dangerous warming threshold “, neither was 2 deg C. This basically arbitrary “limit” of a non physical “average temperature” was originally : 2deg should safe , after that we don’t know. It was NOT >2deg is dangerous. They then invented the even more unscientific “it would be nice to stay under 1.5” when they realised that 2deg was so far off , no one was interested.
The activist-media cabal spearheaded by the likes of the Guardian have been lying about the idea 1.5 is the new “dangerous” threshold.
YOU FELL FOR IT AND ARE NO HELPING THEM. WELL DONE.
WRT language: That was supposed to read “now helping them”.
You should look at NH/SH separately. GHE should affect winter months most. Last NH winter was mild which matches, what about SH? May/June in Europe mild: v. later start to summer.
What is the effect on TLS ?
What to all the salt as sea water becomes WV? How does brine affect ozone ?
Plenty to dig into here.
Trends-
‘Last century we had record high solar activity, limited volcanic activity, SOI oscillation mostly negative, AO/NAO mostly positive, and PDO/AMO mostly in a warm phase… [accounting] for the overall temperature rise.’ ~Del Prete
The reverse could be more of, e.g., more volcanic activity and a more positive SOI oscillation being more positive with more negative AO/NAO circulations and PDO/AMO being mostly in a cold phase.
The influence of volcanic eruptions that occur even if underwater and not observed still effects the climate.
Thank, Javier. This is the best analysis I’ve seen yet. This is also happened to occur near the peak of solar cycle 25, not that I believe that had a huge impact. I’m just glad that we appear to be heading back to normal.
The belief that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of all changes in global temperature is so great that nothing can or should upset the AGW hypothesis. This also applies to the recent unusually rapid rise in temperature. As Javier, among others, states that the Hunga Tonga eruption is the most likely explanation for the rise in temperature, the defense of AGW becomes even more pronounced and unvarnished.
The anthropogenic explanation AGW suffers from credibility when one mostly excludes everything other than one’s own belief in what a continuous emission of CO2 is able to affect the global temperature. How do you explain a transient rise in temperature with a modest continuous emission of CO2? If you draw out the consequences of this line of thinking, then in a rational world, only natural explanations such as the Hunga Tonga eruption remain as a very likely explanation for the rapid synthetic global temperature increase.
The most likely cause is simple weather. The unusual timing of the el nino transition, from a series of several years of la niña, triggered weather patters that resulted in high temperature anomalies (clear skies and low convection in key area), this also disrupted the jet streams (allowing warm air into the poles.) This pattern also affected the el nino index, making it smaller than what it normally would be for its intensity (areas that are normal cold during el nino were warm because of the early transition). The resulting rossby wave propagation caused marine heatwaves in places that don’t normally warm in el absolutely. All this happened long before el niño index enters official el nino state.
A nearly identical scenario happened in 1877/78, no known stratospheric water vapor injection.
As Occam would point, and unprecedented result requieres an unprecedented cause.
The warming spike in SST is unprecedented.
If it had a trivial explanation like the one you point out, scientists would have been quick to offer it, instead of saying they can’t explain it.
None of the Schmidts of the world want to admit the weather can drive forcing and temperature anomalies to the extent it does.
Synoptician Paul Roundy has been pointing this out since spring 2023.
No, it can hardly be about “simple weather”. The underlying cause has a completely different dignity. An El Nino is a flow of trapped warm water in the western part of the ocean, heading towards South America. The forecast for a major El Nino at the time of the Hunga Tonga eruption was on the lower scale. With certainty we cannot say that the event was triggered by Hunga Tonga, but with very high probability we can state that the sudden increase in the global synthetic temperature was caused by a factor of much higher magnitude than an El Nino.
Tonga blew up in 2021, you might as well be talking about Pinatubo or el Chinchon
Tambora blew up in 1815, the effects were noticed in 1816. Read the article. It is easy to understand even by people that think they know how volcanic eruptions should affect climate.
Jan 2022 actually.
The eruption started in Dec. 2021, but didn’t “blow up” until Jan 15, 2022. Nonetheless, I agree with you. Personal qualitative hypothesis: HTHH created low stratospheric aerosols and particulates (increased albedo cooling) and H20(g) (GHE warming) that nearly cancel each other, and it is actually difficult to see any global temperature effects. Removal of both is through slow mixing with the troposphere.
I have a hard time reconciling a 16-month induction time for the initial appearance of warming when hemispheric and global mixing times are on the order of 6 weeks and a <1 year. Heck, Even the volcanic cooling dip, that some think may trigger El Niños, is not distinctly observable. I tend to agree with Aaron that it is a just strong El Niño after a long period of La Niñas, superimposed on (and amplified by?) the secular warming. We'll know better in a few years.
“I have a hard time reconciling a 16-month induction time for the initial appearance of warming when hemispheric and global mixing times are on the order of 6 weeks and a <1 year."
Then you have a hard time accepting the evidence for the year without a summer of 1816 a year after the Tambora eruption of 1815.
“The 1815 eruption of Tambora caused the most pronounced climate anomaly of the period, and one of the largest of the past two millennia in Europe and North America. In the following year, global temperatures dropped by 0.4–0.8 °C (although a strong eruption six or seven years earlier arguably also contributed to low temperatures in the 1810s). The climate anomaly particularly affected New England and the St. Lawrence valley as well as Central Europe, where 1816 went down in history as a “Year Without a Summer.” In Switzerland, summer (June–August) temperatures fell as much as 3 °C below the average of the two preceding decades (Fig. 25.3). The number of rainy days almost doubled, and cloud-free days became very rare.”
Stefan Brönnimann, Sam White, and Victoria Slonosky, 2018.
Javier,
You missed my point. Tambora was April 10-11, 2015. Global temperature depression showed large effects within a year. HTHH (if it was HTHH) showed nothing for 16 months.
And of course, I accept the evidence for the year without a summer (As usual, you got it backwards). It is consistent with a 6-12 month global stratospheric mixing. The absence of any observable effect from your proposed HTHH cause is delayed by 16 months, while most large volcanic events start seeing some effect within a few months.
PS – You can’t tell me what I do or don’t have a hard time accepting. What I actually have a hard time accepting will be left unsaid.
Bushaw,
As a Chemist, I also have problems with the time sequence of reactions after Tonga. It reminds me of the suspect chemistry behind the hole in the ozone layer. Once The Establishment decreed a mechanism, large economic disruption was forced by those who could do no more than follow The Establishment line.
Surely we have to break this pattern where global consequences can be caused by uncertain chemistry dressed up as the only story.
Geoff S
Geoff,
Glad to hear you have similar reservations about the Tonga timing.
I don’t have any idea of what to do about the focalism, but I agree it is a problem, particularly with politicians.
Bruce
What you have a problem accepting is your problem only. I rely on data and published science.
The delay in stratospheric eruptions effects is due to stratospheric circulation whose changes are seasonally tied.
Tambora took place in April. It showed a 15 month delay in its noticeable effects. Hunga Tonga took place 3 months earlier, in January. That is why the delay in its effects is a few months longer. Both eruptions showed very conspicuous effects at the same time of the year, in the NH late Spring to early Summer.
“As the meridional transport is much stronger towards the respective winter hemisphere, aerosols from tropical eruptions residing in the lower stratosphere in April or May should in theory be transported to the South initially because this is the winter hemisphere. Around October, that circulation stops, and in November the northerly circulation starts. Aerosols still remaining in the tropical stratosphere at that time will go north.”
Brönnimann S, Krämer D. 2016. Tambora and the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.
I have shown evidence that water vapor did not start reaching the NH in large amounts until the beginning of 2023.
Thanks for your articles Javier! You make good points.
It should be mentioned there is more people with similar thoughts.
Here is also a paper published before the extreme heat 2023 took place, that says the eruption will have warming effect.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2
Here is another paper from 2024 also implying it could be one possible cause of the warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00582-9
Correct, thanks. But the party line from Gavin Schmidt, Andrew Dessler, António Guterres, and the rest is that the volcano explains only a few hundredths of a degree, so it is our fault.
Javier
It must be wonderful being an activist climate scientist. You just turn off the cognitive functioning button and like a talking doll say “AGW did it”.
What a simple world to live in.
Bjobos
You’re not paying attention. Everyone agrees that the 2023/2024 temperature surge is not directly due to increasing CO2.
Not does the surge disprove the long term effect of CO2.
Incidentally, there are a number of forcings which have, in the past, warmer or cooled the climate. They vary from changes in solar insolation to orbital cycle up to plate tectonics. They have all been measured and, together, their effect on recent climate is slow cooling. By elimination that leaves CO2 as the cause of the long term warming trend.
Unless you have something genuinely new your problem is your own belief that global warming is not due to CO2.
Right, but that global warming is due to CO₂ is also a belief, since there is no clear evidence of it, just circumstantial evidence and a kind of computer games called climate models.
Mr Vinós … tell me about Dr. Tanita Casci.
“tell me about Dr. Tanita Casci.”
I don’t have much to say. We worked in the same laboratory at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge (UK) in the late 1990s. I made a major contribution to her Ph.D. project, so we ended up sharing first authorship on a highly cited paper. She went on to work as an editor at Nature and I continued to do science. I didn’t follow up with her. She was nice and smart.
You forgot to mention clouds Entropic Man.
CERES data implies a decrease in global cloud cover of around 2% since 2001. That has let a lot more sunshine onto the surface, and has heated it enough to explain all the recent warming.
Great. The suspension of civil aviation in the US following the 911 terrorism reduced the con trails and thus the sky was clearer resulting in warmer days and colder nights. A similar effect was noted in Europe at the start of COVID when air travel was reduced. What would happen if aircraft used hydrogen as a fuel?
In 2023 I considered the rainfall and flooding in Eastern Australia, Brazil and eastern South Africa to have a relationship to the water vapour generated by the Tonga eruption. Started to test this observation but abandoned the investigation due to time spent finding suitable rainfall data. My speculation is that the Tongan water nucleated further water vapour as it sank back to earth. Note that flooding is continuing in eastern Australia and I expect this will continue for a number of years. Flooding further around the world is likely due to the wider distribution of the Tongan water vapour.
Compiling the rainfall data and relating it to atmospheric wind current could be a useful exercise.
” What would happen if aircraft used hydrogen as a fuel?”
The density of contrails would be thicker because the emission from jet engines would be entirely water vapor instead of a mixture of carbon dioxide and water.
“flooding is continuing in Eastern Australia”
Current data on riverine flooding from the BoM in Australia is showing that there is zero riverine flooding in any of the Australian states.
Javier,
Thanks for another excellent article.
Like RodW above, I wonder what effect the Tonga water will have on southern hemisphere rainfall (S.America, S.Africa, Australia)?
Javier, would you expect a period of unusually high rainfall in these zones following the Tonga water injection?
Jucker, M., et al., 2024. Long-term climate impacts of large stratospheric water vapor perturbations. Journal of Climate.
They project positive temperature anomalies mainly in the NH and negative in the SH. If they are correct, precipitation anomalies might be negative in the SH, particularly in Australia.
But who knows. This is unprecedented.
My problem with understanding the Hunga Tonga eruption is the total lack of any effect of the eruption on the temperature of the lower stratosphere.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/hunga-tonga-stratosphere-temperature.png
Seems like all that water would have had some effect on the temperature, but nooo …
w.
Stratospheric cooling in the SH in 2022 has been reported in several articles, for example:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/14/3602
Robert,
“The higher humidity is, of course, due to the rise in global temperature caused by the cumulative effects of past solar activity.”
Too much unjustified focalism: The higher humidity is due to the rise in global temperature (yes), which is influenced by many factors. We’ve already discussed the magnitude of forcings by solar effects. They are minor with a forcing around 0.1 W/m^2. It can’t be responsible for more that a small fraction of the secular temperature.
I don’t think there was a “total lack of any effect of the eruption on the temperature of the lower stratosphere.”
Here’s a plot of global and hemispherical lower-strat anomaly data from UAH. I’ve plotted from 2010 for reference, and place a marker to mark the eruption.
https://localartist.org/media/HT_Strat.png
Thank you, Robert.
In eyeball mode for the lower graph, your lower strat temperatures show a rather good anti correlation between NH and SH, except for early 2020, where they rise in unison. Not so in the smoothed top graph? Data problem?
Point is, if your lower graph is correct, this shift from anti-correlation is an anomalous feature that needs explanation.
Geoff S
Hi Geoff,
I just loaded the data into Excel (normally I use Python). The features in the lower plot appear correct, and when I add moving averages as a trend plot, they appear to match the Python results in the upper plot.
Here’s the original data source.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Robert,
I checked the UAH data you graphed, reproduced it exactly, no problem. My other problem is as I said. Much of the time, a positive peak in the NH is opposite a negative peak in the SH,as if there is anti-correlation – except for that early 2020 peak, where they both rise.
It gets complicated when you look from 1978 to now. I have to study this some more now. But there still seems something different in early 2020.
Geoff S
There were two significant volcanoes early in the record. This is a plot I made for other reasons, but you can clearly see the imprint of solar cycles LT temperatures as well.
https://localartist.org/media/StratCooling.png
I’ll leave it to Javier and others to explain the data, but it does appear to me that the late 2019 event, which some have explained as the result of Australian fires, had not died out by 2022. What I find interesting though is that the HTHH spike appears well timed to reinforce the 2019 event
Robert,
Thanks for your StratCooling graphic. The different signatures of volcanoes vs strong El Niños (1998, 2016, now) is obvious.
Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words.
Comments: For the specific humidity, I’m sure you mean the SH anomaly. g/Kg can’t go negative
Smoothing to 1-year MA, is actually detrimental to determining the Pinatubo time sequence. An unsmoothed version can be seen in the RSS-TLS “raw” time series data (presumably also in the corresponding UAH data set).
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
(select TLS data set)
I find the Pinatubo time sequence:
Eruption: April 2, 1991
first observable signal (anomaly passes up through zero): June 1991 (2-3 months after eruption)
peak signal: mid-October 1991 (6.5 months after eruption)
observable signal ends (crossing down through zero anomaly): April 1993 (24 months after eruption)
Thanks, Bruce. The typo has been fixed in the graphic, and I’ve added HTHH.
The original purpose of this plot was to eyeball the effects of declining solar activity on the LT, as well as any contribution from water vapor limiting upwelling radiation. The higher humidity is, of course, due to the rise in global temperature caused by the cumulative effects of past solar activity.
Looking at both Willis’ and Robert’s plots, the data impartially shows there should be no merit in the claim of HTHH’s effect on the surface if it can’t even be discerned in the lower stratosphere.
Did the largest LS spikes cause big ocean warming? I didn’t see it.
Robert’s plot shows the SH T spike nearest the time of HTHH was no different in size than previous spikes so how can anyone tell if the HTHH event was the sole cause of that one SH spike in 2022?
The Solomon etal abstract is sketchy on mechanism details too regarding ocean warming, heavily depending on anthropogenic forcing for any surface warming.
Thanks, Javier.
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming - Climate- Science.press
Thanks for this Javier.
“So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible?”
Because scientists like Dessler calculate that the direct radiative effect of the stratospheric water vapour would only be a few hundredths of a degree. I had an interesting conversation about this with Dessler on Substack. He pointed out that Solomon et al was based on calculations of the effect of wv in the lower stratosphere, not the mid stratosphere (where much of the wv from HTHH ended up) where the radiative effects are maximum. This is true. I also pointed out that his paper sums the net instantaneous warming AND sulphate cooling effects at the surface soon after the eruption, so doesn’t really represent what happened more than a year later.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/a-problematic-estimate-of-warming/comments
But Dessler and others may be correct in their simple estimates of the direct radiative effect of the stratospheric wv from HTHH. However, such studies completely neglect to account for any positive feedbacks resulting to decreases in stratospheric ozone and the knock-on effects upon global circulation and weather patterns. A study was published very recently showing very significant REGIONAL cooling and warming effects several years after the eruption, much of that not directly related to simple radiative warming from the water vapour. To my mind, this atmospheric disruption could have resulted in the sharp spike in summed GLOBAL warming which we saw in 2023 and which, perhaps, is now starting to subside.
Thanks Jaime,
But Dessler and Schmidt must know that direct radiative effects only explain a part of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate. There are decades of research on non-radiative effects of volcanoes and the evidence from Tambora and other eruptions is undeniable.
This eruption is unprecedented. Its full effects over time are unknown. The warming spike is also unprecedented. For a scientist to come and say they are unrelated reveals a biased position and neglect of the scientific method. From this eruption warming was expected and warming was produced. A causal relation between these two unprecedented events is the most logical hypothesis.
The unbiased part of the scientific community is not going to buy it. Studies are accumulating linking both. But the people will not be informed because they control the media and the message.
Jaime … I read your exchange with Dessler. Did he ever post any additional comments after your last comment? Thank you for the link.
No Bill, that was the end of the conversation. I suspect he thought he was just challenging another ‘climate denier’ but I actually found the conversation quite useful!
Jaime … yes, he didn’t know your gun was loaded. ;-) I found the discussion very interesting. Thanks.
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
When insisting on EV… a country, in case of emergency, will be challenged without means of transportation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But which climate event?
Climate is an average of the sum of the weather estimated over a thirty-year period. What Javier Vinos is talking about is weather. But he calls it climate……
Address your criticism to the WMO:
https://rcc.dwd.de/DWD-RCC/EN/overview/documents/01_wmo_guidelines.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
No offense Javier, but it is not obligatory to be forced into identical acts, especially in the specific case written above, as an alteration of mathematics by those in charge.
In these cases, having your own thoughts is necessary.
And don’t be slaves to received ideas.
No offense taken. The criteria between weather and climate is not well established. The WMO manifest clearly demonstrates that. They consider a heat wave a climate event.
I personally consider that volcanic eruptions don’t change the climate because their effects are not prolonged enough. Nevertheless I am open to consider that they can have enough effect to change a 30-year average, which is the most accepted definition of climate.
In any case, everything these days is considered climate, even a one-day record temperature, so if we skeptics stick to a purer definition of climate we are actually conceding the public discourse to the alarmists.
I can clearly distinguish for the type of audience I am writing and adapt to that.
Did a neuroscientist just forget the earth has 2 hemispheres? Tonga is at 20 degrees south. The south shows little warming, the north shows a lot. On the face of it this is a disproof.
More hand waving required.
Also forgot that the previous La Niña was unusual, so words like “categorical” are doing some heavy lifting.
That an unprecedented volcanic eruption would not have the effects you expected would only disproof your expectations.
Nevertheless, the Southern Hemisphere has also shown record warming, and 2023 was the record minimum in Antarctic sea ice, which will probably be surpassed in 2024.
The top of the Hadley cell circulation is below tropopause.
Inter-hemisphere mixing of trace gases is fine for CO2, because that is needed to explain how human emitted northern hemispheric CO2 heats the southern hemisphere.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/6627/2021/
But Tongan origin water vapour can’t be allowed to mix in the stratosphere and cross the equator to cause warming in the north, because narrative.
Give me a break.
tallbloke,
Did not the radioactive CO2 from the bomb tests quickly populate both hemispheres and look like a well-mixed gas? (I’m rusty on the detail).
Geoff S
In 2023, there was a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere and an increase in temperature in the troposphere over the equator, but not near the surface. A suspicious increase in UVB radiation over the equator.
Currently, ozone is declining again.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Hi Javier,
Regarding Fig 14 and the corresponding paper on strat WV. I’d like to add something that may only serve to deepen the mystery. If you look at my temperature prediction from sunspot cycles (including earth’s integral-like response), you’ll see that for roughly the same period, my model doesn’t predict temperature rise. It’s possible that the change in WV was the response, and not the forcing function.
I’m not making any claims here, just adding another data point. I will say that the current spike was not predicted by my model.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/main/images/TempPredictionSSOnly.png
That said, I’ve plotted the UAH lower troposphere anomalies by region and it’s pretty clear, to me anyway, that the equatorial regions are doing the heavy lifting.
https://localartist.org/media//UAH_LowerTrop.png
Global 90S-90N, NH 0-90N, SH 90S-0, TRPCS 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-90N, SoExt 90S-20S, NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S
I’m well out of my lane here, so feel free to ignore me, but is there any chance that SH equatorial currents were disrupted? The volcano is well positioned. If the SH currents slowed, wouldn’t this explain excess heat in the tropics, excess heat transfer to the NH, a temperature driven increase in NH stratosphere WV, and an anemic response in the SoExt? Just thinking out loud here. Shields activated.
Changes in SST patterns indicate changes in transport probably resulting from changes in atmospheric circulation.
In her article of last year:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/
Judith had this to say:
“The midlatitude warming is causing a decrease in the meridional (south to north) heat transport (atmospheric and oceanic) and contributing to a latitudinal shift in the intertropical convergence zone. This may be reflected in the meridional circulation modes (PMM, AMM).
Distorted warming in colder drier areas of the north Atlantic disturbs the vertical velocity patterns, leading to the expansion of the Hadley Cell. … Current understanding is that most of the recent Northern Hemisphere Hadley Cell widening is consistent with natural variability.”
This is a case of unclear causality. ¿Did the warming cause the changes in transport or the opposite? Probably a mix of both.
Hello Javier,
and greetings from rainy Finland.
I have done some work to find “why so warm lately”.
I got same result; it is HT volcano.
And more detailed mechanism can be found in article
“Effect of Photochemical Models on Calculated.
Equilibria and Cooling Rates in the Stratosphere
DONNA BLAKE-The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.
RICHARD S. LINDZEN ’-Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass”.
Sun radiation splits H2O and H destroys ozone.
This means more UV heating to sees, e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007183
QBO was 2023 in easterly phase and this also may have some effect?
At least last winter in Finland was long and cold.
Thanks, Javier. I re-read Judith’s article. Perhaps one day she might be persuaded to provide an updated version. It would be interesting to see how some of the data has evolved over the last year.
Javier,
Trying to help, checking that you know of the causality studies of “hen and egg” by Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Zbigniew Kundzewicz.
Geoff S
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202011.0109/v1
“5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.” (Carl Sagan)
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
“7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.” (Carl Sagan)
#7 is the reason why governments shouldn’t play interference with science; picking winners for funding, while squeezing out non collectivist ideas. Since the beginning—the very bylaws of the IPCC were designed as an appeal for consensus; models demonstrate how nails are hammered into conformity.
I figured you’d resort to that again, little man-boy.
Thanks Trunks,
Nice deflection from general principles. See item 17 in the list of logical fallacies. Who do you think should determine what proposed research (and everything else) that the governments fund? In a representative democracy, it is, in essence, the voting population that makes the determination. Sucks to be in the minority, eh?
It’s not a deflection, but an addition that Carl added.
“Who do you think should determine what proposed research that the governments fund”… it isn’t the public; it’s the 4th branch, the unelected bureaucracy.
Of course, it’s deflection – research funding mechanisms have nothing to do with the assessment of the validity of scientific results and conclusions.
To my point: the unelected bureaucracy is appointed by elected officials. If you don’t like it, vote for different people to represent you, or run yourself.
Of course it’s not a deflection!
“..research funding mechanisms have nothing to do with the assessment of the validity of scientific results and conclusions.”
Of course that comment is true, you’re describing research that’s already done, eh?
Other than department heads, most rank and file can’t be fired within the bureaucracy; which is why the Left are hyperventilating over the prospect of laws changing that would allow these to be fired. It’s why so much within government is incompetent.
The voting population has close to zero say about what gets funded, and what influence it does have is only in broad strokes. The EPA has never let up issuing burdensome regulations. Our appliances get less functional and more expensive every year. It’s the agencies that make those decisions. They persist from election to election no matter who wins.
Nope, I referenced an article that I thought might help people judge veracity in scientific research in all phases, from question formulation to publication and defense. It can (and should) be applied to one’s own work (if any) as well as that of others.
You, apparently, are eager discus, anything else. Now why is that?
I apologize, I shouldn’t have responded to the deflection in the first place.
Bye.
Now Polly is just spinning on his perch.
And, uninterestingly, he was the one deflecting.
My comment was “#7 is the reason why governments shouldn’t play interference with science; picking winners for funding, while squeezing out non collectivist ideas. Since the beginning—the very bylaws of the IPCC were designed as an appeal for consensus; models demonstrate how nails are hammered into conformity.”
My comment wasn’t specifically directed at U.S. Federal government science funding, it specified “governments’—global. My point was directed at the foundation of IPCC consensus building, global government consensus funding.
Socialists are quite adept at appropriating, and then gerrymandering funds under the auspice of “democracy” towards the building bureaucratic edifices.
Jim 2: “The voting population has close to zero say about what gets funded.”
That is correct, but government funding is determined by members of congress, whom (supposedly) represent the people. Sorry, you missed the point. The people have everything to say about who controls the purse strings, which ultimately controls what the government does. Point is, if you believe in our system of government, use your vote wisely, and accept the results (which does not preclude trying to change them in the future).
Polly is off his perch thinking congress votes for appropriating individual science research projects. It’s an obtuse, ignorant assessment.
JT: P.O. Your deflections, insults, and lack of intellect are boring.
PS – You have no idea of what I think – I never said anything about congress funding individual research projects – that’s your fabrication.
“5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.” (Carl Sagan)”
The question is why Carl Sagan did not follow his own advise when he got overly attached to the nuclear winter hypothesis.
I guess he didn’t practice what he preached.
Are you saying it is bad advice, or is it just the old ad hominem dismissal of things you know you should, but don’t, do?
(BTW, it is not “The” question is “a” or “your” question. Also, advice is a noun, advise is a verb).
I’m saying Carl Sagan is not the person to quote to express this idea as he didn’t practice it. Richard Feynman is a much better choice:
‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.’
Yes, and Sagan sets out a nice set of guidance to avoid fooling yourself. I make sure to keep them in mind when reviewing your work.
“I make sure to keep them in mind when reviewing your work.”
It works the opposite way. I have to make sure of not being fooled by my own hypothesis, while you have to make sure your beliefs are not fooling yourself.
No, it works both ways; for evaluating your own work (hypotheses/evidence/logical connection, etc.), and that of others.
Polly, you can’t get much lower on the anal pecking chart, but you work hard trying to.
Sagan did walk away from nuclear winter and renamed it as a probable nuclear autumn. It just took him way too long to do so.
“and that of others.”
The biggest risk of being fooled is by things that seem to support our beliefs.
The risk of my hypothesis fooling you is zero. However, you are at a serious risk of being fooled by the low-evidence hypothesis that our emissions are responsible for climate change. You are not going to distrust it as you trust the consensus, despite consensuses having an awful track record.
“Sagan did walk away from nuclear winter”
I don’t know about that. He died in 1996, and in 1991 he was still saying that Kuwait’s oil fires would cause the effects of a nuclear winter.
Max Planck said science advances one funeral at a time, because scientists do not renounce the theories they have supported most of their careers.
Sagan has good advice – Dont be fooled by activists pushing agenda driven junk science.
Javier: “You are not going to distrust it as you trust the consensus, despite consensuses having an awful track record.”
“Awful” – now there’s a good quantitative descriptor. BTW, how is your track record in scientific climate research publications? Oh, wait. I assume the ad hominem attack on Sagan is because you don’t want people to use his advice to evaluate your work, e.g., Sagan #6.
I don’t trust the consensus. Rather, I consider many hypotheses and trust the evidence to reach my conclusions. So happens that my conclusions mostly agree with the consensus.
Thanks for your thoughts about what I do and don’t do and think – as if you would know.
Should a country heading to 100% zero CO2 emissions, should a country abandon the national crude oil reserves?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible?”
Because water vapor in the stratosphere can’t be responsible.
There is very little water vapor in the atmosphere above the troposphere. Why is that? because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, unlike CO2, is dependent on temperature of the atmosphere. Clouds form because water condenses at the cooler temperatures of the upper troposphere. That condensed water is returned to the surface as rain. The amount of water vapor in the stratosphere is essentially nil.
Let think about what would happen if a lot of water vapor were suddenly dumped into the stratosphere. The temperature of the stratosphere is from -60 C to -20 C. Water condenses as 100 C and turns solid at 0 C. The excess water in the stratosphere would immediately begin to condense and freeze. It would take a matter of days — not years — for the water vapor in the stratosphere to return to normal values.
This theory would be more plausible if a lot of CO2 was dumped in the stratosphere. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades. Of course, one of the key tenets of climate denial is that CO2 is not the source of warming and is nothing but beneficial. That can’t possibly be the reason
Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist, and he knows what I know that this water vapor theory is another attempt to throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. It doesn’t.
Your thought process is incorrect and contradicted by evidence. Most water in the stratosphere is found as water vapor because humidity is so low and the stratosphere is so big that condensation into ice is not a dominant process. It will take years for the excess water to exit the stratosphere.
All of the land based data is corrupted by the urban heat island effect. We do, however, have accurate satellite and radiosonde temperature change data for the top layer of the ocean and lower troposphere. We know the truth. The sun was very active throughout the 20th century and this led to global warming. It’s happened before.
Solar irradiance has been on a decline since 1980. The sun is not the cause of global warming. It has mitigated it.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Abstract… Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. [Abdussamatov, HI. Bicentennial decrease of the total solar irradiance leads to unbalanced thermal budget of the earth and the little ice age. Applied Physics Research. Vol.4, No.1, pp. 178-184 (2012)]
The actual science of global warming is pretty clear. “After correcting for the urban heat island effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the US record [Karl and Jones, 1989] and European record [Balling, 1997].”
Hal,
Declining solar activity is why the stratosphere has been cooling. The troposphere response is slowed by the tremendous heat capacity in the oceans and ice caps. Global temperature has an integral-like response to solar activity. I can show the response has a time constant of at least 60 years, and is likely longer than 100 years. We have just now reached peak global temperatures, and once we get past this spike, temperatures should start slowly cooling for the next decade.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
BTW, I had to laugh a bit when you said that “15% is not a lot of mass.” and then immediately claimed that CO2 was the reason for global warming. You do know that atmospheric CO2 concentration is only 420 ppm (0.04%), right?
Robert,
There is form for government officials not knowing atmospheric CO2 abundance.
Javier – Thanks for your thoughtful essay on the possibly volcanic cause of the 2023 global temperature anomaly. After arguing that various other factors are unlikely to be responsible, you summarize the circumstantial argument for the Hunga-Tonga hypothesis:
“On the one hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented abrupt warming that the models cannot explain and that has scientists scratching their heads….On the other hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented volcanic eruption, the effects of which we cannot know, but which, according to what we know about the greenhouse effect, should cause significant and abrupt warming.”
Your conclusion certainly should motivate more physically based analyses. As have been done. Here is a particularly accessible account of such an analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9jwA-jv4DI&t=3014s&ab_channel=ESSICUMDcz55pWHAxW3go4IHYpwCOo4KBDw0wN6BAgCEBc&biw=1561&bih=891&dpr=1.58#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4103db3a,vid:G9jwA-jv4DI,st:0
The conclusion of this analysis is: “The cooling is greater than the heating”.
Why, specifically, do you reject this conclusion? I judge the Schoerbel et al. work (and others reaching similar conclusions) to be a good faith attempt to understand the effects of Hunga Tonga, without concern that “…significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.” If your answer is simply that the models are imperfect and not to be trusted, how would you suggest that your hypothesis be further tested?
75% of the mass of the atmosphere and 99% of the water is contained in the troposphere. The greenhouse effect occurs almost exclusively in the troposphere.
The stratosphere contains little mass. How do we know? Because the pressure in the stratosphere is very small. Increasing the water vapor by 10% doesn’t mean much because there is so little to begin with. Will it have an effect? I guess, but it is not going to be significant. The greenhouse effect depends on the amount of mass/volume — not on relative concentrations.
Why is the planet’s temperature increasing faster than expected? Hard to say. The earth doesn’t warm linearly. It could be due to how temperatures are measured or something else. The problem is the trend and not what happens in any one year.
You are just offering your opinion, and most of the things you say are simply wrong.
“The stratosphere contains little mass.”
The stratosphere contains 15% of atmospheric mass. You would learn this and a lot more if you were to read my books.
“Will it have an effect? I guess, but it is not going to be significant.”
So you don’t know yet you have an opinion. That is not science. Read the article where I cite a study that shows evidence that changes in stratospheric water vapor have a huge effect.
15% is not a lot of mass. The stratosphere contains even less water — about 1%. Increasing the amount of water by 10% is not going to be particularly impactful.
A volcano is a one off. The temperature of the planet has been steadily increasing since the 1960s. Sun spots, solar flares and other intermittent effects can’t cause that. It has to be something that is continually increasing. If you have something other than CO2 that fits that criteria, I’m all ears.
Where was that study you cite published? I’ll bet in one of those journals that does questionable peer review. If this effect was substantial and could explain climate change, the fossil fuel industry would be all over it. They’re not and that says volumes about this theory.
“15% is not a lot of mass.”
“a lot” is not a scientific term. 15% is significant.
“Increasing the amount of water by 10% is not going to be particularly impactful.”
So you say without any knowledge of the issue.
“The temperature of the planet has been steadily increasing since the 1960s.”
Actually the increase started in the late 1820s. But between 1945 and 1975 it was decreasing, not increasing. If you had bothered to read the article you would have noticed that I say:
“The long-term trend responds to other causes”, so I do admit multiple causes in the long term trend, not ENSO or the volcano.
“Where was that study you cite published? I’ll bet in one of those journals that does questionable peer review.”
Typical response of questioning the source without discussing the science. The study was published in the journal Science. It is reference [vii] in the bibliography of the article, above.
You are not bringing knowledge to this discussion, just uninformed opinion that has no value.
I venture to guess that at least 97 percent of insurance companies don’t feel that climate change is an “extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history”. Just saying…
Did you forget to read the part about the climate event of 2023? It is the first phrase in the article.
Insurance rates are going up due to a larger quantity of populace exposed to weather events. On top of that property values are much higher than in even the recent past. Some have seen insurance rates double.
An additional factor is bad government. Governments have mismanaged state and federal forests and on top of that made laws thwarting logging and other types of land use that promote forest fires.
In Cali, instead of a mea culpa from the state, we got the state blaming the power company there.
The insurance industry is taking into account climate change. Many companies refuse to write policies in states like FL.
It’s just a matter of time before the coastal states like FL and TX will have to be abandoned. That will happen long before rising oceans claim the land. It will be too expensive to continually make the necessary repairs from major storms which will grow more frequent and more intense as climate change worsens.
Hal, you may believe it’s due to climate change, but it’s actually due to inflation. The government, in addition to mis-managing forest lands, also encourages people to build on the coast by providing flood insurance. The government needs to get out of that business.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » ALL OF OUR PUNY COW FARTS ARE DWARFED BY A VOLCANO: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming.
Sorry
Beryl is approaching Houston.
https://i.ibb.co/6n8hM0j/Screenshot-2024-07-08-08-00-18.png
Pingback: Exceptional Snow-Year In Northern Italy; Winter Begins With a Bang In South America; Tasmania Freezes; + “Tonga Volcano Prime Suspect” – Electroverse
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano – the stratosphere heating controversy | Tallbloke's Talkshop
““Increasing the amount of water by 10% is not going to be particularly impactful.”
So you say without any knowledge of the issue.”
99% of the water vapor is contained in the troposphere. That leaves 1% in the stratosphere. Increase that by 10% and you increase the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by 0.1%. Big whoop! I think you’re having problems with basic math.
I don’t know how much water evaporates from the oceans each day, but given the surface area of the oceans, I suspect it’s a lot more than a single volcanic event puts in the atmosphere.
“Actually the increase started in the late 1820s. But between 1945 and 1975 it was decreasing, not increasing.”
https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screen-Shot-2024-07-05-at-9.48.43-AM.png?resize=768%2C406&ssl=1
I lifted the above from you article and it refutes your statement that the earth’s temperature was decreasing between 1945 and 1975 and proves my statement true. It would be a good idea to review your article before you make statements like that.
There are graphs that show that solar irradiance decreasing since 1980 while the earth’s temperature continues to rise but the nonsense that solar radiation is the cause of climate to rest once and for all.
“Typical response of questioning the source without discussing the science. The study was published in the journal Science. It is reference [vii] in the bibliography of the article, above.”
You haven’t answered the question which means that your reference is a questionable source. You have no idea how much junk science is published in pay to publish journals because they have no hope in passing rigorous peer review. That gets picked up and presented as scientific fact to justify some idiotic theory.
“You are not bringing knowledge to this discussion, just uninformed opinion that has no value.”
That’s called projection. Do you really believe what you said has a prayer of being accepted by the scientific community? That’s why you “publish” it here.
I am glad the article discussed the ocean bunker fuel SOx reduction possible impacts. Sounds like that cause may be less than I thought, but if you’ve seen some satellite photos from the past, there was quite the blanket of “smoke” plumes as well as SOx over the ocean. Years ago I was involved in bunker fuel formulation in support of refinery operations, back in the high sulfur days.
““Increasing the amount of water by 10% is not going to be particularly impactful.”
So you say without any knowledge of the issue.”
Here’s what I know. Only 1% or the water vapor in the atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Increasing that by 10% means you increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by 0.1%. That is not going to have a significant impact.
“”The temperature of the planet has been steadily increasing since the 1960s.”
Actually the increase started in the late 1820s. But between 1945 and 1975 it was decreasing, not increasing. ”
If you had bothered to read your own article you would have found this graph:
https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screen-Shot-2024-07-05-at-9.48.43-AM.png?resize=768%2C406&ssl=1
That refutes your statement and validates mine.
“Typical response of questioning the source without discussing the science. The study was published in the journal Science. It is reference [vii] in the bibliography of the article, above.”
The problem is that there are many ways to publish questionable science in “journals” that perform little or no peer review. I once looked at the list of reviewers in a purported journal on climate science and it contained a dentist and a philosopher. You still haven’t answered the question.
“You are not bringing knowledge to this discussion, just uninformed opinion that has no value.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
“That is not going to have a significant impact.”
That is opinion. Some scientists show in their studies it has a major impact.
“That refutes your statement and validates mine.”
It doesn’t. It shows cooling between 1945 and 1975. This period of cooling is very well known.
“You still haven’t answered the question.”
I did. And the answer is also in the article above you seem unable to read or understand. The study was published in the journal SCIENCE. The article has been cited over 1,300 times. Read the abstract and see if you can understand it. It proves you wrong.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1182488
“In June 2024, after 415 days of record temperatures, the ocean is still about 0.2°C warmer than it should be.
There is no specific temperature “it should be”. This is what happens when you don’t understand solar forcing (but claim to) and thus resort to a story again. In 2023, the sun’s high irradiance seasonally warmed entire ocean basins together.
At the 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium someone gave a talk about the HTHH eruption and said the climate impact was small, so it was not necessary to write these speculative HTHH articles.
In May 2022 in my Symposium poster I predicted that the 1.5C ‘limit’ would likely be exceeded by the sun’s ocean warming effect in solar cycle #25, and in my 2023 Symposium poster I showed how solar forcing caused this as predicted, after the 365d SN>95.
The 2023 climate response has followed the solar cycle #25 influence on the ocean as expected after TSI exceeded the sun-ocean decadal warming threshold. The 2023 spike is fundamentally no different than the 2016 spike, both caused by a sun-driven El Niño.
Temperatures that rose with the solar cycle #25 ascension in 2022/23 are now in 2024 following the slight TSI decline from the SC#25 TSI peak. Ocean temperatures are cooling down a little to last year’s values, following TSI.
Until May, 2024 CERES TSI was leading 2023 TSI, but larger sunspot areas in past months have driven several TSI down-spikes via the sunspot darkening effect, and a lower yearly TSI average.
The last two years have been among the highest TSI years since the high irradiance peaks of solar cycles #21 & #22 in the early 1980’s and 1990’s that really got global warming going. This solar cycle is 19 W/m2 ahead of the last cycle at the 54th month.
Unfortunately, for you, the data does not support your thesis.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Planetary increases in temperature tracked solar irradiance until 1960. Then they went their separate ways. Planetary temperature kept on increasing as solar irradiance was on a downward trend.
Hal, decadal ocean warming happens when solar cycle activity exceeds 95 v2 SN, 120 sfu F10.7cm solar flux, and 1361.25W/m2 CERES TSI, which happened in 2023/24.
NASA’s SATIRE-S Model is the worst possible TSI composite. SATIRE-S since 2000 doesn’t much look like the CERES TSI composite I showed earlier, which was taken from actual measurements.
It doesn’t matter that sunspot activity is less than earlier cycles than #24, what matters is TSI, and measured TSI is about as high as it was in the 1980’s and 1990’s as I said before. EUV and TSI correlate very well, so here’s a look as to why the SATIRE-S Model is no good by comparison to the MgII index:
https://i.postimg.cc/137bKGP2/Mg-II-Index.png
I looked at your data and I came to the conclusion that TSI has been flat over the last 25 years if you use an 11-year rolling average to account for the solar cycle. The data I used shows a downward trend. It really doesn’t matter. Planetary temperature has been increasing during that period. For that to happen, and TSI to be the reason, TSI has to increasing as well.
The earth doesn’t respond immediately to changes in solar energy. The earth has inertia to change. If you look at the graph I presented, you can see it in the data before 1960. It’s invalid to claim that something that occurred in the last year is affecting the current climate.
If we stopped using fossil fuels today the earth would continue heating for 10-20 years but the change in temperature would decline every year. The temperature would crest and then would start downward.
“For that to happen, and TSI to be the reason, TSI has to increasing as well.”
This is another misconception. TSI only has to exceed the sun-ocean decadal warming threshold, which it did since 2022, for a warming step to ensue. Each cycle builds on the net from the last, causing the upward trend solar cycle-to-cycle.
It’s like your budget and wealth. If your income (TSI) is high enough to cover your expenses (above your ‘threshold’) then you can save (add warmth) and build wealth (accumulating more ocean heat). Conversely, what happens when there isn’t enough incoming money (or solar energy) over time?
Hal – there are quite a few other tsi reconstructions that either dont show a significant decline after 1960’s or while showing a decline , do show a higher level of tsi in the recent decades compared to the late 1800’s and very early 1900’s
https://nso.edu/blog/scientists-develop-new-model-to-estimate-solar-irradiance-variation-over-the-last-five-centuries/
It doesn’t matter what happened 10 minutes ago. If the sun’s TSI suddenly dropped 20% and we kept increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, what would happen. What we are interested is the average temperature of the earth.
Initially nothing. The earth’s temperature would begin dropping slowly tempered by the greenhouse effect of CO2 and the earth’s inertia. Eventually, the earth would approach a new lower equilibrium temperature. Then the earth’s temperature would begin to rise again due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 unless the TSI changes again.
Joe,
Thanks for the reference, one of their conclusions:
“This work estimated that the change in TSI levels between the Maunder minimum and the present epoch is approximately 2.5 W m−2. This TSI variation would change the global temperatures by about 0.13C”
Another result in favor of TSI being a minor effect in terms of current climate change.
The temperature change estimation appears to be an NSF fabrication. The calculation is not documented, there’s no author cited, and there are no temperature change results in the original paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10115
Robert, I don’t know where/how they came up with 0.13 °C, but I doubt it is fabricated. It is consistent with transient climate sensitivity of TSI variation.
TCS(TSI) = 0.084[0.070 to 0.097, 5 – 95% c.l.] °C/Wm⁻²
from: “Solar cycle as a distinct line of evidence constraining Earth’s transient climate response” (2023)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43583-7
This can be compared to TCS(2xCO₂) that has hovered around 3 °C for decades. It’s just more evidence that TSI variability only has a minor climate contribution under current circumstances.
“Robert, I don’t know where/how they came up with 0.13 °C, but I doubt it is fabricated. It is consistent with transient climate sensitivity of TSI variation.”
Bruce, thanks for including the word “transient”. The earth integrates solar activity, so the temperature response to variations at the sunspot cycle rate are going to be roughly 9x smaller than variations over 100 years. I can’t say over 400 years, because I don’t yet know if the response has a time constant longer than 100 years. Anyway, 1.3°C (10x) would be closer to the correct answer.
BA: “It’s just more evidence that TSI variability only has a minor climate contribution under current circumstances.”
The operative phrase is “under current circumstances”. CE is more about exploring what is not understood in climate science (a lot); it challenges policies, perspectives; or at times the veracity of what’s sold as truth, politics. There’s a lot to discuss about “unsettled” climate science.
One example relating indirectly to TSI; there’s serious work on a hypothesis that if proven correct will demand a paradigm shift in climate modeling. Per the paper discussing the “Quantitative impact of astronomical and sun-related cycles on the Pleistocene climate system from Antarctica records” “The Hallstatt cycle is found in a number of solar proxies, geomagnetic secular variations, paleoclimatic oscillations, combination tones of Milankovitch forcings and resonant planetary beats, indicating an apparent ‘multi-forcing’ origin possibly related to planetary beat hypothesis [BPH].”
The before hypothesis ties together many loose ends about Earth’s climate. In comes Occam’s Razor; the solar system simplifies certain Earth centric, scientific missing link arguments by describing how the Sun’s effect on Earth’s warming climate is more than just TSI, surpassed by the Earth centric GHG arguments; or even long-term solar Milankovitch cycle’s. This is what intrigues me most about the BPH hypothesis. It makes sense out of the potentially minor role for TSI variability, going beyond, by explaining other celestial effects on Earth’s climate—a holistic influence caused by solar system interactions—BPH; it’s an extremely eloquent hypothesis. There’s not many celestial experts studying BPH, but their studies could ultimately have profound impacts on climate science.
From the 2021 paper: “Quantitative impact of astronomical and sun-related cycles on the Pleistocene climate system from Antarctica records”
Excerpts: “A debated planetary beat hypothesis (PBH) on SA (Charvátová, 2000; Abreu et al., 2012; Scafetta 2012, 2014a; Mörner, 2013; Mörner et al., 2013a; Holm, 2014; Cauquoin et al., 2014; McCracken et al., 2014; Yndestad and Solheim, 2016; Sánchez-Sesma, 2016; Scafetta et al., 2016; Zharkova et al., 2019) could reconcile the apparent contradiction of suborbital cycles with similar quasi-periods across solar proxies and nonlinear harmonics and/or combination tones of primary Milankovitch cycles (Table 4). In fact, according to PBH, the motion of the giant planets generates a beat on the Sun in the form of gravity (tidal force) and angular momentum with respect to the solar system’s barycenter, which is called solar inertial motion (SIM) (Charvátová, 2000; Paluš et al., 2007; McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta et al., 2016; Zharkova et al., 2019). The planetary beat may thus affect the Earth both directly via its gravity pulse, as well as indirectly via its effects on the solar dynamo, acting the solar wind control on the incoming cosmic rays, and thus also on the production of cosmogenic radionuclides (Charvátová, 2000; Paluš et al., 2007; Abreu et al., 2012; Mörner et al., 2013b; McCracken et al., 2014; Zharkova et al., 2019), although the physical problem remains unclear (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta, 2014b).”
“One could therefore speculate that the ~2.3 kyr gravitational stress of the planetary system (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta et al., 2016; Zharkova et al., 2019) affect the geodynamo through the Earth’s angular momentum (Mörner, 2013). PBH is a fascinating hypothesis that has the potential to unify the apparent contradictions of ‘multi-forcing’ suborbital cycles. However, there is the need for in-depth studies related to the understanding of the physical processes that would regulate the electromagnetic activity of the Sun (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta 2012, 2014b; Zharkova et al., 2019) and the possible direct and indirect effects on the Earth, especially considering the very low magnitude of the planetary gravitational beat.”
“Indeed, none of the known solar cycles (11–22, 60–65, 80–90, 110–140, 160–240, ~500 and 800–1200 year bands) can be explained using current physical models based on mainstream solar theories, and this may be because solar dynamics is not determined by internal solar mechanisms alone (Scafetta, 2012). Another possible reason is that the physics explaining the dynamical evolution of the Sun is still largely unknown (Scafetta, 2012). Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun were found to be related to the long-term SIM of the solar system, and are closely linked to total solar irradiance (Zharkova et al., 2019). Thus, the solar system can be considered as a resonator of planetary orbital periods characterized by a specific harmonic planetary structure that also synchronizes the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s climate (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta, 2014a; Scafetta et al., 2016).”
“…it is interesting to note an apparent coupling of suborbital cycles with similar quasi-periods across solar proxies (sun electromagnetic activity), geomagnetic secular variations, paleoclimatic oscillations, nonlinear harmonics or combination tones of primary Milankovitch cycles, and resonant planetary beats. This suggests an intriguing hypothesis of a multifaceted effect of the planetary gravitational forcing. For discussion purposes, we focus on the well-known ~2.3-kyr Hallstatt cycle, which is currently interpreted to be a property of the millennial-scale SA. As such, it is logical to expect its occurrence even in paleoclimatic-related sedimentary signals, as attested by literature (Mayewski et al., 1997; Elrick and Hinnov 2007; Da Silva et al., 2018) and documented in the present work by Antarctic records. However, Hallstatt-like cyclicity has also been recognized as a Jovian planets beat resonance (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta et al., 2016; Zharkova et al., 2019) and as a nonlinear response of the Milankovitch oscillator (Pestiaux et al., 1988), which pose striking interpretative questions. In addition, it is unclear how it explains Hallstatt-like cycles even in worldwide geomagnetic secular variations (Creer and Tucholka, 1983; Hagee and Olson, 1989; Gogorza et al., 2000). Higher-frequency geomagnetic variations are generally considered to be external in origin (e.g. daily variations due to the Earth’s rotation, variations due to changes in SA and interactions between the solar wind and the magnetic field), whereas the long-period geomagnetic field variability could originate in the geodynamo (e.g. sudden acceleration of the metallic fluid flow at the boundary of the Earth’s outer core; torsional oscillations in the Earth’s core) and is known as the geomagnetic secular variation (De Michelis et al., 2005; Roberts and Turner, 2013). However, the cut-off between these two domains may not be as distinct as is sometimes argued (De Michelis et al., 2005). The Earth can be considered a probe reacting to interplanetary disturbances, which are manifestations of the solar magnetic fields, and thus records of the geomagnetic activity may be used as diagnostic tools for reconstructing the evolution of previous solar magnetic fields (Georgieva et al., 2013). The authors find the correlations between the geomagnetic activity and the 11-yr sunspot magnetic cycle, and estimate the variations in the sunspot magnetic field from geomagnetic data. Can the solar activity of the Hallstatt cycle affect the geomagnetic field by modulating Hallstatt-like geomagnetic secular variation ? The study of secular variations in the geomagnetic field helps to determine both physical and chemical properties of the Earth’s interior and the fluid flow of the outer-core (Liu et al., 1999; De Michelis et al., 2005). Geomagnetic secular variations have been found to undergo rapid accelerations (geomagnetic Jerk), which can provide constraints on the deep mantle conductivity. The variation in the fluid flow in the outer-core caused by the core-mantle coupling is a plausible explanation of the changes in geomagnetic Jerk (Liu et al., 1999). The Jerk is related to the core-mantle electromagnetic coupling, and may be caused by the Earth’s angular momentum (Liu et al., 1999). One could therefore speculate that the ~2.3 kyr gravitational stress of the planetary system (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta et al., 2016; Zharkova et al., 2019) affect the geodynamo through the Earth’s angular momentum (Mörner, 2013). PBH is a fascinating hypothesis that has the potential to unify the apparent contradictions of ‘multi-forcing’ suborbital cycles. However, there is the need for in-depth studies related to the understanding of the physical processes that would regulate the electromagnetic activity of the Sun (McCracken et al., 2014; Scafetta 2012, 2014b; Zharkova et al., 2019) and the possible direct and indirect effects on the Earth, especially considering the very low magnitude of the planetary gravitational beat.
_________________________________________________
Since 2016 PBH science has continued to slowly advance. There remains a raging battle among solar experts, each having a distinguished subset of expertise, relative to the question about the planetary gravitational beat hypothesis (PBH).
Javier’s views may have changed completely (I’d like to hear more), but he said the following in 2016:
“While the cause of the solar cycle of Bray length [Hallstatt Cycle] is currently unknown, Scafetta, et al. (2016) have suggested that the orbits of the larger planets have a repeating pattern of 2318 years that might be the cause. Proof is elusive, but this is a fascinating area of study.
The Bray cycle has been recognized in glacier advances and re-advances, ice raft data, peat bog studies, δO18 data, and in 10Be and 14C records for almost 50 years. It is supported by historical accounts from Bray lows and archeological data. There is little doubt that the cycle exists, but its exact length and its ultimate cause are unknown. However, much work is being done that should bear fruit with time.
One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame. Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests.”
The 2016 paper “On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene” concludes this way:
“Although several issues remain open to further investigations, the published scientific literature provides several evidences that solar and climate records are characterized by periodicities that are common to planetary motions at multiple time scales from a few months to several millennia. Moreover, no alternative explanations of these oscillations have been proposed by the critics. In other words, an alternative theory explaining the observed oscillations simply does not exist. The methodologies and results of the present paper contribute to this discussion showing compelling evidences that also the long Hallstatt (2100–2500 years) oscillation likely has an astronomical origin linked to the internal dynamics of the solar system and its stable resonances including those produced by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune at periods of 159 years, 171 years, 185 years and 2318 years. From Fig. 5, the next Hallstatt minimum in the 14C cosmogenic radioisotopes will occur around 2804 CE and the next maximum around 3963 CE.”
JT,
Sorry, after your last bout of nasty, I’m not really interested in anything you have to say.
BA, apparently you qualify nasty as that point where someone pins you with demonstrable ignorance, or a lie. I stated that your argument, presented with absolute certitude, was obtuse; an ignorant political assessment of how funding appropriation works for individual science research after you repeatedly doubled down using the same nonsense. Dr. Curry, in a dedicated post sometime back, described how the appropriation process works.
I said you were anal for repeatedly coming back with the same arguments, also for repeating what Javier already told you in argumentative form, correcting him after he said; “I have to make sure of not being fooled by my own hypothesis, while you have to make sure your beliefs are not fooling yourself”. I obviously don’t need to defend Javier.
The “Polly” moniker is obvious satire; you evangelize the “written word” by repeating it, unwilling to challenge IPCC consensus literature. You know, by now, that IPCC bylaws filter science with political judgment, it skews your judgment, a disciple cloaked in the robes of science expert. While you’re not wrong in many science points you make, you can’t get out of the way of your activist advocacy, above all—an evangelist first, a non-climate science scientist second.
Earlier on CE, you were extremely abusive to our host. You’ve often been less than gracious, nasty towards many denizens over the months; calling them ignorant, among other ad homs. Frankly, you directing the word “nasty” at anyone is a bit too precious.
JT,
Thanks, I appreciate your need to apologize for, and explain, your behavior.
I find little surprise in your belief that my comments would be considered by you to be a type of apologetic overture to your sensitivities, the narcissist you are.
At least we’re back on speaking terms [sigh], not that I would not have commented anyway, as I see fit, to your proclivities.
Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
In the article there is a major conflict assumption:
” thermal-equilibrium radiation at the temperature T0 = 288.7 K”
Example:
“Figure 23: The continuous blue lines are the powers Π{i} (T, T) of (111), emitted by a single greenhouse-gas molecule at the temperature T. The dotted red lines are the powers Π{i} (T, T0) of (110) absorbed by a single greenhouse molecule at the temperature T from thermal-equilibrium radiation at the temperature T0 = 288.7 K, shown by the horizontal green line. The blue circles and red squares are the analogous powers from the harmonic oscillator approximation of (148), summed for all vibrational modes of the molecule shown in Table 8 of the Appendix. The emitted and absorbed powers are well modeled with harmonic oscillators for all gases except for the asymmetric-top molecule, H2O, where most of the power is emitted and absorbed by pure-rotation transitions.”
(emphasis added)
–
Comment:
Planets and moons do not emit at their average surface temperatures. Earth doesn’t emit at 288.7 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Free Read from my WSJ subscription: China Outspends the U.S. on Fusion in the Race for Energy’s Holy Grail
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-us-fusion-race-4452d3be?st=48q4in3uosynsg1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
And like chasing the Holy Grail, it’s probably going to be a fool’s errand.
What the problem with fusion? It how they are trying to do it. The sun causes fusion by gravity. The enormous gravity of the sun forces atoms to fuse. What scientists are trying to do is to cause fusion by having atoms smash into each other at tremendous speeds. That means extremely high fusion temperatures which are difficult to impossible to sustain.
A better approach might be to figure out how to control gravity. Of course, that may be impossible to.
I wouldn’t be concerned that the Chinese are trying to leapfrog us in fusion technology. Fusion is decades away, if ever. We have more pressing needs to be concerned about.
I recently had a chance to tour a small fusion start-up outside DC. There’s a lot of start-up activity looking at alternatives to the Tokamak approach. Practical fusion is now always 10 years away vs. it used to be always 30 years away, I think we were told was the joke in trade.
Let China perfect it then we will steal it from them as they have been stealing technology from us. Fair’s fair.
Hal, did you even read my last response to you? This bit of AGW propaganda you keep pushing completely ignores the earth’s response to solar forcing. When solar activity is properly extracted from the sunspot signal, and when the earth’s response to that activity is properly factored in, there’s almost perfect tracking — except for the current temperature spike, which is the topic of Javier’s article.
Give it a try. Here’s the Excel version:
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
The primary reason the prediction diverges before 1900 is poor sunspot data accuracy prior to 1800.
The earth never responds perfectly to any energy change. There is always a sluggish response due to the earth’s inertia to temperature change.
Let me say this again. The earth’s TSI has been on a downward trend since the 1980s. The temperature has been rising over that period. TSI cannot be the source of this temperature change. The only source of the temperature change is a phenomenon that is continuously increasing. If you can find something other than CO2, you’ll be able to make a case. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time.
Of course solar activity can be decreasing while global temperature continues to increase. This is basic physics.
I suggest you get yourself a long metal rod. Hang on to one end, and briefly put the other end into a flame. That end will heat up and start cooling before the end you’re holding reaches peak temperatures, possibly even before you can detect a change in temperature, depending on rod length and type of metal.
Two possible candidates: 1 – water vapour, man has irrigated an area 4 times the area of France, and still increasing; 2 – subsea volcanoes and thermal vents, still not properly even counted or evaluated, but most likely influenced by gravitational tides, i.e.planetary cycles.
Rober Cutler,
TSI is not the current cause of climate change. It has been in decline for the past 40 years while the planet’s temperature has been rising. Not only is the temperature of the earth rising but the change in temperature is increasing too. That can’t be occurring if TSI is the source.
Bob Beckham
Not sure what you are getting at with you water vapor comment. Volcanoes and thermal vents cannot be the source of climate change. They are too small.
Hal,
“The earth’s TSI has been on a downward trend since the 1980s. The temperature has been rising over that period. TSI cannot be the source of this temperature change. The only source of the temperature change is a phenomenon that is continuously increasing.”
–
“The only source of the temperature change is a phenomenon that is continuously increasing.”
–
In our time Earth accumulates much heat in the Southern Oceans during those very hot summers. That is why Earth’s Global temperature rises!
–
The Milankovitch Graph is being very precisely calculated. Only it has to be read reversed.
When we look at the Milankovitch Graph reversed, it becomes very much obvious, Earth is going through a very slow and naturally caused warming trend!
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Milankovitch cycles occur over thousands of years. What we are seeing is occurring over a much shorter time period.
Hal,
“Milankovitch cycles occur over thousands of years. What we are seeing is occurring over a much shorter time period.”
–
The yearly seasonal temperature variations is an orbital forced phenomenon too.
The slow rise of temperature starts somewhere in February on the Northenr Hemisphere).
It takes till the end of July and the mid August to become Hot.
–
The same with the reversed Milankovitch Cycle. It is in its highest, it is in its Culmination Phase.
That is why the rise of temperature is so much “obvious” now.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I sure do wish “scientists” could speak science instead of gotcha’s. I could have learned something from the dissenting comments after the article. Not to be, I guess. Scientists are a dying breed, sad to see. I enjoyed your article, Mr. Vinós.
I spoke too soon. l appreciate the more recent posts. A complete non-
scientist here who appreciates looking at all sides – when science not consensus (con-science?) is discussed. Thank you.
This is for Hal, Bruce, and anyone else that believes that small variations in TSI prove that solar activity is not the cause of global warming. Hal, and others, often refer to this page from NASA.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
On the NASA webpage you’ll find a plot of TSI and temperature, along with the following statement.
“The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.”
The fundamental, and hopefully not intentional mistake that’s being made here is that the response of the earth to solar activity is not taken into account.
In this next graphic I’m using the same SATIRE-T2 data shown on the NASA page except the dataset I found only extends to 2008. I’m am passing the data through a low-pass filter in the form of an 88-year moving average to simulate the earth’s response. I’ve chosen the length to be a multiple of the 11-year cycle to cancel the TSI 11-year response, as was done by NASA. As the earth response has some delay, I’ve also added a 13 year time offset to better align the plot with the temperature data. If I had the rest of the TSI data, the prediction would show cooling after the last peak.
https://localartist.org/media/SATIRE-T-Temp.png
The bottom line is that small but persistent changes in solar activity are integrated by the oceans and ice-caps over long time periods.
I think those small but persistent changes go in both directions (the small variances on a large signal) and integrate to near zero. Also consider that most of these small energy variances will not be integrated, but rather passed through to BB-LWIR out.
If I read your upper graph correctly, you find:
delta-TIS (present – 1850) ~ 0.5 W/m^2
That implies a radiative forcing of
delta-F = (1- a)*delta-TIS/4 ~ 0.09 W/m^2
Again, seems a minor effect.
All of the variances are small relative relative to their nominal values, and everything is integrated. Scale isn’t important — frequency is. Perhaps you meant to say the small, faster signal components will be attenuated more, which is generally true for periods shorter than ~100 years and longer than 11. For periods shorter than 11 years, things get complicated because of earth’s dynamic heat-transfer processes, i.e. weather.
I clearly labeled the graph as a 88-year moving average, not a rolling sum. I’m sure that will impact your computations. I was just trying to show the similar trajectories.
My prior comments still hold; it is a small effect. Smoothing does not change the effect. It does show a small secular trend, which I treated in my last comment.
I am not sure what the upper graph shows. It has the TSI varying between 1360 and 1363 W/m2, some 0.2%. The variation due to the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit is around 5%. The data seem to be highly averaged and/or smoothed.
Curious George, you wrote” The data seem to be highly averaged and/or smoothed.”
That’s the point. The long moving average is somewhat modeling the earth’s very slow response to solar activity. The oceans and ice caps moderate earth’s temperature over long periods by absorbing and releasing energy.
Don’t worry about the scaling between the filtered TSI and temperature. No one really knows how TSI varies over multiple decades, or the role solar magnetic fields play may also play in climate, e.g. affecting cloud formation. See my webpage for a more accurate reconstruction of global temperature from sunspot data.
The whole point of my post was to show that it makes no sense to plot solar activity against TSI without factoring in the earth’s long-term response.
The rationale behind using an 11 year average is obvious. The sun outputs solar energy on an 11 year sinusoidal basis. Each point on the averaged curve represents the average TSI over the last 11 years.
What is the rationale behind using an 88 year average? NONE! All you’ve done is mask the trends in the data to suit your desired outcome.
“The bottom line is that small but persistent changes in solar activity are integrated by the oceans and ice-caps over long time periods.”
That says that energy is being created over long time periods. A clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Your “analysis” is fatally flawed.
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
No one really seems to know how long it takes for mixing of the stratosphere between hemispheres. I can’t find anything definitive. If you know, please supply a link to a paper.
The 2023 Record Temperatures:
Correlation to Absorbed Shortwave Radiation Anomaly
“According to the paradigm of the IPCC global warming is solely due to anthropogenic causes. Record-high temperatures have been measured for the summer months of 2023 and the anthropogenic climate drivers – mainly greenhouse gases – have been named as culprits. Simple analyses reveal that the temperature increase of the year 2023 cannot be explained exclusively by anthropogenic climate drivers. The hypothesis of this study is to show that the main climate driver for the high temperature of 2023 has been the Absorbed Shortwave Radiation (ASR). The approach has been to apply the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) satellite radiation measurements, which started in March 2001. Simple climate models have been applied since General Climate Models (GCM) cannot simulate cloudiness and shortwave radiation (SW) changes properly. The ASR changes are related mainly to cloudiness and aerosol particle changes. Since 2014 the global surface temperature growth rate has accelerated but this does not apply to anthropogenic climate drivers, and therefore the ASR changes are probably related to external forcings. The total Radiative Forcing (RF) according to the AR6 was 2.70 Wm-2 for the period 1750-2019. This can be compared to the change in the ASR, which was 2.01 Wm-2 from the year 2000 to the year 2023. This finding means that natural climate drivers have altogether an important role in recent global warming.”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Olilla-Record-Temperature-2023.pdf
Climate change- we know so little. Clouds of water vapor, of cosmic rays, of ash, smoke and gases tossed aloft by erupting volcanos – we have a problem with all of these variables, and more: the size, height, amounts and extent of clouds and cloudiness, magnetic fields, galactic cosmic radiation and the amounts and types of solar radiation. That and more are all unknown.
“Watts up with that?” is not exactly a reliable source of information.
It’s unlikely a single volcanic eruption could be the cause of the current abnormal rise in temperature. The concern by climate scientists is because the models may have missed something. Is this a trend or just the earth “catching up.” We won’t know for sure for a while.
All the things you mention can’t be the cause of climate change. They are either too small or intermittent. Whatever is causing it must be significant and continually increasing. The only thing that fits that is the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you have another possibility, I’m all ears.
Hal Jordan | July 10, 2024 at 2:02 pm | Reply
“Watts up with that?” is not exactly a reliable source of information.
Neither is Skeptical Science – though the activists use it as one of the authoritative cites for information.
Your obesience to the debunked science of Michael Mann and the political science of Al Gore is comparable to quoting a spokesperson for the Catholic church 360 years ago as to why it’s obvious Galileo was wrong cuz it’s obvious the sun revolves around the earth.
Wagsthon,
I hate to burst your bubble, but climate science hasn’t been debunked. If anything, the evidence only grows stronger.
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming – Watts Up With That?
I want to add a tiny idea about this stratospheric water content issue. Stratospheric-tropospheric mass exchange behaviour seems indeed a very slow process because the tropopause shields mass transport most time of the year. Only in spring it appears to be permeable. We have learned about that effect with the nuclear tritium bomb explosions of the USA in 1952/53, which took place in the stratosphere. And everybody thought that troposphere is shielded from that nuclear inventory in stratosphere, which turned out not to be true. Every spring there was a formidable injection of tritium in our tropospheric cloud system and high amounts of tritium “polluted” the rain (in the beginning far more than 1000 tritium units (T.U.). It took more than 50 years to reduce this tritium from bombs to a rather natural level again. So lets wait with Hunga Tonga too and learn.
Pingback: VULCANO HUNGA TONGA: IMPATTO SUL RISCALDAMENTO RECORD
well argued
the El Nino separation has moved me from “just a big cloud at a different time” to “okay, maybe a big stratospheric cloud really can affect temps 18 months later”
not ready to totally rule out simple natural variation but the case for HT has gotten stronger
as you’ve pointed out no one has yet explained the precise mechanics of the delay, but my guess would be something related to stratospheric dust, with dry eruptions taking that long to circulate the dust and wet eruptions taking that long to wash it out
but of course dynamic effects can be quite involved, I look forward to more study
at any rate an excellent natural experiment
(e.g. I would not be surprised if (say) the mechanism turned out to relate somehow to regional cloud formation patterns, given that cloud changes dominate the radiative balance)
Javier,
Some complexity shows in the graph by Robert Cutler.
Robert Cutler | July 6, 2024 at 11:48 am | Reply
….
The graph of the UAH Lower Troposphere has an unusual feature that might assist in understanding the Hunga Tonga event.
https://localartist.org/media/HT_Strat.png
The feature is a peak at year 2020, here named the “different” peak. Surrounding peak textures have an anti-correlation appearance, so that when temperatures NH rise, SH fall. The 2020 peak has increases in both NH and SH.
Here are some graphs that use combinations of NH and SH to illustrate the feaure best.
Steiner et al 2020. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0998.1
“Explosive volcanic eruptions such as El Chichón in
1982, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (Robock 2000) and also
minor volcanic eruptions after 2000 affect short-term
temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere
(Solomon et al. 2011; Stocker et al. 2019).”
Solomon 2011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027
A reasonable hypothesis would have the 2020 peak caused by volcanic eruption.
The Hunga Tonga simple timeline is –
“In December 2021, an eruption began on Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai, a submarine volcano in the Tongan archipelago in the southern Pacific Ocean.[6] The eruption reached a very large and powerful climax nearly four weeks later, on 15 January 2022.[7]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
However, Life is not always simple.
The UAH data show the “different” peak starting in January 2020 +/- a month, while the Hunga Tonga massive volcanic start was imaged on 15th January 2022. They are probably unrelated.
The question remains of what causes the “different” peak feature. It is one of only 3 strong warming features in the full 46 years of UAH data. Volcanism is a candidate for the 2 stronger features, but there are no significant volcanic eruptions in 2019-2020 in the literature that I have searched.
It is moderately important to find a cause of this “ddifferent” feature, otherwise attribution of future Lower Stratosphere events will be clouded by the possibility of unknown causes.
Geoff S
I agree that it would be interesting to know the cause of the 2019 anomaly in lower stratosphere hemispheric temperatures. It is interesting that the changes are opposite in both hemispheres. This suggests to me that it could be due to changes intrinsic to the stratosphere rather than imposed from the troposphere, but I could be wrong.
Pingback: VULCANO HUNGA TONGA: IMPATTO SUL RISCALDAMENTO RECORD – ItaNews24
In June 2023 I posted about the warming North Atlantic and at that time I saw a strongly negative sfc pressure anomally in the North Atlantic and suggested that the weakend trade winds reduced ocean sfc mixing and also prevented Saharan dust from being blown out over the Atlantic. Wondering now what effect did HT have on the sfc pressures in the Atlantic and was this just coincidental? https://oceanweatherservices.com/blog/2023/06/24/warm-north-atlantic/
Large tropical volcanic eruptions typically have a positive influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation, but HT was very wet rather than dry so the effect may be different. Indirect solar forcing has a strong influence on the NAO, that will be the dominant cause of the negative NAO anomalies through 2023.
Pingback: Der Hunga Tonga Vulkan: Auswirkung auf Rekord-Erwärmung | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
I remind you that Milankovic cycles are still favorable for warming, although the slope is decreasing. For thousands more years, the temperature will follow solar activity and the oceans will be warm, especially in the northern hemisphere (peryhelim in January). Due to constant average pressure at sea level, the temperature will rise only to a certain extent, as the ocean surface temperature will never exceed 31 C due to evaporation.
Sharp frosts in South America are breaking records. Almost all Argentine provinces had a morning of July 9 below 0°C.
-7.6°C was observed in Gualeguaych, Argentina .
This is a new all-time record with data going back to 1935.
what was this guy’s original name?
I guess he’s afraid to use it anymore. Relies on subterfuge.
We can continue to observe a decrease in temperature in the upper stratosphere, which is due to a decrease in ozone production as a result of the breakdown of O2 into atoms by radiation below 242 nm. Less ozone causes an increase in UVB radiation, which is absorbed by ozone and is high-energy. Still, the tropospheric temperature in the tropics will remain high because water vapor will absorb this radiation. What’s more, it will inhibit the development of La Niña, which is already evident.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Nuclear power continues to make inroads around the world. I’m sure the eco not sees aren’t happy, but with unreliables making electricity more expensive, nuclear is the only option outside fossil fuels.
With less than a year until Australia heads to the polls, the Liberal National Coalition parties are making nuclear power a central plank of their policy platform to oust the current Labor government, driven in part by their historic opposition to renewables and by recent polling that shows more Australians are open to nuclear energy than ever before.
If they win the election due to be held by May next year, the Coalition pledges to build nuclear reactors in seven locations in Australia by 2050.
“Only with a balanced mix of technologies, including renewables, zero-emissions nuclear and gas will Australia have any hope of reaching net zero by 2050, while remaining an economically prosperous economy,” Coalition Energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said in an interview with Bloomberg.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-last-holdouts-australia-weighs-190000884.html
Delighted to see this analysis. There may have been at least one additional factor. I tried to post the following some months ago. Maybe you can add an update. “Re: Hunga Tonga 12/08/2023
This is just a thought process, not an analysis.
Let’s start with the eruption in Jan 2022 throwing an unprecedented 150 million tons of water as water vapor (WV) into the stratosphere, and increasing levels to 13% above normal. Given that atmospheric/stratospheric water vapor is by far the strongest greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the total worlds greenhouse effect, and given that the Jan injection had been distributed world-wide by March, one would have expected to see significant warming in eg the UAH temp record in Q2 2022, but that didn’t happen. One can surmise that, with the sun in a very low activity state, heat that was blocked by the stratospheric WV was dissipated by evaporation at the sea surface, and cloud formation blocked incoming heat due to elevated levels of cosmic rays. It seems that that atmospheric WV may have continued to accumulate until late 2022, resulting in far above normal rainfall in Southern Australia and southwestern USA (mainly California) through Q1 2023.
Then in Q1 2023 the sun went back into an active state, spiking in May 2023. The Oulu monitor showed a sharp drop in cosmic rays in Dec. 2022, followed by a larger drop in late March/early April 2023. This could have resulted in a major decline in cloud cover, a major increase in sunlight reaching the surface and a resulting rapid rise in surface temperature, as illustrated by Ryan Maue. Both sea and land temperatures rose to levels unprecedented in the modern period. Elevated temperatures persisted through summer and into fall 2023.
Now, recently, solar activity is dropping rapidly, implying a rise in cosmic rays and widespread increase in cloud cover. Over the last 3 months we have seen major and sometimes prolonged precipitation events leading to local, frequently unprecedented, flooding world-wide eg Libya, New England, NE France, the Philippines, Brazil, Afghanistan, most of Africa, etc. It seems that the excess atmospheric WV will have largely dissipated very soon and temperatures may rapidly return to normal. In fact we are seeing incidents of at least brief, unprecedented cold in many places, early snowfall in the Alps and the Rockies, and Russia 80% covered by snow, and unusual cold throughout Scandinavia in late Nov.
I have left El Nino out of all of this. Curiously there is some evidence that major volcanic events in the tropics trigger El Ninos about a year after the eruption, usually ascribed to atmospheric cooling from the volcanic aerosols. Hunga Tonga does not fit that description, but was very major, and has been followed by an El Nino. Strange. El Ninos transport heat from low to high latitudes, and result in further cooling, so 2024 could see significant cooling.
Whither next? – Also, solar cycles usually show spikes of activity 30 – 40 months after commencement, and that spike may or may not be followed by a higher one. This cycle 25 spike peaked 37 months after start. Given that the solar system barycenter (SSB) has switched from moving away from the solar center to moving nearer the solar center during 2022 (mass effect going from pull to push?) this spike might be the only one in cycle 25, and we are likely to be into a prolonged cooling period during the next 3 cycles. At least one scientist has forecast another “little ice age”, but that seems very unlikely given that the current Eddy cycle is nearing its warm peak, and the Bray cycle (see Andy May’s recent posting) is well off the bottom. Both were near bottom for the recent little ice age.
Addition 1/4/2024
Anchorage Alaska experienced record snow fall in late Nov/early Dec – about 6 months of normal snowfall in 1 month. China experienced the coldest Dec since they have been keeping records, ie since 1950. Given known cold periods that suggests the coldest since the Dalton minimum about 1810. The record warm seawater (101 deg F) measured on Florida’s west coast (Manatee Bay} has been replaced by below average water temperature for the beginning of Jan 2024. Sea water temperature at Siesta Key Beach is now near 2 deg F below average for this time of year.
Addition 1/20/2024
It seems that the record (101 degree F) Manatee Bay temperature was readings from 1 bouy that was very near shore and may have been grounded at the time of peak temperature. Of course official reports omit that detail.
” This cycle 25 spike peaked 37 months after start. Given that the solar system barycenter (SSB) has switched from moving away from the solar center to moving nearer the solar center during 2022 (mass effect going from pull to push?) this spike might be the only one in cycle 25… ”
This seems to tell us a lot concerning your knowledge about the Sun Spot Number.
What about looking at this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
Jan 2023 was month 37, right where the first peak occurred. I am a bit surprised to see a second peak given the barycenter motion, mu guess was wrong. A third peak seems very unlikely given past cycles, so cycle 25 sunspot number should now go into decline. https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression .
I’d like to see the CAGW’ers explain how solar will save people in remote locations. Experience says otherwise …
In August 2014, Bihar’s Chief Minister Nitish Kumar visited Dharnai village in Jehanabad district of Bihar to inaugurate a 100 kilowatt solar mini-grid in the village that would supply electricity. Dharnai had no electricity since 1981. The project was showcased as a gamechanger for the state.
Today, the grid project site has turned into a cattle shed.
After the initial enthusiasm, once the solar batteries stopped working, there were no repairs or maintenance and the village subsequently got connected to the thermal power grid where electricity was accessible at a cheaper rate. With this, the sun set on the solar dreams of Dharnai.
At the now defunct project site, the villagers told Mongabay-India that when Nitish Kumar came to inaugurate the project, some people protested against it, demanding grid-connected electricity or asli bijli (‘real’ power) rather than solar energy which they termed as nakli bijli (‘fake’ electricity).
https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/
And from the get-go they were told not to use “high powered” appliances, like TVs???
“There’s no economic rationale for offshore wind as a market-based supplier of power, there are a lot of issues with it, but it won’t survive,” O’Donnell told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s only surviving through subsidies in the form of massive federal tax credits and offshore rate subsidies from the different states and their ratepayers. So, this is why they’re struggling, because those things have economic consequences, and there’s a limit to how much of this can be passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers.” (RELATED: Environmental Laws That Impeded Pipelines For Years Could Trip Up Biden’s Sprint Toward Offshore Wind)
https://dailycaller.com/2024/07/16/biden-offshore-wind-projects-cancelled/
Dumb Americans.
China is the world leader in renewable and nuclear energy.
Jul 16, 2024 “Ocean X, features a dual-turbine ‘V’ shape with a total capacity of 16.6 MW and has been launched in the southern Chinese port city of Guangzhou.
The estimated production capacity stands at 54,000 MWh per year, which is sufficient to power about 30,000 Chinese houses.
OceanX platform is designed to endure Category 5 hurricane conditions, withstanding winds up to 161 mph (260 km/h) and waves as high as 98 ft (30 m). Remarkably, it can continue producing electricity even in these extreme conditions by turning into the wind.”
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-wind-turbine-to-harness-hurricane-power
Proof the US is pathetic: One of our brand-new GE wind turbines is falling apart.
Jul 16, 2024
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/vineyard-wind-reports-turbine-blade-damage-in-offshore-incident
Very nice. And good luck to OceanX with that idea.
However I would like first to see the stability study on such an arrangement (before i buy into it).
[Some memories too. The portal crane behind the ‘V’ structure was my first design attempt fresh out of college. An elegant design, was quite new then; an idea I copied].
Great Britain made an inexplicable lurch left in the last election. Now they will pay the price in higher taxes, higher energy bills, and waste of resouces that will never be reclaimed.
The UK government will create a company to own and operate clean energy assets in a bid to inject more public money into the shift away from fossil fuels.
The company, called Great British Energy, will receive £8.3 billion of taxpayer money to own and operate assets in collaboration with the private sector. The idea is a central part of Labour’s energy strategy and legislation will be introduced as part of the King’s speech to get it up and running.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/uk-to-own-clean-energy-assets-through-state-backed-gb-energy
Economists have warned Reeves may have to fill a multi-billion pound hole in the budget expected in September or October, as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts look too optimistic.
…
A National Wealth Fund backed by an additional £7.3 billion of government money will aim to drive investment in the green energy, with a formal target of raising £3 of private investment for every £1 that the fund invests itself.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/starmer-rips-up-planning-rules-to-boost-growth-in-king-s-speech
“inexplicable” LOL
Of course Jim knows better than the entire British nation
Let’s watch as electricity prices soar there. It will be a matter of a few years.
The death of ESG, a stoop id concept from the get-go.
The red carpet is being formally rolled up for the three letters, ESG. The 57-year-old II has dropped the label, short for environmental, social and governance, from its annual analyst rankings.
In its place is “sustainability,” a synonym many banks and money managers are using instead, amid the increasingly politicized debate over climate change and corporate diversity in the US.
This is how it is these days for ESG in American finance. The label, which emerged from obscurity only to be hyped by Wall Street and then attacked by Republican politicians, is being scrubbed from some investment products and job titles.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/wall-street-is-scrubbing-esg-from-job-titles
Here comes the graft in UK due to the unreliable energy push. Rent seekers and grifters love government programs.
Chris Skidmore, the former UK Conservative energy minister who quit over oil and gas drilling, has opened an investment bank to help fund green-energy startups.
Desmos Capital Partners, started by Skidmore a month ago, will advise early-stage clean-energy companies seeking to raise at least £5 million ($6.5 million) from venture capital funds and family offices.
“We do not finance enough green,” Skidmore said Tuesday. “The disconnect between investors and their potential investments has perhaps never been wider: private capital accumulated in funds standing unused is now at record levels.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/former-uk-minister-skidmore-opens-bank-for-clean-energy-startups
… WindBorne is now developing its own forecasting tool powered by AI. With what could be a record-shattering hurricane season, weather researchers are watching the company’s projections—and those of other emerging AI forecasters. “This is one of the first seasons to really test these [new models],” says Matthew Chantry, machine learning coordinator for the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), an intergovernmental organization.
…
John Dean, Kai Marshland and Andrey Sushko founded WindBorne in 2019. Self-avowed sci-fi nerds with backgrounds in engineering who share an obsession with Battlestar Galactica (the trio at every launch exclaim in unison, “So we say all,” a reference to the TV show), they were motivated largely by a love of releasing things into the sky. Weather balloons—which government agencies and even amateurs launch from hundreds of locations around the world each day—were a way to indulge that passion while improving the existing technology.
Since weather balloons first took flight in 1890, they’ve been subject to the vagaries of the atmosphere, riding the wind and going wherever it blows. WindBorne’s balloons still do this, but they also have the ability to navigate on their own, thanks to a unique ballast system and a suite of sensors about the size of a Starburst candy. The company can set a flight path at takeoff, telling the balloon to sample a vertical slice of the atmosphere at regular intervals, for example. But operators can also take control and modify the flight path in real time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/ai-weather-forecasting-faces-ominous-hurricane-season-test
Dr. Curry’s company is now competing with AI weather forecasting.
au contraire mon frere. This is her big chance to make big $$. Just eliminate the competition.
“Project 2025 proposes that most government weather and climate functions be privatized if the balance of power shifts in the White House next year”
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/project-2025-paywall-weather/
““The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated,” reads the introduction to Project 2025’s chapter on proposals for the Department of Commerce (of which NOAA is an agency).”
Here’s the Project 2025 web site. It makes sense to trim or eliminate the plethora of Federal agencies that have proliferated over the years. Lots of people with expensive salaries, benefits, and pensions. They could better be utilized by the private sector, given the worker shortages.
These huge agencies no doubt contain a lot of dead wood. It is also desirable to eliminate onerous and needless regulations that stifle the economy.
Note before you got there that Trump didn’t write this agenda and does not agree with parts of it.
https://www.project2025.org/policy/
RE: Government slim program. This is the best way to reduce the deficit. It decreases spending as well as boosts the economy by trimming regulation.
After all, government doesn’t have anything until it takes it from productive citizens and corporations.
The hidden cost of “climate change” mitigation policies. Suing oil companies for this should be made illegal.
Puerto Rico filed suit against fossil fuel companies this week, alleging that the oil and gas giants have misled the public about climate change and delayed a transition to clean energy. The suit seeks $1 billion in damages to help Puerto Rico defend itself against climate disasters.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/16/24199686/puerto-rico-fossil-fuel-industry-lawsuit-climate-change
Why should it be made illegal?
Does this suit somehow violate the US Constitution?
If so, how?
Frivolous suits such as this just drive up energy prices for us all. It’s counterproductive and based in fantasy.
jim2 – you didn’t explain why the oil companies should be given a pass when their product does great damage to the climate.
Only because it will cost you a little extra money?
The companies are making a legal product that everyone, and certainly including YOU, use. That’s why.
In case of interest, I just noticed this Grist article on the ocean shipping sulfur reduction impact. I am not trying to promote it (as yet), just fyi. https://grist.org/science/how-cleaning-up-shipping-cut-pollution-and-warmed-the-planet/?utm_source=pocket_discover_science
Pingback: Causes possibles du réchauffement climatique record de 2023 – Le Point de Vue
Pingback: Olas de calor y temperaturas récord – ExFuncionario
Will Javier Vinós submit his claims to a peer reviewed journal?
Of course not!
So the scientific community will pay zero attention to this.
The scientific community weaponized peer-review and did not “pay attention” to the Covid-came-from-a-lab theory, either.
(https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-sausage-factory-of-peer-review)
And yet somehow the truth squirmed past all the peers and came out. I think peer-review is dying, it is being killed by the internet.
Concur
“peer review” has lost a considerable amount of credibility over the last 30 or so years.
Its pathetic that “laymen” catch multitude of errors that get past “peer reviewers” who act as activists instead of actual peer reviewers.
Most every pro-masking effectiveness studies have serious flaws – flaws that should be obvious to the experts.
The asthma / gas stove study that indicated 12% of asthma cases were caused by gas stoves is borderline academic fraud, yet peer review blessed it. Very obvious flaws
Most all the paleo reconstructions have confidence levels vastly exceeding anything remotely resembling reality, yet high acceptance by the peer reviewers.
Peer review is an initial low bar that has to be passed before further consideration (which many are not able to get over). Real peer review (acceptance/rejection/importance) comes from the entire scientific community after publication.
JoeF – “Covid-came-from-a-lab theory” is a hypothesis, not proven. From what I’ve read most scientists don’t buy it.
However, Hunga Tonga’s eruption presented a unique scenario: As a submarine volcano, it introduced an unprecedented amount of water vapor into the stratosphere, increasing total stratospheric water content by about 10%.
Because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, Dessler says there was initial speculation that it might account for the extreme global warmth in 2023 and 2024. Instead, the results of the team’s research, published Wednesday, July 24 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, reveal the opposite: The eruption actually contributed to cooling the Earth, similar to other major volcanic events.
https://phys.org/news/2024-07-disputes-hunga-tonga-volcano-role.html
Pingback: Uusi tutkimus: HHHH ei lämmittänyt ilmastoa | Roskasaitti
Careful with no precedents in ENSO – extreme events are possible, but rare.
Recall that a disastrous failure of the monsoons in India started a scientist on a quest for the cause, which led to understanding ENSO. But I do not know how severe that event was, definitely a major impact.
Interesting that one again warming is greater in the NH. I note UH from building heating occurs more in the NH because people live to much greater latitude than in the SH. But I don’t know about UH from sunlight on paving, would have to compare of paving the amount by areas of the world, and location of temperature sensors (too close to paved airports is a problem).
David Appell
‘Peer review’ is not a panacea, often it is cursory, ‘pal review’, or worse as revealed in the leak of correspondence from the CRU. (Certain persons colluded to keep questioners from being published.)
I take your comment as a slur – you infer the author knows his work is bad. !!
Keith, what is the evidence it’s “pal review?”
PS: One throwaway line in an email between two friends hardly proves a collusion. Name papers that shouldn’t have been published but were because peer reviewers were friends with the authors.
David Appell
The Puerto Rico lawsuit is another in the ‘Exxon knew’ scam, which fundamentally mis-represents what Exxon did in looking into claims.
I hope Exxon is able to sue for defamation.
Whether Exxon sues or not, it hardly exonerates their decades of climate change denial.
Will Javier Vinós submit his claims to a peer reviewed journal? no i guess
Heaven forbid – submitting hypotheses, and quantitative evidence therefor, to scientific journals so that they can be studied and assessed by the greater scientific (and general) communities – what a novel idea!
Keith – who exactly colluded to keep exactly who from getting published?
Peer review isn’t meant to be a panacea, and it never has been. Passing peer review doesn’t mean a paper is correct, it means it is not obviously wrong and meets scholarly standards in terms of presentation and citations to earlier work. It’s the absolute first step if someone wants to be taken at all seriously. That’s why it’s the first required step if it wants the attention of the scientific community. (For example, no scientist would take this post seriously.)
All communities: greater scientific, lesser scientific, communists, anyone; can examine Javier’s works. And with no nasty subscription fee of thousands of dollars.
Jim2 – Here’s a free paper:
“New study disputes Hunga Tonga volcano’s role in 2023–24 global warm-up,” phys.org 26-Jul-2024.
https://phys.org/news/2024-07-disputes-hunga-tonga-volcano-role.html#google_vignette
“Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption,” M. R. Schoeber et al, JGR Atmo, 24-Jul-2024
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
More on Hunga Tonga:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296?mkt_tok=OTg3LUlHVC01NzIAAAGUrhXo0_SqsVN2YSOZ7ua2-dlFNqUW50p9aYdofdMPDQevzZq7DCZ_P-hJ86ZT7FFC7cMmapYochnJ8nKXrdf3kFGr5LiCrjAGyf3861n14g
“The Hunga eruption cooled the climate, but the amount of cooling is so small it will be difficult to extract the signal from tropospheric meteorological observations.”
“
Pat,
That paper is a well-timed response to Javier’s speculations, and it seems consistent with my earlier speculation”
“BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | July 9, 2024 at 11:12 am | Reply
The eruption started in Dec. 2021, but didn’t “blow up” until Jan 15, 2022. Nonetheless, I agree with you. Personal qualitative hypothesis: HTHH created low stratospheric aerosols and particulates (increased albedo cooling) and H20(g) (GHE warming) that nearly cancel each other, and it is actually difficult to see any global temperature effects. Removal of both is through slow mixing with the troposphere.”
jim2: the point is, scientists read the peer reviewed literature and ignore blogs. For very good reasons. If an author doesn’t have the nerve to submit to a peer reviewed journal, she/he isn’t worth taking seriously.
Keith: How does it misrepresent what Exxon knew?
Keith wrote:
“Interesting that one again warming is greater in the NH.”
Not interesting. The SH has more ocean, by surface area, than the NH, 81% to 61%. Oceans absorb more heat than land.
I don’t know why my replies aren’t appearing below the comments where I reply. I blame Judith again.
Mr. Appel, I have explained several times that WordPress is not a top of the line application. Comments can go anywhere. It is not Judity. I have three WordPress blogs and it happens on each of them.
Oh, of course! Judith has it in for you! Because you… know… the… truth! And she is determined that it will only appear at random places on her comment thread.
Do you have any idea how foolish you look?
Pingback: A Hunga Tonga vulkán hatása a 2023-as melegedési rekordra – Klímarealista
A recently published study found that the Hunga Tonga volcano had only a small effect, net cooling, and its influence ended at the end of 2023:
“New study disputes Hunga Tonga volcano’s role in 2023–24 global warm-up,” phys.org 26-Jul-2024.
https://phys.org/news/2024-07-disputes-hunga-tonga-volcano-role.html#google_vignette
“Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption,” M. R. Schoeber et al, JGR Atmo, 24-Jul-2024
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
I just wonder what other nonsense you would come up with to explain 2023 and 2024 if there were no hunga tonga. something, i’m sure. since the order of logical operations is as follows:
1. find an explanation for warming that does not involve co2.
2. when that explanation fails, find another one.
3. when that explanation fails, move on the next one.
4. never ever under any circumstances, no matter how obvious it becomes to the rest of the scientific world, consider that you are wrong and co2 is the explanation.
by the way, the unprecedented air temperatures were preceded by unprecedented SSTs. since hot oceans will inevitably cause hotter air temps, and since hunga tonga could not possibly have caused the hotter SSTs prior to the hotter air temperatures, this theory does not really work.
CO2 is clearly the leading explanation for the longterm upward trend in temperature. There is no clear reason why CO2 should lead to the substantial upward adjustment of temperature above that longterm trend over the last 1-2 years. The eruption might play a small role in the warmer period. Probably the best explanation of the enhanced warmth is an unusual ENSO evolution over the last 4 years, which included 3 years of consecutive La Niña events that each dumped heat into deep surface layers of the western tropical Pacific and also into surface layers of the extratropical oceans (in response to less than normal wind induced evaporative cooling and increased incoming solar radiation due to weaker storm tracks). The compounding of the warmth year over year made it so that when El Niño conditions rapidly emerged northern spring 2023, the normal cool offset of the tropical warmth of El Niño was not achieved in the way it normally would have done, so that El Niño’s tropical warmth co existed with extratropical and Maritime Continent warmth, likely leading to the strongest El Niño glow warm anomaly since the 1870s.
DanB:
You are SO mistaken!
Warming due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a massive HOAX.
Our warming is being caused by decreasing amounts of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere due to “Clean Air” and “Net-Zero” activities. And also, since Jan 1, 2020, the low-sulfur mandate for all maritime shipping.
As the air becomes cleaner, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases, and warming naturally occurs.
This warming is INEVITABLE, but it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere!
Burl:
1) what is the trend of solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface?
2) Do you agree that gaseous CO2 absorbs infrared radiation?
3) How can CO2 warming, accepted by every national academy of sciences in the world, be a “hoax” with such acceptance?
David Appell:
1. Since we are continuing to decrease industrial SO2 aerosol levels, the amount of solar radiation striking the Earth’s is on an increasing trend.
2. No, I do not agree that gaseous CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. It has zero climatic effect.
3. Blame Al Gore, Hansen, and others riding the gravy train!
See my article “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
That CO2 absorbs infrared is proven by both quantum mechanics and in the laboratory. It’s not in doubt among scientists in any substantial way, even ones who dislike climate change politics.
Burl,
So you deny the IR absorption of CO2 that has been known, measured, and analyzed by physicists for 170 years. Figures -SMH. Might be better to stick with engineering if you don’t understand small molecule spectroscopy and chemical kinetics.
BA:
So what! The IR absorption by CO2 doesn’t cause any global warming.
burlhenry wrote:
2. No, I do not agree that gaseous CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
Can you show experimental data or other real world data that proves this?
David Appell:
As explained in my article, due to Clean Air efforts that began in the US and Europe in the mid 1970’s, the amount of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in our troposphere began to gradually fall. and as its level decreased, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s Surface naturally increased.
This INEVITABLE warming has wrongly been attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and because of the wrong attribution, there is NO basis for CO2 to have ANY climatic effect.
Burl: I didn’t see that you presented any data on atmospheric aerosols or their trend. Nor did you calculate the warming effect from the decreasing aerosols.
Are you really not aware that scientists are fully aware of the effect of decreasing aerosols, include it in their models, and calculate its warming effect??
Have you read the IPCC WG1 AR6? It discusses all this.
And you still haven’t presented data showing that CO2 doesn’t absorb IR….
David Appell:
In my August 9, 10.45 pm post to you, I explained that “This INEVITABLE warming was wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and because of the wrong attribution there is NO basis for CO2 to have ANY climatic effect.
It is indisputable that decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution will cause temperatures to rise, especially since the decrease between 1980 and 2022 amounted to ~66 million tons.
IF CO2 does absorb IR and re-radiate it, any warming from this is so small that its effect is overwhelmed by decreasing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and is undetectable.
Burl, you are hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment.
burlhenry wrote:
1. Since we are continuing to decrease industrial SO2 aerosol levels, the amount of solar radiation striking the Earth’s is on an increasing trend.
What data says this?
What does the science say about the increasing trend?
burlhenry wrote:
So what! The IR absorption by CO2 doesn’t cause any global warming.
If CO2 absorbs IR, why doesn’t it cause global warming? How can it not?
Without CO2 absorption, we would freeze to death. Even Judith explained that in the early years of this blog regarding the Glasshouse effect. But if I remember correctly, if CO2 is the ONLY factor, temp increase would be insignificant (can’t find a source for this). BTW., I just read the new Dessler paper from July 2024. anyone bother to go deeper on his arguments (that Honga Tonga actually COOLED the atmosphere)?
This is what sounds odd to me in Desslers paper: “the researchers noted unresolved issues like the surprisingly low levels of sulfur dioxide from the eruption and its minimal impact on the 2023 ozone hole over Antarctica.
Additionally, the persistence of water vapor in the stratosphere beyond what was predicted suggests there is still much to learn about stratospheric processes.”
Low level of SO2 and persistent presence of water vapor in the stratosphere are both proven factors of temperature rise. It sounds contradictory to his own conclusion,
In my view, the unusual warming in the North Atlantic during 2023, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, is largely attributable to a combination of factors. Firstly, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is in its warm phase, which raises baseline sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. Secondly, the effects of an El Niño event and unusually weak trade winds have also played significant roles.
During 2023, sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the Tropical North Atlantic surged notably in the spring and summer. This warming can be attributed to the weakening and southward displacement of the Azores-Bermuda ridge as shown below in the June 2023 surface pressure anomaly chart. This ridge’s weakening diminished trade winds, leading to reduced upper-ocean mixing and evaporative cooling. Concurrently, there was less cloud cover and Saharan dust, fewer sulfate particles due to cleaner shipping fuels, and increased stratospheric water vapor from the Hunga-Tonga undersea eruption. These combined factors facilitated the rapid warming of the ocean surface.
“Global warming slowdown projected, with caveats”
I’ve created a new Bookmark category entitled “EXCUSES, EXCUSES”
I feel the flood of studies coming
“ While it is possible that recent warm years signal accelerating warming, if emission projections under current policy come to fruition, the central expectation is a decreasing rate of global temperature increase in the coming decades.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6018
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/15/global-warming-rates-slowing-study?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial
[title of the IOP paper] “Rate of global warming projected to decline under current policy”
Imagine that – if current policy is followed (fat chance), it is projected to have the desired effect: slowing GW.
ganon
It’s natural variability’s turn to be the dominator. It’s in the cards regardless of CO2. The only question is how many novel rationalizations (AKA excuses) can the establishment dream up. I’m counting. That’s uno.
ck,
Natural variability is always there and doesn’t have a “turn”. The problem is unnatural trends, which some kid doesn’t seem to be able to understand and thinks counting to one in Spanish is a winning argument.
Your passion for your subject matter shines through in every post. It’s clear that you genuinely care about sharing knowledge and making a positive impact on your readers. Kudos to you!
I’ve been following your blog for quite some time now, and I’m continually impressed by the quality of your content. Your ability to blend information with entertainment is truly commendable.
Pingback: Climate Change Weekly: EV Dangers Becoming More Evident
This from a paper published yesterday.
“ These experiments show that Thwaites may be less vulnerable to MICI (marine ice cliff instability)than previously thought, and model projections that include this process should be re-evaluated.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado7794
Further “ Here, we implement a physically motivated parameterization in three ice sheet models and simulate the response of the Amundsen Sea Embayment after a hypothetical collapse of floating ice. All models show that Thwaites Glacier would not retreat further in the 21st century. In another set of simulations, we force the grounding line to retreat into Thwaites’ deeper basin to expose a taller cliff. In these simulations, rapid thinning and velocity increase reduce the calving rate, stabilizing the cliff.”
The vulnerability of the Thwaites Glacier in the WAIS has been central to many discussions of significant GMSLR. MICI and marine ice sheet instability (MISI) have been key mechanisms in those dynamics.
This study indicates that previous concerns might have been overstated and that Denver and other inland cities might not be threatened by catastrophic SLR.
Given that MISI has not been taken off the table (yet), in my
new Bookmark category “EXCUSES, EXCUSES” noted above, I’m giving this a dos, but only lower case.
The big enchilada upper case, is being reserved for something like a paper “Arctic Sea Ice might be recovering”
This new paper seems to qualify for my new Bookmark category “EXCUSES, EXCUSES” suggesting that the Thwaites and Pine Island Glacier complex might contribute only 4 inches to GMSLR over the next 2 centuries, thereby giving all the children who are having anxiety attacks from the establishment’s promotion of the Doomday Glacier scenario, a much needed emotional reprieve ….at least during their childhood.
Because it covers 2 centuries, it gets an upper case TRES.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/18/2583/2024/tc-18-2583-2024.pdf
Pingback: A pullulating preponderance of pluriform possibilities – Diagram Monkey
Pingback: Atlantisk Niña bidrar til kaldere hav - Klimarealistene
Pingback: 2023 Climate Event: Unprecedented Findings and Failures
Pingback: Hunga Tonga laat de mislukking van de klimaatwetenschap zien – Het Nieuws Maar Dan Anders,
Pingback: Eisiger Januar mit viel Schnee in Europa…? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung
Pingback: Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming | Un hobby...
Pingback: Don't mention the volcano - Climate Discussion Nexus
Pingback: Wird der Februar so eisig wie der Januar? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung