by Javier Vinos
We have been fortunate to witness the largest climate event to occur on the planet since the advent of global satellite records, and possibly the largest event since the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. It is clearly a naturally occurring, externally forced climate event. However, mainstream climate scientists are not treating it appropriately. This is because climate science does not function like other sciences and is subject to strong confirmation bias. The first step to learning from the 2023 event is accepting its exceptional nature, which many fail to do.
- An externally forced extraordinary event
If you are still not convinced of the extremely anomalous nature of the climatic event of 2023, let’s review some of the events of 2023-24. Taken together, they make it clear. The following list is incomplete and comes from my notes:
- Extraordinary ocean warming that models can’t explain.[1]
- Record-low Antarctic sea ice.[2]
- A record-breaking Amazon drought in 2023.[3]
- 31 atmospheric river events in the western US from November 2022 to March 2023. Nine made landfall in California marking the record in the 70-year database.[4]
- The snowiest season in 71 years occurred in California after a 1-in-54-year event.[5]
- NYC had the least snowy season on record, breaking a 50-year record on latest first snow.[6]
- Cyclone Freddy in the Indian Ocean was the longest-lasting tropical cyclone ever.[7]
- ITCZ displacement and unusual rains in the Sahara in 2024.[8]
- The first half of the 2024 hurricane season was surprisingly quiet, and models can’t explain it.[9]
- In 2023, 42% of the globe experienced heat exceeding two standard deviations. Louisiana, for example, had its hottest summer in 129 years of records.[10]
- 2023 was the warmest year on record, and 2024 was even warmer.
- In October 2024, the North Polar Vortex was the weakest in 40 years. The three sudden stratospheric warming events that occurred in the same season are a one-in-250-year event according to models.[11]
- The biggest global low cloud cover anomaly ever recorded occurred in 2023.[12]
Figure 1. ERA5 Zonal-mean anomaly in low cloud cover suggests that 2023 planetary albedo may have been the lowest since at least 1940.12
No one seems to be connecting the dots indicating that a series of extraordinary atmospheric events took place in 2023–24. These events suggest that an external factor significantly impacted atmospheric circulation. Climate science focuses heavily on a relatively uninformative and uncertain parameter called surface temperature anomaly, which is the variation in the average of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures across widely disparate areas. Nevertheless, even this inadequate parameter reflects the unusual nature of the 2023 event.
Figure 2. The 2023 climate event can be seen most clearly in the global sea surface temperature anomaly (NOAA, 60°N–60°S, baseline 2021). It began in December 2022. By November 2025, 90% of the warming from the 2023 event has disappeared.
Many 2023 temperatures were not only record temperatures, they also broke the previous records by the largest margin in the datasets, as I pointed in the article I wrote for Climate Etc. in July 2024 “Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming”. Rantanen and Laaksonen (2024) selected September 2023 in ERA5 reanalysis as the 2023 record warming month by the largest margin and, using the CMIP6 ensemble for the likely transient climate response, as recommended, found only a 0.2 % probability that it could be due to the unforced internal variability and the forced greenhouse gas-induced trend.10 They conclude that an external forcing is required and point to the Hunga Tonga eruption and the removal of sulfur pollution from ships as possibilities.
- Rounding up the usual suspects in an unusual crime
One might think that the lack of precedents for such an unusual event would make scientists skeptical of the factors affecting the climate over the last hundred years, since nothing similar appears in the records. However, to publish another paper, scientists must explain what happened, and the models are incapable of providing explanations outside their programming. This programming obviously does not include extraordinary events of which we had no prior knowledge.
Therefore, it has been argued that El Niño in 2023 may have been one of the main causes. However, in my article of 2024 I presented two compelling reasons why the 2023 El Niño cannot be held responsible. First, the warming of the globe oceans occurred simultaneously with El Niño, rather than subsequently, as was the case in previous Niños. Second, unlike all other Niños except the one caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992, the PDO was in a negative state during the 2023 El Niño.
Despite supporting ENSO’s involvement in what happened, Minobe et al. (2025) provide further arguments.[13] First, they demonstrate that the extraordinary warming event of 2023 started in the Southern Ocean in November 2022, which was four months prior to the tropical Pacific’s warming and the onset of El Niño. A consequence cannot precede its cause. Second, they demonstrate that the Earth’s energy imbalance anomaly between 2022 and 2023 was over 75% larger than during the onset of similar recent El Niño events. This unprecedented event first impacted the top of the atmosphere and began in 2022. Furthermore, the set of atmospheric and oceanic indicators included in the multivariate El Niño index (MEI) suggests that the 2023 El Niño event was not particularly intense. An El Niño event like many others cannot cause an unprecedented event.
Figure 3. a) Global top of the atmosphere anomalies of shortwave (downward) and longwave (downward) radiation and Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). A strong increase in shortwave radiation started in 2022. Global warming caused a strong increase in upward longwave radiation in 2023 in advance of an average intensity El Niño. b) Monthly anomaly time series of sea surface temperature in selected regions of the Southern Ocean and the Tropical Pacific. The anomaly started around November 2022 in the Southern Ocean, about 4 months before El Niño started in the Pacific.13
Those who believe ENSO played a significant role in the 2023 event point to the three years of La Niña preceding it. They claim this overloaded the heat system, causing it to explode with the 2023 El Niño event. However, there are precedents for three consecutive Niñas in the records, in 1974-1976 and 1999-2001, yet nothing like the 2023 event occurred. While explanations can be sought as to why the three Niñas produced such a different result this time, given that things never repeat exactly the same way, these explanations are still ad hoc with no evidence to back them up.
More surprising is the argument that the event was caused by anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic forcing is small and constant, and can only produce noticeable changes over long periods of time, decades or centuries. Interannual changes, by definition, are due to natural factors or internal variability. As an example, after 50 years of global warming, it is still unclear what changes we can expect in the ENSO system if the warming continues for another 50 years.
One exception to this long-term anthropogenic forcing is the reduction in sulfur emissions due to the maritime fuel regulations that came into force in 2020, and was therefore abrupt. However, we can rule this out as a cause of the 2023 event because the reduction is permanent, whereas the ocean warming that occurred in 2023 was essentially reversed in 2024 and 2025 (see Figure 2).
- Most scientists are ignoring the cooling that has taken place since the 2023 event.
The truth is that climate scientists have much more difficulty explaining cooling than warming when CO2 levels increase. This inherent bias embedded in the models probably indicates that there are fundamental aspects of the climate that are not well understood. This may explain why the 2023 warming generated a multitude of headlines and articles, while the 2024 and 2025 cooling is characterized by scientists’ silence in the face of something equally spectacular.
For example, the annual scientific reports titled “10 New Insights in Climate Science” by the Future Earth organization, publisher of the journal Anthropocene, are worth highlighting.[14] Two of the ten insights in each of the 2023, 2024, and 2025 reports refer to abrupt warming. However, despite cooling beginning in early 2024, no article refers to it.
It is difficult to find any mention of ocean cooling. In 2024, New Scientist magazine reported that a part of the Atlantic Ocean was cooling at a record speed:
“Over the past three months, temperatures in that part of the Atlantic cooled off more rapidly than at any time in records extending back to 1982. This sudden shift is perplexing because the strong trade winds that normally drive such cooling have not developed, says Franz Philip Tuchen at the University of Miami in Florida. ‘We’ve gone through the list of possible mechanisms, and nothing checks the box so far.’”[15]
We can add ocean cooling as another anomaly that remains unexplained in terms of its magnitude, speed, and cause.
When an El Niño event transitions to a La Niña event, the equatorial Pacific usually cools rapidly. However, the cooling in 2024 was global. Although La Niña conditions occurred in the winter of 2024–2025, they were not intense enough and long enough to qualify as an actual La Niña event. In other words, the tremendous cooling of the planet’s oceans has included the equatorial Pacific, but the equatorial Pacific has not induced it.
- The only known extraordinary factor is the eruption of Hunga Tonga.
According to Occam’s razor, a climatic event of unparalleled magnitude in modern records requires an exceptional cause. The factors responsible for normal climate variability are insufficient. The only extraordinary factor preceding the 2023 event was the explosion of the Hunga Tonga underwater volcano. The 150 megatons of water vapor that it released into the stratosphere are without precedent in our records. We do not know all the effects this may have had on the climate. Eruptions that reach the stratosphere have radiative, chemical, and dynamic effects. However, only the first two are well known.
There are several aspects of the Tambora eruption in April 1815 that scientists have not yet explained satisfactorily. First, the effects were delayed, as the anomalies that led to the year without a summer in 1816 did not begin until 15 months after the eruption. The usual explanation is that atmospheric dynamics delayed the radiative effects in the Northern Hemisphere. However, this explanation conflicts with the second unexplained aspect: the climatic effect on the Northern Hemisphere was much greater than on the Southern Hemisphere. The cause of this inequality between the hemispheres is unknown since volcanic aerosols and their radiative effects are distributed across both hemispheres in a tropical eruption.
Figure 4. The inability of models to reproduce the climatic effects of large volcanic eruptions calls into question the reliability of their diagnosis that the Hunga Tonga eruption had little effect on the surface climate. a) All models reproduce a cooling effect in the southern hemisphere as a result of the 1815 Tambora eruption, but this effect is not supported by evidence.[16] b) The models greatly exaggerate the cooling of sea temperatures that occurred as a result of the 1815 Tambora eruption and a previous one in 1809. The observations (in black) show a much smaller cooling.[17]
Climate models do not adequately reproduce the effects of the 1815 Tambora eruption, suggesting that dynamic atmospheric changes caused by stratospheric eruptions or other factors have a much greater impact on climate than previously thought. It is striking that the evolution of the ocean temperature anomaly generally coincides with the evolution of water vapor anomalies in extratropical middle-stratospheric latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere but not in the entire stratosphere.
Figure 5. The global sea surface temperature anomaly (NOAA, 60°N–60°S, baseline 2021) is shown in red over a background image of the water vapor anomaly in the stratosphere at 45°N.
Because models cannot adequately incorporate the effects of stratospheric eruptions on atmospheric circulation dynamics, the conclusion that the Hunga Tonga eruption had minimal effects on the surface climate is not convincing.[18] This conclusion is based primarily on knowledge of the radiative properties of water vapor. Studies support a relationship between these eruptions and changes in global atmospheric circulation, the polar vortex, El Niño–Southern Oscillation, evaporation, and cloud cover.
Without a doubt, we know that the climatic event of 2023 was caused by a drastic decrease in global cloud cover, the largest in at least 40 years (see Figure 1). This reduction caused the planet to absorb more solar energy and warm up. However, we do not know what controls changes in clouds. It’s astonishing that we claim to understand the cause of recent climate change yet remain ignorant of such a fundamental aspect.
Clouds cannot form without evaporation. In their recent work, Fajber et al. (2023) present compelling evidence that the evaporation gradient between the tropics and the poles controls the amount of heat transported through the atmosphere.[19] However, they made the common mistake of assuming that evaporation is controlled by temperature via the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. This error stems from the assumption that wind is constant at the global level. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation is accurate at the microscopic level, at the interface between water and air. However, at the macroscopic level, wind speed has a greater impact on evaporation than temperature or humidity. In a cold, humid environment, clothes hung out to dry will dry if there is enough wind. However, few climate scientists have experience hanging clothes out to dry in the wind. Furthermore, wind speed is not constant; rather, it exhibits significant changes and opposing trends over oceans and land. These changes lead to important changes in evaporation, cloud formation, and their transport and distribution.[20]
If changes in the clouds caused the temperature changes, then we cannot use the temperature changes as the cause of the cloud changes. The most likely cause is the change in atmospheric circulation, which occurred due to the atmospheric anomalies that have taken place since the end of 2022, as discussed in Section 1.
For anyone who is not committed to the explanation of climate change due to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, the Hunga Tonga eruption is currently the best explanation for the 2023 climate event. In July 2025, I analyzed that “if Hunga Tonga is responsible for the 2023-24 warming event, a clear prediction is that we should observe most of this warming disappear in 3-5 years.“[21] This projection does not arise from any of the other considered causes. By December 2025, four years after the eruption, this prediction had come true: the ocean temperature anomaly in November was only 0.05°C higher than in November 2021, before the eruption. 90 % of the ocean warming from the 2023 climate event has disappeared.
- The greatest failure of climate science
Climate science has failed the test of an externally forced natural climate event. Most scientists who have published studies on the 2023 climate event have not recognized its nature. Any climatological manifestations of the event that do not align with the dominant consensus have been treated as either natural variability or rare events whose probability has increased due to anthropogenic climate change. No studies have addressed the climatic event in all its manifestations or analyzed its possible causes without relying on models clearly not designed to shed light on something we did not know was possible.
Rather than trying to determine the causes of the event, scientists have attempted to fit it into the dominant theory using models. In light of evidence of major natural climate change, this approach reveals its greatest flaw: the theory relies on an excessive focus on greenhouse gases and aerosols as the cause and temperature changes as the effect.
Personal note:
2026 will mark the tenth anniversary of my first post on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog. Believe it or not, I began researching climate change in 2015 because I was concerned about its potential impact on our society. As a scientist from a different field entirely, I trusted my fellow scientists, learned societies, and scientific journal editors to evaluate the risk. As an avid reader of scientific literature from many disciplines, I immersed myself in hundreds and then thousands of papers, convinced that evidence of dramatic human-caused climate change was there. However, I came away empty-handed and profoundly skeptical of everything I had been told without ever being shown the evidence. I realized natural climate change is greatly misunderstood and insufficient effort is being done to correct that. Over these past 10 years, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to straighten out the science of climate, and I will spend 10 more years doing so if necessary. If you would like to hear more often from me, you can find me on 𝕏 @JVinos_Climate
[1] Schmidt G (2024). “Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory” Nature, 627, 467.
[2] Gilbert E & Holmes C (2024). “2023’s Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest on record” Weather, 79, 2, 46-51.
[3] Espinoza JC et al. (2024) “The new record of drought and warmth in the Amazon in 2023 related to regional and global climatic features” Sci Rep 14, 8107.
[4] Kawzenuk B et al. (2023) “Mesoscale analysis of landfalling atmospheric rivers in California during December 2022 and January 2023” Atmospheric River Reconnaissance Workshop 2023.
[5] Marshall AM et al. (2024) “California’s 2023 snow deluge: Contextualizing an extreme snow year against future climate change” PNAS 121, 20, e2320600121.
[6] Silive.com (2024) “2023 least snowiest year in NYC on record, says National Weather Service“.
New York Post (2023) “Snowless NYC breaks 50-year record of longest winter without flurries“.
[7] NOAA (2024) “Australia to Africa in 36 days: Tropical Cyclone Freddy (2023), the longest-lasting tropical cyclone in history“.
[8] Live Science (2024) “Sahara desert hit by extraordinary rainfall event that could mess with this year’s hurricane season“.
[9] Klotzbach PJ et al. (2025) “The Remarkable 2024 North Atlantic Mid-Season Hurricane Lull” Geophys Res Lett, 52, 19, e2025GL116714
[10] Rantanen M & Laaksonen A (2024) “The jump in global temperatures in September 2023 is extremely unlikely due to internal climate variability alone” Clim Atmos Sci 7, 34.
Yale Climate Connections (2023) “Summer 2023 broke dozens of all-time monthly heat records“.
[11] Severe Weather EU (2024) “Unusually weak Polar Vortex is developing in the Stratosphere, linked with the Weather patterns over the United States and Canada“.
Met Office UK (2024) “One in 250-year event underway high in the atmosphere“.
[12] Goessling HF et al. (2024) “Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo” Science, 387, 6729, 68-73.
[13] Minobe S et al. (2025) “Global and regional drivers for exceptional climate extremes in 2023-2024: beyond the new normal” Clim Atmos Sci, 8, 138.
[14] 10 New Insights in Climate Science.
[15] New Scientist (2024) “Part of the Atlantic is cooling at record speed and nobody knows why“.
[16] Neukom R et al. (2014) “Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium” Nature Clim Change, 4, 362–367.
[17] Brohan P (2012) “Constraining the temperature history of the past millennium using early instrumental observations” Clim. Past, 8, 1551–1563.
[18] APARC (2025) “Hunga Eruption Atmospheric Impacts Report” APARC Report No. 11, WCRP Report No. 10/2025.
[19] Fajber R et al. (2023) “Atmospheric heat transport is governed by meridional gradients in surface evaporation in modern-day earth-like climates” PNAS, 120, 25, e2217202120.
[20] Yu L (2007) “Global Variations in Oceanic Evaporation (1958–2005): The Role of the Changing Wind Speed” J Climate, 20, 21, 5376–5390.
[21] Vinós J (2025) https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1941827393368281431
Fascinating article. Thank you for this valuable research.
“Clouds cannot form without evaporation.” This is false. Alpha Lo has provided extensive research that cloud formation is linked to micro-particles created through soil and plant transpiration. 60%-90% of our rain comes from the small water cycle, driven by the above process. I would be highly interested in learning your opinion on Alpha’s Lo’s research, project completed by the YT channel Water Stories, and the data being collected from the building of the “Great Green Wall” of Africa.
Transpiration is evaporation. The water just passes through a plant on the way to the air.
False statement. Anyone interested in knowing the truth. 5 seconds to ask any ai, if your not familiar
with the difference.
AI– ‘Evaporation and transpiration are both critical processes in the water cycle that convert liquid water into water vapor, returning it to the atmosphere. While they share the same physical result, they differ primarily in their source and regulation,’ i.e., biological vs physical.
fyi – https://climatewaterproject.substack.com/p/a-2025-review-aqua-ly
Superb tidying up of the loose ends that the consensus climate industry prefers to ignore
This is a meaningless weather report, not a climate report.
Scientific data from 2025 confirms that 2023, 2024, and 2025 are the three warmest years in Earth’s recorded history.
That’s a climate report.
You should learn the difference.
“meaningless weather report”: your comment is arrogant, insulting, and revealing ignorance on your part. Grow up.
Victor, the same can be said for those that don’t understand the difference between weather and climate, and launch personal attacks based on that lack of understanding.
https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/what-s-difference-between-climate-and-weather
“Scientific data from 2025 confirms that 2023, 2024, and 2025 are the three warmest years in Earth’s recorded history.”
I would say warmest years in a very short and incomplete record of Earth’s very recent history that has been measured by man — such a tiny fraction of Earth’s history that it is hardly worth drawing any conclusion at all from it. Certainly no model can predict climate change and we clearly do not understand everything that controls it.
The period from 1975 to 2025 is the era of man made CO2 emissions. Atmospheric CO2 up +25.8% in those fifty years.
These CO2 emissions have done exactly what was predicted in the 1970s. CO2 emissions cause global warming mainly in colder nations, during colder months, at night (TMIN). That’s good news!
Less air pollution & fewer clouds cause warmer “days” (TMAX).
Man made variables explain the 1975 to 2025 warming much better than natural variables.
Even if we don’t agree on what causes global warming, global warming itself is good news. We have many centuries of anecdotes showing that humans preferred the warmer centuries.
It is ridiculous for climate alarmists to claim that warming in the past 50 years has harmed anyone. The past 50 years of global warming has been pleasant, and so will the next 50 years of global warming.
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-following-variables-are-known-to.html
Trying to change the climate wastes money & will fail. Almost all economic activity generates CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere will result in more plant, animal and human life on our planet.
Predictions of a global warming crisis have been wrong for the past 50 years and are getting tiresome.
Only one long term climate prediction has ever been correct. The one I made in 1997:
“The climate in 100 years will be warmer unless it is colder.”
My climate and energy website with 1.3 million lifetime page views & 18,524 so far in December 2025:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Re Richard Greene. So much for dogma in the CO2 Church for AGW Salvation. But how many here concur with this Orthodoxy? Very few….
Richard Greene wrote:
Even if we don’t agree on what causes global warming, global warming itself is good news. We have many centuries of anecdotes showing that humans preferred the warmer centuries.
LOL.
When was the last time global climate warmed at 0.20 C/decade (NOAA, since 1/1975).
PS: It’s not slowing down. In fact, the warming rate is increasing in recent decades.
Steve Browne wrote:
I would say warmest years in a very short and incomplete record of Earth’s very recent history that has been measured by man — such a tiny fraction of Earth’s history that it is hardly worth drawing any conclusion at all from it.
That doesn’t matter. It’s a shame you don’t understand this. Or you do and ignore it like a good denier will.
We live now, not then. Now the rate of global warming since 1970 is 0.2 C/decade (NOAA). Do you have ANY CLUE how huge this is? Can you find the same anywhere in the past? Anywhere?
3 warmest years in recorded history means very little when most of the recent ten thousand years were warmer than all of the recorded history, which does not even go back to the the previous warmer period the Medieval Warm Period.
“3 warmest years in recorded history means very little when most of the recent ten thousand years were warmer than all of the recorded history”
By “recorded history”, I mean global average temperature measurements.
Those measurements are accurate enough after 1975. 1950 to 1975 are fairly accurate
Global average temperatures before 1950 should be ignored. Poor surface coverage.
There is zero evidence that any decade in the past 5,000 years was warmer (GAT) than the last decade. Although for good science it is not fair to compare local proxy rough estimates with accurate GAT measurements.
Greene: “Global average temperatures before 1950 should be ignored. Poor surface coverage.”
Indeed, let’s at least agree to begin any climate argument by relegating the hockey stick premise as false.
Please proceed. I presume 75 years of climate data, essentially 2 climate data points of climate data, defines your idea of climate armageddon?
JT, Please, what is the ‘hockey-stick premise’?
Jungletrunks wrote:
Indeed, let’s at least agree to begin any climate argument by relegating the hockey stick premise as false.
People are still doing this? LOL.
The hockey stick is required by basic physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to ln(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
=> hockey stick.
Herman Alexander Pope wrot:
“3 warmest years in recorded history means very little when most of the recent ten thousand years were warmer than all of the recorded history,”
Proof?
Insulting, as usual when decent arguments fail.
3 years isn’t long enough to establish a climate trend. Try again.
The climate has been warming for 50 years and the last three years are the warmest of the past 50.
CO2 emissions have been accelerating over those 50 years. ( CO2 concentrations jumped by a record 3.58 parts-per-million (ppm) in 2024, surpassing the 2023 record of 3.36 ppm, marking the largest annual increase since records began in 1957, driven by fossil fuels.)
Many conservatives refuse to believe that CO2 emissions and global warming are connected. That’s why they are not taken seriously by 99.9% of scientists who say that CO2 emissions are increasing the greenhouse effect.
The amount of warming that CO2 emissions will cause 100 years is unknown. Those conservatives claiming that CO2 does nothing, or nearly nothing, are puzzling. And wrong.
Probably the last three years are the warmest due to autocorrelation. CO2 does enhance warming, but adaptation is the way to handle whatever problems it causes, if any.
Javier, you remarked, “The following list is incomplete and comes from my notes:”
I would suggest adding to your list the observation that the UAH 6.1 lower-troposphere temperature anomaly for the coincident El Nino of 2023 has the widest Full-width, Half-Maximum (fattest) peak of any during the satellite era.
Very nice analysis.
Very good analysis. I have walked a similar path as yours in your last paragraph. I find it amusing that as soon as an event like this occurs, that the GHG modelling teams rapidly produce a ‘peer/pal’ reviewed paper dismissing it as a significant climate event.
Mainstream climate science’s dismissal of Hunga Tonga as the cause of the 2023/24 sudden warming is based on the work of people like Dessler who summed up the combined radiative forcings of the stratospheric water vapour and aerosols and concluded that, in 2022, the surface forcing was marginal, in fact slightly negative because the aerosol cooling cancelled the water vapour warming. That’s it. But in fact the moderate aerosol load from HTHH was largely gone by June 2023; the 10% increase in stratospheric water vapour (unprecedented in the observational record) was still there, albeit globally distributed by then, and also higher in the stratosphere, even reaching the mesosphere.
We now know for sure that the unprecedented sudden warming in 2023 was caused largely by an unprecedented increase in absorbed solar radiation due to a sharp decline in low level cloud cover which was itself just the punctuation mark on a continuing trend in declining low level cloud since 2000 at least, which explains most or all of the warming over that entire period. An uptick in solar activity accounts for some and I personally believe that the direct radiative forcing of stratospheric water vapour in 2023 (after the aerosols had dispersed) has been slightly underestimated, so that counts for a little more. But the main event was the disruption to global circulation patterns caused by the presence of the sudden increase in water vapour in the upper atmosphere impacting ozone chemistry there and the jet streams, feeding down into the lower troposphere.
The recently released APARC report, which reads like an IPCC WG1 climate assessment report, pointedly denies that Hunga Tonga had any effect upon the warming in 2023/24, citing Dessler among many others. It’s a huge, detailed work and I have yet to read even small relevant sections of it, but it seems likely that – just like the IPCC – they are wrong about what drives climate change.
https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1049154/files/Hunga_APARC_Report_full.pdf
Hunga Tonga had no visible effect on the global average temperature. None, zero, nada. The reason for that is the volcano only increased total atmospheric water vapor by 0.1%.
“low level cloud since 2000 at least, which explains most or all of the warming over that entire period: JJ
That statement is false.
Warming since 1975: About 60% was at night. But fewer clouds make nights cooler, not warmer.
Days get warmer from less air pollution and fewer clouds. Less air pollution since 1980 is certainly the major caue of daytime Tmax warming. Fewer clouds in the past 25 years cause daytime warming too
Less air pollution and fewer clouds cannot explain the 60% of warming that was Tmin.
It is not known if cloud changes are a climate forcing or a climate feedback.
If changes in cloudiness are a climate feedback, then they are not a direct cause of any warming.
Changes in cloudiness are a rough proxy with a large margin of error. Probably at least ±10%. The global decline in total cloudiness over the past 25 years has not reached 10%. Therefore, the change in % cloudiness data for the past 25 years are statistically insignificant.
What we really want to know is exactly how much sunlight daytime clouds are blocking. And exactly how much heat nighttime clouds are trapping — they are part of the greenhouse effect. Those data do not exist.
“Hunga Tonga had no visible effect on the global average temperature. ” Didn’t the satellite data show a big jump in lower atmosphere temperatures a bit after that? If it wasn’t the extra water vapour in the atmosphere left after the ash and sulphur dioxide had washed out (both know temperature depressants), what caused that temperature rise?
75% of the earth’s surface is water. The oceans can ONLY be heated by direct short wave solar radiation, which is the cause of most or all of the increase in OHC since 2000. Ocean heat content plays a critical role in moderating or enhancing surface warming and oceanic and atmospheric heat transport also play a major role in regional surface warming. Either way, it’s the energy from the sun which actually reaches the planet’s surface which is the engine of warming of the system.
Night time temperatures WERE increasing faster than daytime; they are not any longer:
“In a new study, published in Nature Communications, an international team of researchers reinvestigated the asymmetric warming phenomenon and found that the pattern has reversed. Between 1961 and 2020, global daytime warming has accelerated, while the warming rate of nighttime temperature is relatively constant. This reversed trend in asymmetric warming has led to an increasing temperature difference between day and night.
“We initially aimed to confirm the previously observed phenomenon of nighttime warming surpassing daytime warming. To our surprise, not only had the asymmetric warming trend ceased, but our analyses, based on state-of-the-art observation-based datasets, indicate a complete reversal of this original warming pattern over the past three decades,” says Ziqian Zhong, post-doctoral researcher at Chalmers.
Global brightening a potential cause
“A likely explanation to this change is a phenomenon called “global brightening,” which has been observed since the late 1980s. It is a result of less cloud cover, which causes more sunlight to reach the Earth’s surface, leading to higher daytime temperatures and, as a result, a broader difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures over the recent decades,” says Ziqian Zhong.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240201121753.htm
Hunga Tonga: 15 January 2022
UAH heat rise began in mid 2023.
There is no 18 month delay between the day of a volcano and the effect on the global average temperature.
Key HT findings as of 2025 include:
Net Cooling Effect:
Despite early speculation that the water vapor (a greenhouse gas) would cause surface warming, multiple 2024 and 2025 studies concluded the eruption actually had a slight net cooling effect on the planet.
‘
Cooling Mechanism:
Sulfate aerosols formed from the volcano’s sulfur dioxide reflected more solar radiation than the water vapor could trap. In the Southern Hemisphere, this resulted in a temperature reduction of approximately 0.1°C.
Stratospheric Impact:
While surface temperatures saw minor changes, the stratosphere itself experienced significant cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C because the extra water vapor released heat into space
UAH warming that began in mid 2023:
Scientific studies confirm that the rapid global warming spike beginning in mid-2023 was primarily driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and a significant reduction in low-level cloud cover
I see you’ve glanced at the APARC Report too, the difference being, you now think it is authoritative.
“Stratospheric Impact:
While surface temperatures saw minor changes, the stratosphere itself experienced significant cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C because the extra water vapor released heat into space
UAH warming that began in mid 2023:
Scientific studies confirm that the rapid global warming spike beginning in mid-2023 was primarily driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and a significant reduction in low-level cloud cover”
Volcanoes inject (usually aerosols) high into the stratosphere and this is how they affect climate and temperature at the surface, either by direct radiative effects or by altering global circulation patterns. Usually, with terrestrial eruptions, the presence of sulphuric aerosols in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere by absorbing incoming SW solar radiation and outgoing LW radiation. The net effect is that the surface cools. Pinatubo warmed the lower stratosphere by 4C. HT water vapour cooled the stratosphere significantly. It is perhaps naive to expect that there would be little or no effect upon temperature and climate (weather patterns) at the surface. But the APARC report purports to demonstrate this ‘fact’ conclusively.
“Hunga Tonga: 15 January 2022
UAH heat rise began in mid 2023.
There is no 18 month delay between the day of a volcano and the effect on the global average temperature.”
Mount Tambora: 10 April 1815
The ‘Year without a summer’: 1816
The most pronounced effects of global cooling subsequent to Tambora in Aril 1815 occurred in the norther hemisphere summer of 1816. So NH warming beginning in spring 2023 in the north Atlantic would be entirely consistent with the Hunga Tonga eruption in Jan 20222.
Groundbreaking article, the only assertion that I disagreed with is : “However, mainstream climate scientists are not treating it appropriately. This is because climate science does not function like other sciences and is subject to strong confirmation bias. ”
I was lucky enough to see a Ted Fujita briefing in the 1990s, where he described how the established elite shut down his findings.
Ted Fujita is a good case study for how established consensus and institutional inertia can resist new ideas—even when those ideas are ultimately correct.
Ted Fujita was a Japanese-American meteorologist at the University of Chicago, best known for:
Discovering downbursts and microbursts
Creating the Fujita Scale (F-Scale) for tornado damage
Revolutionizing severe storm analysis using damage patterns and aerial photography
Today he’s revered. Early on, he was often dismissed.
Ted Fujita was right early, ignored long, and vindicated late—because established groups filtered evidence through existing beliefs until reality forced a correction.
Often in science the established group has to die off before new ideas can be accepted.
Excellent post, Javier, I appreciate it. This topic is very interesting.
Not to disregard your important observations here, they make great sense to me, but I’ve been contemplating the causation of cooler SST from a colloquial nonscience perspective for awhile now. My curiosity had me opining about this very topic periodically over the last few threads.
Prior to this essay I was probing AI. In particular looking into multi event correlations that may provoke a cascading trend of climatic events.
I know you don’t hold Valentina Zharkova’s work in too much regard, but my recent questions to AI folded her work in with other observations.
I asked AI many questions about solar/climate correlations (including volcanic activity going back to the early 19th century), to what’s known contextually in the more recent historical record. Recently I asked AI to relate these to Valentina Zharkova’s work where she warned about this phenomenon that could lead to dramatic climate and weather changes, specifically global cooling for 30 years; her hypothesis of a modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2053).
https://solargsm.com/the-modern-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2053-versus-global-warming/
Also relating to Zharkova’s work are these recent celestial events, their proximity to 2023-24 warming as a potential influencing factor, involving the mechanics of the Sun’s barycenter:
December 2022
A rare event where all eight planets were in alignment, though not visible as a straight line: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
February 2023
A notable alignment where four bright planets were closely visible in the evening sky: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn
So Valentina Zharkova’s work has been at the back of my mind, along with this cooler SST discussion (broached in the last thread). Planetary alignment is only a small part of Zharkova’s research, it’s too elementary unto itself, in context of her overall hypothesis. All said, these events provoked my curiosity, including volcanic activity, and many other climate influencing events, all these questions led to an AI query just to see what I could tease out of it. My last AI question will follow.
Part 1:
While I presented many tangential questions to AI, these culminated into this last question (I know AI isn’t the end all, it’s just a tool):
Correlate the discussion to what’s known within the historical record of solar cycles, celestial events (i.e. planetary alignments), and climatic events on Earth. Juxtapose how these may align with Zharkova’s papers on magnetic field variations and the official ephemeris of the Sun-Earth distances in the last two millennia 600-2600. Zharkova’s work describes that baseline oscillations were regularly seen in magnetic field variations in the past 120,000 years and observed in solar irradiance for the Holocene described in Zharkova, 2021 and recent paper, Zharkova et al, 2023b. Zharcova’s hypothesis posits the Sun-Earth distances change very significantly during ~2000-2300 years period.
Also review recent historical evidence for correlations, for example; there were significant solar events during the early 19th century, including volcanic activity, that may have played roles in influencing the end of the LIA. Relative to cascading events; for example, could these events have influenced the historic 1876-78 El Niño, including other extreme El Niño over the last 150 years? Can these correlations be the result of cascade effects, feedbacks, initiated from solar inputs?
AI:
We can explore correlations between solar and celestial events, including planetary alignments, and climatic events across history, particularly focusing on Valentina Zharkova’s theories regarding solar activity, magnetic field variations, and Sun-Earth distance fluctuations. Here, we will identify historical events and potential feedback mechanisms.
Historical Context of Solar and Climatic Events
Overview of Solar Activity Records
Solar Cycles: Solar activity follows approximate 11-year cycles of sunspots and solar flares, which are recorded in various historical sources, including annals from ancient civilizations.
Planetary Alignments: Alignments of planets, notably during historical epochs, can be reconstructed based on astronomical calculations and have been noted in texts from early cultures, such as Babylonian or Mayan records.
Key Cycles and Climatic Events
The Little Ice Age (LIA)
Occurred approximately from 1300 to the mid-1800s. This period included two notable solar minima: the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), during which solar activity was markedly low.
Planetary Alignments:
Historical records indicate several significant alignments, like the one in 1781, coinciding with the onset of recovery from the LIA and potentially influencing climatic conditions.
Early 19th Century Solar Activity
The years 1816-1817 saw a resurgence in solar activity, leading to increased solar output. This period also coincided with the Year Without a Summer (1816), caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 and possibly compounded by solar input changes.
Following this, the 1876-78 El Niño emerged, historically documented as one of the strongest on record. Increased solar activity around this time likely had compounding effects—enhancing oceanic temperatures and altering atmospheric patterns.
Correlating with Zharkova’s Research
Magnetic Field Variations
Zharkova’s Work: She posits that magnetic field variations can be observed over timespans of 120,000 years; these fluctuations correlate with oscillations in solar activity and may reflect long-term cyclical behavior.
Historical Context: During periods of low solar output (e.g., Maunder Minimum), magnetic activity would shift, potentially leading to lower temperatures and heightened climatic extremes.
Oscillations Over Millennia
Zharkova suggests significant baseline oscillations in Sun-Earth distances occur approximately every 2000-2300 years. These fluctuations may influence the solar output and, consequently, Earth’s climate.
When aligned with historical celestial configurations, it’s plausible to hypothesize that:
Stronger solar output during specific alignments could lead to warming periods, contributing to enhanced El Niño events.
Conversely, decreased solar activity can relate to colder climatic periods, such as the LIA.
Investigating Cascading Effects
Feedback Mechanisms
Variations in irradiance due to solar activity, when coupled with changes in Earth’s magnetic field, may yield cascading climatic effects, impacting weather patterns, ocean currents, and precipitation.
The extreme El Niño events may be more pronounced in instances of increased solar activity, enhancing warm ocean currents and affecting global weather systems.
Evidence of Correlations
Paleo Records
Analyzing sediment cores could reveal patterns where higher concentrations of certain isotopes coincide with increases in solar activity. Ice core data offer insights into how atmospheric conditions changed alongside shifts in solar irradiance.
Modern Studies
Recent work corroborating the relationship between solar output and climate variability suggests that natural variability—exemplified by solar cycles—remains influential.
Historical patterns, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the transitions out of the LIA, can help frame understanding of modern climate phenomena in light of natural solar influences.
Conclusion
Zharkova’s proposals concerning solar dynamics and Sun-Earth interactions provide a compelling framework for analyzing climatic variations historically. The evidence suggests that synchronous solar events, such as alignments and magnetic field variations, could cascade into significant climate events like extreme El Niños or cold spells.
Part 2:
I didn’t include Zharkova’s hypothesis in this query. I asked AI to develop a hypothesis that excluded anthropomorphic causation, and to isolate natural variation exclusively for its development. AI’s hypothesis:
Cascading Events That Heavily Influenced 19th and 20th Century Warming
Introduction
This analysis explores the hypothesis that a combination of significant solar events, El Niño occurrences, and various natural warming trends throughout the 19th century catalyzed the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and initiated the warming trends observed in the hockey stick graph. Furthermore, it posits that these cascading events heavily influenced the warming patterns witnessed throughout the 20th century. By examining the interplay between these factors, this analysis aims to clarify their roles in the climatic shifts that led to rising global temperatures. The effects of these interconnected phenomena underscore the importance of natural variability as a driving force in the climate system over time.
Key Events Used in the Analysis
Solar Events
Carrington Event (1859): A powerful solar storm causing extreme auroras and disruptions on Earth.
Solar Maximum of 1834: A period of elevated solar activity marked by high sunspot counts.
Solar Maximum of 1883: Another peak in solar activity linked to temperature changes.
Transition to Solar Maximum (1895-1905): The gradual uptick in solar activity leading into the 20th century.
19th Century El Niños:
El Niño of 1828-1829: Associated with notable climatic anomalies.
El Niño of 1830-1831: Further influencing weather patterns globally.
El Niño of 1854-1856: Causing significant weather disruptions.
El Niño 0f 1876-1878: Characterized by severe droughts and great famine events around the world.
El Niño of 1881-1882: Triggering unusual weather phenomena.
El Niño of 1888-1889: Resulting in extreme climatic changes.
El Niño of 1896-1897: Contributing to substantial global climate anomalies.
Analysis Methodology
To establish the compounding effects of these events on ocean heat storage and global temperatures, the following methodologies were employed:
Energy Storage Calculations:
The oceans serve as a major reservoir for heat, absorbing excess energy from solar radiation and natural events. The formula for energy stored in the oceans is: Q=C×m×ΔT
Where Q is energy in Joules, C is the specific heat capacity of seawater (approximately 4,000 J/(kg·°C)), m is the mass of ocean water (approximately 5.14×10 24 kg), and ΔT is the change in temperature (estimated between 0.1°C to 1°C). For an average warming of 0.2°C: Q≈4.112×10 28 J
Statistical Modeling and Correlation:
Conduct multiple regression analyses to quantify relationships between solar activity, El Niño occurrences, and temperature anomalies. Each factor was treated as an independent variable, and Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the strength of these relationships.
Cascading Interactions:
Analyze how interactions between solar events and El Niño impacts may amplify warming trends through cascading effects.
Employ Monte Carlo simulations to assess the probabilities of varied warming trends occurring due to different levels of solar activity and El Niño presence.
GCM Simulations:
Apply General Circulation Models (GCMs) to simulate possible climate outcomes under varying conditions of solar activity and El Niño occurrences, evaluating temperature outcomes and comparing them against historical data.
Probability of Natural Variability Contribution:
Based on observed temperature changes and statistical analyses, it is estimated that natural variability—including solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and oceanic oscillations—accounts for approximately 30-40% of the total warming reflected in the hockey stick graph. This estimation considers both direct temperature influences from calendar years with significant solar and El Niño events and cumulated long-term ocean heat content changes.
Expected Findings
Correlation Insights: Strong positive correlations between solar maxima and observed temperature increases, especially during notable El Niño years, are anticipated.
Cascading Effects: Instances where solar activity coincides with El Niño events are likely to yield heightened temperature anomalies.
Model Simulation Outcomes: GCM simulations should reveal that scenarios incorporating both solar activity and El Niño conditions produce higher temperature projections
Conclusion
This hypothesis posits that the cumulative effects of significant solar maxima, notable 19th-century El Niños, and natural warming events collectively acted as catalysts for the climatic transition from the Little Ice Age to the warming trends evident in the hockey stick graph. Furthermore, it highlights that the entire hockey stick phenomenon throughout the 20th century was likely significantly influenced by a compounding cascade of natural drivers [i.e. water vapor hypothesis]. By investigating the interconnections among these factors, this study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the complex dynamics that have shaped our climate over the past two centuries.
While the AI hypothesis doesn’t use anthropomorphic causes, it does assume its contribution. All the AI hypothesis does is attempt to isolate the natural from man made—AI determines that warming is not 100% anthropomorphic. There remains further celestial consideration I didn’t ask to incorporate in the hypothesis, i.e. Zharkova’s work, whether one wants to give it weight, or not.
JT, What is meant by “anthropomorphic causation”?
Human’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Sunspot counts are an incompetent proxy for incoming solar energy.
All conclusions based on sunspot counts should be ignored.
NASA satellite data since the late 70s proved that sunspot counts grossly exaggerate tiny changes in top of the atmosphere. TSI changes so small they would have no visible effect on the global average temperature. The 11 year sunspot cycle is also not visible in the global average temperature. These accurately measured top of the atmosphere TSI changes are smaller than the margin of error in the global average temperature data.
In 2015, Professor Valentina Zharkova presented a new mathematical model of the Sun’s solar cycle that predicted a significant drop in solar activity between 2030 and 2040, potentially leading to a “mini ice age” similar to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century.
My comment will probably will not get printed because I say she is a crackpot. The 10 years since 2015 have been the warmest on record & there is no reason to expect global cooling to start four years from now.
“several significant alignments, like the one in 1781, coinciding with the onset of recovery from the LIA”
The significant alignments were 1782-84. 1782 turned much colder for England, July and August 1783 were hot when the whole UK was engulfed in fumes and dust from the Laki eruption. Winter 1783-84 was the fourth coldest on record for central England, and has heliocentric analogues in 1963, 1603, 1422, and the two times that the River Nile is known to have frozen, in 830 and 1010.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar/action?sys=-Sf
Stronger El Nino episodes occur when the solar wind is weaker.
Thanks for the reply, ulriclyonsb. I’m merely a messenger relative to AI proclamations and welcome any argument that counters its analysis, I’m learning from it. The following is what AI says in a deeper dive.
It seems like AI didn’t articulate distinctions very well, it stated “coinciding with the onset”, this is ambiguous. It seems like it was triangulating a rough start point of demarcation in the relative cooler temperature curve. I asked it to clarify, it states:
“Recovery Trends: The late 18th century (around 1780) did see some early signs of climatic warming following the harsh conditions of the LIA, which can lead to confusion regarding the temperature trends.
While 1781 may be associated with some localized recovery in climate, it is primarily still viewed within the context of the LIA. Therefore, the assertion that this time marked a significant shift from the colder conditions of the LIA is not entirely accurate; the broader context still points towards a cooler trend with emerging recovery signs starting later in the 19th century.”
Your AI was hallucinating about a “significant alignment” in 1781.
Agreed, the recovery from the LIA was in the 1800’s.
1781 stands out as a very warm year in CET, and see what happened in 1784:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/legacy/data/cetml1659on.dat
Ulric, I find the detail AI provided, in the stated context, very important if it’s inaccurate (thanks for your focus on this point!).
I’ve since circled back to AI to see if I could tease out further explanation for why AI utilized the words “significant alignments” for 1781. I’ll follow up after this post and provide AI’s response to your historical context.
The original comment as follows:
“Historical records indicate several significant alignments, like the one in 1781, coinciding with the onset of recovery from the LIA and potentially influencing climatic conditions.”
This time I asked AI: What did you mean by “significant alignments” relative to the planetary alignment of 1781? [Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth, not disclosed at the time] Significant heat? Or significance in another way, perhaps serving as an initial perturbance, localized perhaps?
AI:
When referring to the “significant alignments” of 1781 involving Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth, it’s essential to clarify the different ways such alignments can be considered significant:
Significance of the 1781 Alignment
1. Gravitational Influence
The alignment of large planets like Jupiter and Saturn can create gravitational effects that influence the Sun’s barycenter, which can, in turn, affect solar magnetic activity and output. This kind of perturbation in solar activity may have implications for solar cycles and irradiance.
2. Potential for Increased Solar Activity
Alignments among significant celestial bodies can correlate with changes in solar behavior, such as:
–Enhanced sunspot activity or solar flares, which could affect the amount of solar energy reaching Earth.
–Changes in solar irradiance, which impacts Earth’s climate.
3. Localized Climatic Effects
While the global climatic impact is often the focus, alignments can also cause more localized disturbances:
– Regional temperature changes: Increased solar output or altered atmospheric dynamics might not only raise global temperatures but can also create localized weather phenomena.
– Changes in ocean currents: Variations in solar energy can lead to changes in ocean heat distribution, impacting weather patterns, including systems like El Niño or La Niña.
4. Feedback Loops
The gravitational pull from alignments can create feedback loops in the climate system that induce shifts in temperature anomalies.
For example:
Perturbations from such alignments might manifest as increased heat in the oceans or changes in atmospheric circulation, which could amplify existing weather systems.
Conclusion
The significance of planetary alignments like that of 1781 lies not only in the gravitational dynamics affecting the Sun’s output but also in the upstream effects on Earth’s climate systems. These alignments potentially serve as catalysts for broader climatic shifts, influencing both global and localized weather patterns based on solar energy variations.
Ulric, I asked AI to address the points you made. Here’s the question:
Still, why was 1781 considered significant? Consider 1782-84. 1782 turned much colder for England, July and August 1783 were hot when the whole UK was engulfed in fumes and dust from the Laki eruption. Winter 1783-84 was the fourth coldest on record for central England, and has heliocentric analogues in 1963, 1603, 1422, and the two times that the River Nile is known to have frozen, in 830 and 1010. Can you elaborate on why 1781 is used as a “significant” turning point for recovery from the LIA?
AI’s response:
The year 1781 has been referenced in discussions regarding recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) primarily due to the alignment of Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth and associated increases in solar activity noted in the following years. However, the context of climate variations during 1782-84 adds depth to this interpretation. Here’s a more elaborate examination of these events:
Significance of 1781 and Subsequent Climate Events
1. Solar Activity and Alignments
The alignment of major planets in 1781 is believed to have influenced solar output due to the gravitational effects on the Sun’s barycenter.
This period is often linked conceptually to the general warming trends observed towards the end of the LIA, as solar activity began to increase again after a prolonged phase of low solar output.
2. Impact of the Laki Eruption (1783)
The eruption of Mount Laki in 1783 released vast amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, causing a notable cooling effect in 1782. The resultant volcanic aerosols led to dramatically altered weather patterns, obscuring solar radiation and causing temperature declines in Europe.
3. Contrasting Temperature Trends
1782 indeed brought colder temperatures to England, demonstrating that climate responses are complex and influenced by multiple factors, not just solar cycles.
The extreme weather events recorded—from cold winters to hot summers with clear cooling periods related to volcanic activity—complicate the narrative that 1781 marked a clear turning point.
4. Long-Term Climatic Patterns
Attributing the recovery from the LIA to the solar influences of 1781 can be misleading without considering other concurrent factors. The LIA was a period of climate variability driven by both solar activity and other influences, such as volcanic eruptions, oceanic patterns, and atmospheric circulation changes.
5. Historical Context and Analogues
The historical climate analogues, such as those you mentioned (e.g., the harsh winters of 1963, 1603, and earlier instances), indicate recurring patterns that suggest climate variability can be influenced by both natural phenomena and solar cycles. These established cold events further complicate the narrative of a straightforward recovery after 1781.
Conclusion
The significance of 1781 needs to be framed within a broader climatic context, recognizing the complex interplay of solar influences, volcanic activity, and climate variability. While the alignment of major planets and subsequent increases in solar activity are vital to consider, caution must be exercised in attributing any singular climate recovery to such events without acknowledging the concurrent and multifaceted climatological factors that influenced the years immediately following.
Planetary alignment theories of solar activity, and their possible effects on climate, are highly speculative. Correlation is not a good technique for assigning causality, and there being quite a few planets makes for plenty of draws from which to look for correlations. When finding one, there remains the problem of explaining what is so special about that alignment that others don’t posses.
I understand the perspective, Javier, I appreciate your response. I’m getting ready to post AI elaboration for all stated considerations of SST cooling, maybe there’s interesting discussion that can come from it.
Javier said:
“Correlation is not a good technique for assigning causality”
Numerous consistent correlations actually provide the best clues to the nature of the mechanisms. A few correlations is meaningless, you have to look at all cases over long periods, and explain the exceptions. Prediction is possible without understanding causality. In 2019, using heliocentric analogues and my established rules, I predicted the strong negative NAO episodes of 2023, warning UK farmers of a wet summer. I was also certain that 2025 would see a very hot summer for west Europe. The predictions are very detailed, for 2024 I could see that June and early September would be hot for the UK, but cooler and wetter through July and much of August.
JT,
I then assume you mean ‘anthropogenic’. Those big words are more impressive if you know what they mean.
Got any quantitative numbers (%) for all those non-anthropogenic causes? I think we already know anthropogenic forcing is not 100% – question is, how close to 100? Do you have an answer?
Ulric, I appreciate the granular climate details you provided, it gave the AI exploration richer meaning.
Relative to Javier’s post, I appreciate the evidence provided. My conviction is that the eruption of Hunga Tonga is strongly influential, but that it’s more than just volcanic activity leading to cooler global SST.
I asked AI to consider these various perturbances, the effect of volcanism, but also including the cascading, compounding climate influences described in my original AI query.
AI:
The interplay between planetary alignments, volcanic events, and sea surface temperature (SST) dynamics is complex. Let’s explore how the recent events, particularly the Hunga Tonga eruption and the planetary alignment in December 2022, may have influenced SST, along with other mechanisms that could contribute to cooling.
Recent Influences on Sea Surface Temperature (SST)
1. Hunga Tonga Eruption Impact
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in January 2022 was one of the largest eruptions in recent years, ejecting massive amounts of ash and water vapor into the atmosphere.
This eruption had several immediate effects
Aerosols and Sulfate Particles: The ash and gases may have increased cloud cover and aerosols in the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight and potentially leading to localized cooling.
Stratospheric Water Vapor: The significant water vapor may have contributed to climate dynamics, impacting atmospheric circulation patterns.
2. Planetary Alignment Effects
The alignment of all eight planets in December 2022 created gravitational interactions that could have influenced solar dynamical trends. However, the exact causal relationship to climate fluctuations is still debated.
Such alignments can impact barycentric dynamics, which theoretically could influence solar output and thereby affect climate patterns, although this influence is less direct and more subtle than that of volcanic activity.
3. La Niña Events
La Niña, characterized by colder-than-average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific, can contribute to significant cooling patterns globally, affecting SSTs.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and other oscillatory patterns can work alongside La Niña to influence global weather patterns and SSTs.
Additional Mechanisms Contributing to SST Cooling
1. Climate Variability
Natural Variability: The atmosphere-ocean dynamics may exhibit natural variability that leads to cooling trends, independent of planetary alignments or volcanic events. These include:
–Multidecadal oscillations, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
–Changes in oceanic currents or upwelling systems can affect SST over time.
2. Reduced Solar Activity
If there has been any decrease in solar output following the December 2022 alignment, that could theoretically contribute to cooling trends.
Monitoring solar activity via sunspot cycles can help identify potential patterns contributing to climate fluctuations.
3. Increased Cloud Cover
Volcanic eruptions often lead to increased cloudiness caused by aerosols, which can cool the surface by reflecting sunlight.
The cumulative effects of atmospheric changes from volcanic activity and alignments may foster further cloud development.
4. Feedback Mechanisms
Changes in SST can influence atmospheric patterns such as the Hadley Cell, which can lead to more extensive cloudiness and altered precipitation patterns, contributing to cooling trends.
Conclusion
The cooling of global SST since the first half of 2024 could stem from a combination of factors including the significant effects of the Hunga Tonga eruption, potential influences of planetary alignments on solar dynamics, and the presence of La Niña. Furthermore, natural climate variability and feedback mechanisms, coupled with enhanced cloud cover due to volcanic particulates, have likely played roles in altering SST patterns.
Your AI has a logorrhea problem, volumes of elaborations, but an inability to give a concise answer, rather like a politician.
There was no significant alignment in 1781, it’s nonsense. December 2022 saw a geocentric parade of planets, not an alignment. It appears that your AI is learning from viral memes on facebook and treating them as factual.
Thank you, Javier.
“Those who believe ENSO played a significant role in the 2023 event point to the three years of La Niña preceding it. They claim this overloaded the heat system, causing it to explode with the 2023 El Niño event. ”
Do you think that El Niño – La Niña events are caused by natural atmospheric forcings (aerosols, vulcanisn eruptions, etc…)?
How do you explain the El Niño – La Niña events persistent periodicity?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
I see ENSO as a heat pump system connected to meridional heat transport. I am not the only one seeing it this way. See:
Sun, D.Z., 2000. The heat sources and sinks of the 1986–87 El Niño. Journal of climate, 13(20), pp.3533-3550.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/clim/13/20/1520-0442_2000_013_3533_thsaso_2.0.co_2.pdf
A heat pump just distributes the heat that has been created. It is coupled to the atmospheric-oceanic system and responds to its conditions.
The ENSO persistency responds to persistent conditions in the global meridional heat transport. That explains why during the Holocene Climate Optimum the ENSO system remained in La Niña state with very few Niños.
Thank you, Javier.
I will carefully study the paper you provided, it is interesting.
Happy New Year!
The article doesn’t explain why El-Nino stops and then followed by El-Ninja.
The North Atlantic marine heatwave of 2023 was driven by a strong negative North Atlantic Oscillation regime. Indirect solar forcing of the NAO played a role, the large number of failed and weaker solar coronal hole streams through the summer.
https://solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
The 1982 and 1991 volcanic eruptions led to El Nino episodes, why not Tambora too?
While a strong North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) regime influenced the event, the 2023 marine heatwave was primarily driven by record-weak surface winds and an exceptionally shallow ocean mixed layer. Research indicates that the atmospheric regime underwent a significant transition during the peak warming months:
Early Summer (May–June):
The period was characterized by a positive NAO (NAO+) pattern, with high pressure over the northeast Atlantic driving initial warming.
Late Summer (July–August):
The circulation shifted to a strong negative NAO (NAO−) regime. This phase featured an atmospheric blocking high over the Labrador Sea, which is historically linked to a significant increase in marine heatwave days in the northwest Atlantic.
May is late Spring, June 2023 was negative NAO.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
The RGHE theory founders on two erroneous assumptions.
First error: that near Earth space is cold and the atmosphere/RGHE act as a warming blanket.
That is incorrect.
Near Earth space is hot (400 K, 127 C, 260 F) and the atmosphere/water vapor/albedo act as that cooling reflective panel propped up on the car’s dash.
Second, the surface radiates as a near Black Body. USCRN & SURFRAD data are calibrated, i.e. “tweaked “to conform to that assumption thereby creating “extra” “back” radiation.
That is incorrect.
IR instruments are calibrated to deliver a referenced & relative temperature while power flux is inferred by assuming an emissivity. Assuming 1.0 assumes wrong. TFK_bams09 shows surface emissivity as 0.16 = 63/396 which zeroes “back” radiation.
RGHE joins caloric, phlogiston, spontaneous generation, luminiferous ether, et al in science’s dust bin of failed theories.
Thank you, Nick,
“Assuming 1.0 assumes wrong. TFK_bams09 shows surface emissivity as 0.16 = 63/396 which zeroes “back” radiation.”
–
Please tell to what surface temperature the emissivity is 0,16 ?
“Near Earth space is hot (400 K, 127 C, 260 F)” Nick
Near-Earth space is not uniformly 400 K (about 127°C or 260°F). The temperature of objects in near-Earth space varies drastically, ranging from extremely cold to very hot, depending on exposure to solar radiation.
In direct sunlight, objects become very hot. For example, the sun-facing side of the International Space Station (ISS) can reach temperatures up to approximately 393 K (120°C or 248°F). This is due to constant bombardment by solar radiation without an atmosphere to disperse the energy.
In shade, objects become extremely cold. The side of an object in Earth’s shadow can drop to temperatures as low as about 173 K (-100°C or -148°F) or even lower.
The average temperature for a perfectly black object that rotates rapidly in near-Earth orbit is around 283 K (10°C or 50°F).
Thank you, Richard,
“The average temperature for a perfectly black object that rotates rapidly in near-Earth orbit is around 283 K (10°C or 50°F).”
Please give more details. What is that object, how fast it rotates? Is the object’s average temperature been measured?
–
Happy New Year!
The space station is not a perfect black body object rotating rapidly, but is an example of something real rather than a theory.
The temperature outside the space station varies wildly, from scorching hot (around 250°F or 121°C) in direct sunlight to freezing cold (around -250°F or -157°C) in shadow, due to the lack of atmosphere.
Objects heat up rapidly in direct sunlight and cool rapidly in shadow, experiencing drastic changes every 90 minutes as the ISS orbits Earth.
An “average” is around 50°F (10°C) but the outside temperature actually fluctuates wildly, with the ISS’s white paint and radiators managing the extremes.
Richard,
“An “average” is around 50°F (10°C) but the outside temperature actually fluctuates wildly, with the ISS’s white paint and radiators managing the extremes.”
The (10°C) is the arithmetical average between the hot and cold extreems.. It is not the actual average of the ISS’s outside temperature…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I would strongly advise everyone against attaching climate significance to the HT event.
The majority of Vinos’ bullet list and other glorified claims made here were consequences of absorbed solar radiation in step with solar activity, as it was predicted to do so by me in my 2022 NASA LASP Sun Climate Symposium poster.
The Hunga-Tonga eruption was something special, but it didn’t cause the warming spike.
https://i.postimg.cc/4NFFbVW9/ASR-and-Had-SST4.png
https://i.postimg.cc/W4y0Mg7X/Decadal-Warming-Steps-since-2000.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YC8qf80v/NCPac-and-TSI.png
The record increase in water vapor is mainly due to solar-induced evaporation during the El Niño. The low point in water vapor in 2022 was due to the ongoing effect of the triple dip La Niña.
https://i.postimg.cc/W3yJB2q2/Record-2024-water-vapor.png
The 2023/24 El Niño spike was very similar to the ’97/98 spike, ie, not unprecedented as claimed.
https://i.postimg.cc/8cwvB0mm/Two-Similar-El-Nino.png
The measurement of global average absolute humidity is very inaccurate.
Unreliable measurements show different correlations in 1980 to 2000, v. 2000 to 2020:
1980 to 2000:
GAT up & absolute humidity up.
Supports the Clausius–Clapeyron relation,
2000 to 2020:
GAT up & absolute humidity flat.
Does not support the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.
1980 to 2020 was up as expected.
Why 1980 to 2000 and 2000 to 2020 are different is unknown.
I believe global average absolute humidity measurements are not accurate enough to draw any conclusions. The likely reason for this is poor atmospheric coverage between the surface of Earth and the altitude of satellites.
Many atmospheric elevations have sparse absolute humidity data because absolute humidity (mass of vapor per volume) changes dramatically with altitude’s pressure/temperature shifts, making relative humidity (RH) and dew point more practical for meteorologists.
My profound thanks to those scientists who “Swam upstream”, taking the blows, over a lifetime, while clinging to truth. My takes, from an energy engineering background, both nuclear and fossil power plants are:
Without these sources of energy, advanced life cannot, will not survive. All of the green energies are too expensive to sustain the masses. They will find small niche applications. But the massive subsidies must stop or our national debt will destroy our economy.
From my time in grad school, I learned that truth is a function of room number. I have the scars to prove this. And you can model anything, the computer will not rebel at GIGO runs, nor will a sheet of paper refuse to print nonsense. I pray that fire, fission and fusion be only used to heat a baby Bottle.
Happy 2026 to all.
Interesting indeed.
“122 years and 2 days ago, John von Neumann (The Man from the Future) was born, December 28, 1903. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295-297ppm; it is now 428ppm.”
“for a general warming of the world by about one degree Fahrenheit.”
A question begs for answer: “The amount of 295-297ppm was 295-297ppm;”
How much the 295-297ppm had warmed the air back then?
How colder the air would have been without those 295-297ppm of carbon dioxide 122 years ago?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I read a small portion of that huge report.
“We are in the Warming because of the Orbital Circumstances.” CJ
That statement is wrong.
The global warming over the past 50 years can not be affected enough to be measured. by a planetary geometry cycle of 20,000 to 100,000 years.
Christos Vournas: Greek chemical engineer and climate change denier who argues that the greenhouse effect on Earth is a myth. Over 99.9% of scientists disagree with this false claim.
Mr. Vournas: I really like Greek people. I married my Greek wife almost 50 years ago. But if she told me the greenhouse effect was a myth, I’d have to tell her she was a climate science crackpot. She would counterattack by pointing out one or more of my flaws from her long list.
Thank you, Richard, for your response.
“The global warming over the past 50 years can not be affected enough to be measured. by a planetary geometry cycle of 20,000 to 100,000 years.”
Richard, you only “read a small portion of that huge report.”
Also:
“Christos Vournas: Greek chemical engineer and climate change denier who argues that the greenhouse effect on Earth is a myth. Over 99.9% of scientists disagree with this false claim.”
I am not a chemical engineer. I am not a climate change denier. I never said that the greenhouse effect on Earth is a myth.
Also:
“Mr. Vournas: I really like Greek people. I married my Greek wife almost 50 years ago.”
Please, Richard, I am sure your wife’s list is a long list of your flaws.
Shall we discuss the Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Richard,
“That statement is wrong.
The global warming over the past 50 years can not be affected enough to be measured. by a planetary geometry cycle of 20,000 to 100,000 years.”
“I read a small portion of that huge report.”
It is huge, I agree.
Richard, if you interested,
Please click on the:
26). Sensible Heat /Latent Heat ratio.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Richard, for your response.
Shall we discuss Rotational Warming Phenomenon? Would you like to read some more?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please define the 2023 event.
As per the IPCC:
“A climate event is an occurrence or pattern in the climate system—such as unusual temperature, precipitation, or storm behavior—observed over weeks to seasons that stands out from typical long‑term conditions.”
The 2023-24 warming (see Ref. 1) and associated unusual weather phenomena qualifies as a climate event. The 2023 date is the year it was detected on records, even though it started in 2022.
The Hunga Tonga volcano, featured an extremely powerful eruption on January 15, 2022, that sent plumes high into the atmosphere. It was a natural weather event that lasted several days. Climate refers to average local, regional or global weather over 30 to 50 year periods, at least. Not a local event that lasted a few days.
The volcano surprised scientists by having no observed effect on the global average temperature.
Therefore, the volcano can be described as an extreme local weather event, not a climate event. A volcano that had a long term effect on the weather could be described as a climate event. Such as a volcano that caused an unusually cool summer.
A volcanic eruption that does not produce a significant amount of atmospheric ash or gases to impact regional or global climate would be described primarily as a geological event. Hunga Tonga was such a volcano.
The premise of this article that Hunga Tonga was a climate event is wrong.
Hunga Tonga injected a massive amount of water vapour into the stratosphere, its impact in stratospheric humidity is unprecedented, something that clearly meets the definition of a climate event. How does stratospheric climate drive tropospheric impacts? It does so by altering air mass mixing through jet streams, which obviously alter cloud cover that forms due to air mass mixing. Cloud forcing is clearly the main driver of climate, not GHGs, The OLR has increased as the world warmed, indicating a short wave forcing the is 2-3 times large as GHG forcing. Why do you deny cloud forcing as a main driver of climate change?
Bob Mitchell comment –
“Why do you deny cloud forcing as a main driver of climate change?”
fwiw – I dont know if cloud forcing/ water vapor is a major or minor factor of climate change though it would seem to be a significant factor, though unknown if it a major factor. However to answer your question on denying cloud forcing as a driver of climate change. To the extent to which climate scientists can eliminate all other factors such as sun, water vapor, etc, for what ever reason, whether for a valid reason or invalid reason, then they have a basis to claim that CO2 is the main/sole driver of climate change.
Note that Judith’s position is that far too much is unknown to know all the drivers of climate change and which drivers are the dominant or subservient drivers. Pretending that other factors are non factors solves the dilemma of unknowns. (my apologies if I mischaracterize Judith’s position)
Perhaps a record thread. Comments have reached 40+ in numbers so far and about 50% of them actually address the lead article by Javier Vinos. A thread is normally hijacked by about the 10th comment.
The other 50% are a mixed bag, with most being ad homs aimed at other comments.
Perhaps the most persistent opposition to Vinos’ thesis here is from Richard Greene. However, quite a few of his comments are self-contradictory, it seems to me. Certainly flat statements don’t match up with claimed evidence.
Nonetheless, this is a more interesting thread than others perhaps, due in part so far to a lesser percentage of ad homs.
Your comment does not directly address the article or any climate science. It contains a generic ad hom directed at me. But no attempt to refute even one sentence in any of my comments here.
You don’t seem to be following your own advice.
Pingback: Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Pingback: 2023 Climate Event: Unprecedented Findings and Failures
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
Happy New Year to Dear Judith!
Happy New Year to all!
Here is a paper we wrote in 2025-8-15: The Impact of the Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption on Earth’s Temperature.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2025.21.14
It supports the presented article. It is good to see that some good science is being presented.
Best wishes for an excellent ood New Year in 2026.
H. Douglas Lightfoot.
hdouglaslightfoot@gmail.com
Do you have a source for the comment below?
It’s my understanding that UAH maintains the satellite temp measurements and they dont show a cooling. Thanks for any insight.
“The satellite temperature measurements of the Earth’s temperature are the best because they cover the whole Earth and minimize the urban heat island effect. This record shows that from January 2019 to January 2023, the temperatures dropped by approximately 0.5 °C, which indicates that the Earth is cooling. “
UAH satellite data does not directly measure surface temperature and could have errors. UAH has very good surface coverage. It captures all of the UHI.
Approximately 29% of Earth’s surface grids are on land, consistent with the general land-to-water ratio of the planet’s surface.
Several organizations, notably the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, and researchers using the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model, use a 0.5° by 0.5° grid resolution for various global datasets and climate modeling.
A significant percentage of global land surface grids (approximately 35% in one specific study using 0.5° grids) are classified as “missing regions” due to a lack of sufficient weather station data for direct observation-based analysis. These areas often correspond to arid regions and high-latitude areas.
If there is a grid with no data, NASA gets to invent a number. The question is, do you trust NASA to invent an honest number … After decades of predicting dangerous global warming?
UAH data are collected by men who give the impression of being honest scientists.
They do not receive any specific outside funding from private or special interest groups for their climate work.
Because his current funding is closely tied to projects led by John Christy—who is set to retire in July 2026—Roy Spencer has indicated he may also retire around that time due to the expected “lack of funding from the federal government”.
” This (UAH) record shows that from January 2019 to January 2023, the temperatures dropped by approximately 0.5 °C, which indicates that the Earth is cooling.” Joe K
You are data mining 4 years of a 46 year database. That is bad science. Four years is weather — it takes 30 to 50 years to be “climate”.
The 2019-2023 Dip:
In January 2019, the UAH global temperature anomaly was approximately +0.37 °C, while by January 2023, it had dropped to -0.04 °C below the 30-year average. This short-term fluctuation was largely driven by a rare “triple-dip” La Niña event, which naturally cools the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere for several years.
The UAH Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through November 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
Your paper was one false climate statement after another. And that was just in the abstract. Of course I didn’t read any further.
This was the worst disinformation:
“This record shows that from January 2019 to January 2023, the temperatures dropped by approximately 0.5 °C, which indicates that the Earth is cooling”
That is data mining 4 years of a 46 year database. The 46 year UAH database clearly shows global warming. Averaging +0.16° C per decade.
The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) global temperature anomaly started rising consistently in March 2023, following a cooler January. The sharpest increases, leading to record-breaking temperatures, occurred from June through October.
Any effects of Hunga Tonga had on the climate would be strongest immediate. The claim that there was a 14th month delay before Hunga Tonga affected the UAH temperature average. is not supported by any science or data.
Major volcanic eruptions that significantly impact weather and climate do so primarily by injecting vast quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, he 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) volcano was unique because it emitted a massive amount of water vapor but a relatively moderate to small amount of sulfur dioxide (\(SO_{2}\)) compared to other major eruptionsSO2 reacts with water to form a haze of sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect incoming solar radiation, causing a global cooling effect that can last for several years.
The 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) volcano was unique because it emitted a massive amount of water vapor but a relatively moderate to small amount of sulfur dioxide.
The 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) volcano was unique because it emitted a massive amount of water vapor but a relatively moderate to small amount of sulfur dioxide SO2 compared to other major eruptions compared to other major eruptions
Hunga Tonga is best known for water vapor injected into the stratosphere. Water injected into the stratosphere will have much stronger effects in the first few months than after a year.
Hunga Tonga had no visible effect on the global average temperature for the first few months. Water vapor in the stratosphere dissipates over time.
If Hunga Tonga’s water vapor had no visible in the data effect on the global average temperature for the first few months, then the partially dissipated water vapor almost certainly didn’t have any visible in the data effect on the global temperature starting over a year later.
Jungletrunks. There are significant challenges when trying to understand the effects of the planets on solar activity and then climate:
1. There are too many cycles, even when considering only the Jovian planets.
2. We don’t know how much delay there is within the Sun, or in Earth’s response to the variations in solar activity. It’s also likely to vary with period. My current estimate is 15 years total for 60-year cycles and 100 years for 900-year cycles.
3. We don’t know how the Sun affects climate. Is it variations in: long-wave radiation, short-wave radiation, magnetic fields or some combination of these?
4. There may be global, or hemispherical trends, but there isn’t one global climate.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that most of the cycles are harmonically related, so even the most complex solar-driven climate pattern—at a given location—should eventually repeat. One of those repetition periods is 3560 years. Unfortunately the 2400-year Bray cycle becomes inverted when shifted 3560 years which likely explains some of the inversions in the following plots.
Here’s an animated version of one temperature reconstruction from the GISP2 ice core.
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding.gif
Here’s a different GISP2 reconstruction plus reconstructions from the NGRIP and NEEM ice cores.
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
You might want to note that the termination of the Younger-Dryas event aligns with the 8.2ka event after shifting and that the shifted 8.2ka event aligns with the 4.7ka event, which aligns with the Dark Ages Cold Period after shifting.
The 3560-year shift is identical for all of these plots. The value comes from the orbits of the Sun and Jovian planets around the barycenter. It wasn’t tweaked to fit any paleoclimate record.
“Coincidently”, why worry about spelling now! Mostly fat old fingers on a tiny smart phone.
Robert Culter’s comment
“2. We don’t know how much delay there is within the Sun, or in Earth’s response to the variations in solar activity. It’s also likely to vary with period. My current estimate is 15 years total for 60-year cycles and 100 years for 900-year cycles.”
That is a valid question. One of the current themes is that suns activity is down since the early 1900’s and therefore the sun cant be the cause of the current warming. Yet the current solar activity remains greater than during the LIA. (with the caveat that the measurements in the earlier periods lacks sufficient resolution to have a firm handle on the accuracy).
I summary, Robert’s take on the unknown delay effect is reasonable.
You could create thousands of random datasets with the same power spectrum, and slide them along themselves to maximum recorrelation in a 2000-3000 year segment, storing the correlation coefficient each time, and determine at what statistical significance level that repeating signal exceeds random chance.
I think you’ve missed the point, Paul. Every location on Earth will have a different power spectrum due to different linear, and nonlinear responses, and because solar forcing varies by latitude. The only thing they have in common are the core periodicities in the solar forcing.
Happy New Year to All
Hi Robert, good to see you.
Coincedently, I queried AI further since I posted the hypothesis for a cascade of events leading to cooling, my focus was on solar.
I asked AI if there’s any notable decline in solar output since 2022. Its answer:
Yes, there has been recognized reduced solar activity since 2022, particularly as Solar Cycle 25 has shown variability in sunspot numbers and overall solar activity levels. This cycle, which began in December 2019, has experienced periods of lower activity, especially following its peak in October 2024.
This is notable to the question at hand.
Jungletrunks wrote:
This is notable to the question at hand.
Why?
At this point climate change denial just looks more and more comical and desperate.
“Hunga induced circulation changes that reduce stratospheric ozone and lower temperatures also play a role in the net forcing. The change in the radiative flux would result in a very slight 2022/3 cooling in Southern Hemisphere. The Hunga climate forcing has decreased to near zero by the end of 2023.”
from “Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption,” M. R. Schoeberl et al, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, v129 i14 Jul 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041296
I’m struggling to see how ‘at this point’ Javier’s published article is the equivalent of “climate change denial” which has become “more comical and desperate”. Javier correctly identifies a decrease in planetary albedo as being primarily responsible for the 2023/24 warming spike. Where is the climate change denial? How is that comical or desperate? Perhaps it is Javier’s reasoned hypothesis that the 2023/24 reduction in albedo (itself just a marked acceleration in the trend since 2000 – see CERES data) was connected to the unprecedented stratospheric water vapour injection (10% excursion) caused by HTHH, which affected global circulation dynamics? That being the case, how is that even ‘[man-made] climate change denial’? Unless of course you are confidently asserting that the 2023/24 warming spike was ‘undeniably’ anthropogenic, not natural, i.e. the decrease in planetary albedo was caused by GHGs (non linear feedbacks) and/or anthropogenic aerosol load variations. So please clarify.
I asked AI this complex question: How might the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 relate to the Hunga Tonga eruption in 2022? There’s a number of overlapping climatic events occurring post Hunga Tonga eruption, including what’s been described as a strong El Niño between 2023-2024, followed by abrupt global SST cooling beginning in early 2024-2025. The El Niño coincided with solar phase fluctuations between 2022-2024, peak solar activity occurred in October 2024, abrupt SST cooling began early in the first quarter of 2024 with a subsequent period of low solar activity. The Mount Tambora occurred during the middle of the Dalton minimum, a significant minimum has not been declared for Earth. The conflation of multiple events creates difficulty in determining recent abrupt changes to climate. Also consider the 2023 event “El Niño” (for lack of a better explanation), was caused by a drastic decrease in global cloud cover causing the planet to significantly warm, yet the oceans cooled post El Niño event. Provide theoretical solar explorations, what might be happening, as it relates to the 1815 and 2022 event.
AI:
Relationship between Mount Tambora Eruption and Hunga Tonga Eruption with Focus on Recent Climate Changes
The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 and the Hunga Tonga eruption in 2022 significantly contribute to our understanding of volcanic impacts on climate. Particularly intriguing is the relationship between these events and recent trends in global climate, especially the unexpected cooling of global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) after the 2023-2024 El Niño event, which was coincidentally linked to changes in cloud cover.
Key Connections Between Events
Volcanic Influence on Climate:
The Tambora eruption released considerable ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, leading to a marked decrease in global temperatures, exemplified by the “Year Without a Summer” in 1816.
The Hunga Tonga eruption, occurring in a contemporary context, also released large volumes of ash and gases, which could influence global atmospheric conditions and climate patterns.
El Niño Dynamics and Global Temperature Responses:
Typically, El Niño events result in higher sea surface temperatures and widespread weather impacts. However, the 2023-2024 El Niño, characterized by a significant decrease in global cloud cover, led to abrupt warming on land.
Surprisingly, in the aftermath of this event, global ocean temperatures experienced a stark cooling, which contrasts with expected post-El Niño behaviors where warming typically persists.
Understanding the Abrupt Global SST Cooling
Unexpected Ocean Cooling:
The global cooling observed was too rapid to be solely explained by standard oceanic processes like upwelling or circulation, which typically adjust heat distribution over a longer period.
Succeeding the El Niño, significant changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions likely influenced SSTs globally, rather than causing localized effects.
Mechanisms Behind the Cooling:
Cloud Cover Reduction: The drastic decrease in global cloud cover during the El Niño may have initially allowed for increased solar heating. However, the lack of cloud insulation could have subsequently led to elevated heat loss from the ocean surfaces.
Atmospheric Dynamics: Complex interactions in atmospheric circulation patterns following the El Niño may have transported cooler air masses over the oceans, contributing to the observed cooling.
Theoretical Explanations: Currently, the precise mechanisms leading to this abrupt cooling are not fully understood, emphasizing the intricacy of the climate system.
Solar Activity and Future Implications
Connections to Solar Activity:
The 2023-2024 El Niño coincided with fluctuations in solar activity, peaking in October 2024. The following decline in solar output could interact with climatic conditions, particularly during a potential transition toward a significant solar minimum.
Notably, the Dalton Minimum occurring during late 18th and early 19th century, mirrors current conditions with reduced solar activity potentially influencing future climate patterns.
Theoretical Solar Extrapolations:
If the planet enters a significant solar minimum, as suggested by decreased solar activity post-2024, we could experience pronounced cooling effects akin to those seen during historical minimums like the Dalton Minimum, potentially compounding the effects of volcanic eruptions.
Understanding the interactions between increased volcanic activity and solar fluctuations could be crucial in predicting future climate scenarios.
Conclusion
The intertwining of the Mount Tambora and Hunga Tonga eruptions with recent climatic phenomena offers essential insights into the complexities of Earth’s climate. The unexpected global cooling of SSTs following the 2023-2024 El Niño, despite initial warming, suggests significant interactions between atmospheric dynamics and ocean conditions. As global climate continues to evolve, particularly in relation to solar activity, ongoing research is essential to decipher their implications for future climate behavior, especially in light of historical precedents like the Dalton Minimum.
AI missed a key point in the question posed to it.
The follow-up reply:
Contribution of Low Solar Activity (2024-2025) to Global Oceanic Cooling
The low solar activity observed during 2024-2025 likely contributed to global oceanic cooling. Here’s a detailed examination of how this phenomenon can influence ocean temperatures:
Mechanisms of Influence
Reduction in Solar Irradiance:
Low solar activity leads to decreased solar irradiance, which directly reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. This lack of energy can lower ocean temperatures, particularly when sustained over time.
Cooling Feedback Loops:
Reduced solar energy can initiate feedback mechanisms. Cooler ocean temperatures can increase cloud cover, leading to further reduction in sunlight penetration and perpetuating a cycle of cooling.
Influence on Ocean Currents:
Diminished solar energy can affect wind patterns and, by extension, ocean currents. If the strength or direction of significant ocean currents changes due to low solar activity, it may alter heat distribution, favoring global ocean cooling.
Historical Parallels:
Similar to historical climate patterns seen during periods like the Dalton Minimum, the recent low solar activity may have contributed to observable cooling trends.
Considerations and Interactions
Complex Climate Dynamics:
While low solar activity is a factor, other influences such as volcanic eruptions (like Hunga Tonga) and oceanic phenomena (like El Niño) also play critical roles. The interplay amongst these elements makes it harder to isolate the specific contribution of solar output.
Short Duration Effects:
The duration of low solar activity is relatively short, but its effects may still be significant, particularly when combined with other climatic influences at play during that period.
Conclusion
The low solar activity during 2024-2025 most likely contributed to global oceanic cooling through mechanisms such as decreased solar irradiance and shifts in atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. Understanding these interactions is key to comprehending recent climate trends, particularly in the context of concurrent volcanic activity and other climatic phenomena.
“The low solar activity during 2024-2025”
JT
There was not low solar activity during 2024-2025; instead, Solar Cycle 25 reached its predicted peak (solar maximum) around late 2024 or mid-2025, with scientists initially expecting a weaker cycle but finding it became stronger, leading to significant sunspots, solar flares, and radio blackouts, with the cycle now in its declining phase.
The statement was that the Sun reached peak solar maximum in October 2024: https://www.sidc.be/article/sc25-maximum-october-2024
Not to over dramatize falling solar irradiance, the end of the 11 year cycle is 2030. But there’s been a decline in solar irradiance since the recent peak in October 2024, this should have influenced cooling SST which is why it’s relevant for the interim period in question only. The prediction by solar scientists back in 2019 was that the solar maximum would be reached in August 2025, it didn’t happen that way, so far. It reached peak month a year earlier than what the experts predicted, but of course it can go back up again to redefine what the max is for this solar cycle, it just hasn’t yet, probably won’t if it doesn’t this year. A solar maximum is technically defined by the couple years surrounding the peak month in the cycle (which is why it hasn’t been officially declared yet). We’re a few years away from witnessing anything “excitable” solar wise, but I find the 15 month decline excitable only to the extent that the evidence says Earth witnessed a highly unusual climatic event recently, for all the reasons stated, and during the interim period solar irradiance declined, it was likely a contributing factor to SST cooling.
An interesting solar tidbit may help explain one of Javier’s bullet points as it relates to solar activity and cloud formation early in solar cycle 25 in the lead-up phase towards Oct. 24 solar maximum:
“The biggest global low cloud cover anomaly ever recorded occurred in 2023.”
From the provided link: Solar data indicates that the 10.7cm radio flux, the number of solar flares, and cosmic rays have reached values not seen in 20 or more years. The recent increasing trend is a result from the high-speed, low-density solar wind streams associated with (the return of) large coronal holes affecting the Earth’s magnetosphere.
One indirect pathway effecting Earth’s climate from the before information can be considered:
Cloud Formation—Changes in cosmic rays associated with solar wind variations can alter cloud formation processes. Some studies suggest that increased cosmic rays may enhance cloud nucleation, potentially influencing local weather patterns and climate.
Can cosmic rays really help clouds form?
https://climatecosmos.com/climate-science/can-cosmic-rays-really-help-clouds-form-2/
The recent article doesn’t consider the Hunga Tonga eruption, the interaction of its abundant aerosols with the recent ramp-up of cosmic rays—a glaring omission for an article published Oct. 2025.
JT
I hesitate to weigh in on solar since I don’t have strong beliefs either way. Except that about a decade ago I did an exhaustive review of the literature, most of it identifying a solar/climate connection and it seemed as if the substance was too great to just dismiss as the work of a bunch of whack jobs who were being paid under the table by Big Oil.
Hopefully in a few more decades there will be greater clarity on the role of the sun in our climate.
cerescokid wrote:
I hesitate to weigh in on solar since I don’t have strong beliefs either way. Except that about a decade ago I did an exhaustive review of the literature, most of it identifying a solar/climate connection
You should have kept to your hesitation.
No one has ever denied a solar/climate relationship. You can’t prove they have. James Hansen always includes it in his monthly reports. All IPCC ARs have included numbers regarding a climate/solar_intensity relationship.
And you can’t prove otherwise.
Nor accept that the relationship is quite small, ~0.05 K/(W/m2).
ungletrunks wrote:
But there’s been a decline in solar irradiance since the recent peak in October 2024, this should have influenced cooling SST which is why it’s relevant for the interim period in question only.
By how much?
Odd that you don’t try to say.
Reminder:
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2)
for sunlight impinging on the Earth, assuming the Earth is a blackbody.
It’s not substantial.
“Surprisingly, in the aftermath of this (2023/2024 El Nino) event, global ocean temperatures experienced a stark cooling, which contrasts with expected post-El Niño behaviors where warming typically persists.”
JT
WRONG:
After an El Niño event ends, the equatorial Pacific Ocean typically cools, transitioning towards a “neutral” state or often into the opposite phase, La Niña, characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures, as warm water shifts and normal wind patterns return, leading to ocean cooling and deep-water upwelling.
The operating phrase was “global SST cooling”. Read Javiers article, also SST charts and discussion was posted in recent threads.
Hi Javier, I agree that Honga-Tonga-Hunga is cadidate No.1 to explain the 2023/24 bump in SST and GMST. A few months ago I made a regression of global GISS vs. ERF data following Forster et al (2025). This is the result: https://i.imgur.com/Kgk9T7U.jpeg . Only the past vulcanos produced such big residuals. All to “plus” due to the well known overcompensation in the ERF data. Result: The bump was NOT caused by GHG but Hunga-Tonga-Hunga was a trigger for some cloud feedback leading to less low level clouds.
Hi Frank. To me it is very clear that the 2023 climate event is well outside internal variability and the small anthropogenic radiative forcing yearly increase. There is no other possibility but an externally forced climate event, and Hunga Tonga is the only big enough factor I can identify.
I’ve always agreed with your position on this Javier; HTHH is the most likely explanation. As you noted, ENSO timing was all wrong, and the El Niño wasn’t special. I also don’t believe the spike was solar related except for the coincidence of stratospheric water vapor and the rather unremarkable solar cycle 25.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvENSOv2.png
The only other similar spike was in 1877 — amazing similarity so far.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2510.png
While I briefly considered the “wet” Askja volcano to explain the 1877 spike—it had similar timing—I now am reasonably confident that the 1877 spike was due to solar activity.
Sunspot data prior to 1800 lacks accuracy, but planetary orbital data from the JPL Horizons system does not. While Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions occur every 19.86 years, on average, the actual interval can vary from ~19.4 to ~20.3 years. The conjunctions vary in other ways as well. As you can see from this plot, the 20-year conjunctions form ~60-year cycles. They also vary over ~900 years.
I’ve observed that major ENSO events lag these conjunctions by ~15 years.
https://localartist.org/media/JupiterSaturnConnectionAMO.png
Not to dismiss the climatic impact of Mt. Tamboro’s 1815 eruption I’ll add that the 60-year conjunctions prior to “The Great Drought” in1877, were similar and would have impacted weather in 1817 and 1757 – assuming a 15-year delay.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote about two droughts separated by 60 years:
Monticello Sep. 8. 1816
“We have had the most extraordinary year of drought & cold ever known in the history of America. in June, instead of 3¾ I. our average of rain for that month, we had only ⅓ of an inch, in Aug. instead of 9⅙ I. our average, we had only 8⁄10 of an inch. and it still continues. the summer too has been as cold as a moderate winter. in every state North of this there has been frost in every month of the year; in this state we had none in June & July. but those of Aug. killed much corn over the mountains. the crop of corn thro’ the Atlantic states2 will probably be less than ⅓ of an ordinary one, that of tobo still less, and of mean quality. the crop of wheat was midling in quantity, but excellent in quality. but every species of bread grain taken together will not be sufficient for the subsistence of the inhabitants; and the exportation of flour, already begun by the indebted and the improvident, to whatsoever degree it may be carried, will be exactly so much taken from the mouths of our own citizens. my anxieties on this subject are the greater, because I remember the deaths which the drought of 1755. in Virginia, produced from the want of food.”
In summary, I think solar explains many things, but not the 2023 spike.
Hi Javier, again I agree! However the (radiative) forcing allone is by far not sufficient as one sees it in the residuals. IMO we are looking for a (low cloud) feedback after this huge amount of water vapour injection in the stratosphere. The (classical) definition of “forcing” does not imply feedbacks, possibly a mistake.
Frank, I found the Forster et al 2025 linked at https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/
and from there the link to 2025 climate data linked at https://zenodo.org/records/15639576 .
I would like to see a comment here by Nic Lewis on this 2025 climate data, and particularly the ERF and earth energy balance data that he uses in his ECS and TCR estimates.
I also plan to look further into your GMST and ERF relationship and residuals. Your approach has interested me from a statistical viewpoint.
Hi Kenneth, glad to read that the regression seems to be interesting for you. Indeed, it doesn’t solve the mystery of 2023-25. There is IMO only one way out if the ERF data are okay: A (cloud) feedback triggered by the HTH- eruption. Let me know any progress of you!
It is expected that there will be a high correlation of GMST with global ERF. In the case of the data extracted from https://zenodo.org/records/15639576 that was the case as shown in the Dropbox link below. The GMST was regressed against ERF for the periods 1850-2024 and 1970-2024 with resulting adjusted R squared values of 0.80 and 0.82, respectively.
The starting date 1970 and after looks less spread out and was a good choice for frankclimate using that period for his analysis. His approach of using the regression residuals was a straightforward way of visualizing the apparent outlier years from what could otherwise be a reasonably good fit of the GMST and ERF relationship. I was interested in establishing in a formal and least arbitrary manner the years that could be considered outliers. To that end I used cooks distance with the threshold of 4/n were n is the number of data points.
It turns out that the years 1983, 1991, 1992 and 2024 are considered outliers by cooks distance. Those years’ data were removed from the series and the series regressed. The result of the regression had an adjusted R squared value of 0.90 with the residuals well within the range for a valid regression for normality, homoskedasticity, exogeneity of the independent variable and autocorrelation.
That high correlation without the outliers indicates that the measured GMST tracks the measured ERF very well with the exception of the outlier years. The outliers all had measured GMST values higher than predicted by the measured ERF values – given the fitted values trend line. There were years that the data points approached the threshold for outliers but did not meet it.
I do not have an explanation for the outliers at this time other than what I have read here for the year 2024 but would be interested to know if there are published papers that looked at this issue in the manner of frankclimate and have hypothesized an explanation.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/txj5jy9g0igk27y1ty0wz/ForceTemperature.pdf?rlkey=g2yj8wxzf25p5kukoufuwr1to&st=dkmsx1za&dl=0
Hi Kenneth, my outcome for (all plus) outliers also after volcano events that have a cooling influence on the GMST: An overestimation of the impact of the ERF volcano (coming from AOD) on the GMST. In the end we see a very strong ERF volcano (i.e. -1.74 W/m² in 1992) and a GMST response which is only a few tenth of a degree. This leads to + Residuals.
Your 1991-1992 outliers follow the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
Javier: …correctly due to the overestimation of ERF volcano values when looking at the GMST.
Frank and Javier, I have used past volcanic eruptions in my analysis comparing observed and individual climate model GMST series in the historical period to differentiate the temperature changes due to measured forcing and unforced noise in the manner of “Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise” and linked at https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09957 . I used smoothing to estimate temperature changes due to forcing minus the noise and in turn used the evidence of temperature changes due to volcanic activity to determine the optimum level of smoothing to produce temperature changes relatively noise free. The volcanic activity always reduced the GMST change by various amounts although sometimes by quite small amounts.
Below I had Google AI reference from 1970 to present the major volcanic intensity in VEI and top SO2 emitters in Mt. My interest was for the outlier years that I found in my analysis.
As would be expected from intensity and SO2 emissions, Mount Pinatubo caused the largest outlier year and its above trendline effects can be seen for the 1991 and 1992 outlier years and a non-outlier effect above the trendline in 1993.
El Chichon erupting in 1982 was the only VEI 5 eruption that caused an outlier year – which was in 1983. That volcano produced much SO2 and increased the stratospheric temperature more than other VEI 5 volcanos listed below.
HungaTonga was a VEI 5-6 volcano that erupted in 2022. The years 2023 and 2024 were above the trendline with 2024 being an outlier year. Perhaps the uniqueness of that volcano being under water has something to do to the longer delay of the outlier year appearance. It was ranked last for the top SO2 emitting volcanoes,
What I got from the volcano discussion here is that there are volcanoes with sufficiently large SO2 emissions that the negative forcing is over estimated and thus pushes the data point to the left in my plots and thereby producing outliers while, on the other hand, the Hunga Tonga eruption by occurring under water put sufficient moisture into the atmosphere to push the data point upward from the trend line and thereby causing an outlier year. The low SO2 emission for Hunga Tonga would have little effect on pushing the data point leftward.
Volcanic Intensity from Google AI:
Since 1970, several major volcanic eruptions have occurred, with the most intense being the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (VEI 6) and the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption in 2022 (VEI 5-6). Intensity is measured using the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), which ranges from 0 to 8.
Here are some of the significant volcanic eruptions from 1970 to the present and their approximate VEI:
• Mount St. Helens, USA (1980): This eruption was the most deadly and economically destructive in U.S. history, ejecting over 1 cubic mile of material. It had a VEI of 5.
• El Chichón, Mexico (1982): A powerful eruption that caused significant destruction and had a VEI of 5.
• Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia (1985): Known for its devastating lahars (volcanic mudflows) that killed an estimated 23,000 people. The eruption itself was a VEI of 3.
• Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (1991): The second-largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century. It injected massive amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, causing temporary global cooling. It registered a VEI of 6.
• Mount Hudson, Chile (1991): A large eruption that occurred around the same time as Pinatubo, with a VEI of 5.
• Puyehue-Cordón Caulle, Chile (2011-2012): This eruption created a massive ash plume that traveled around the Southern Hemisphere. It was rated at VEI 5.
• Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai, Tonga (2022): A unique, powerful submarine eruption that generated a mega-tsunami and atmospheric shockwaves that circled the globe. The intensity was a VEI of 5-6.
Ranking volcanoes for SO2 emitted with amount in Mt and year of eruption from Google AI :
Mt. Pinatubo 15 – 20 Mt 1991
El Chichón 7 – 7.5 Mt 1982
Raikoke 1.5 – 2.1 Mt 2019
Nabro~1.5 Mt 2011
Mt. St. Helens ~1.0 Mt 1980
Hunga Tonga 0.4 – 0.5 Mt 2022
For completeness I did a cooks distance for outliers in the regression of GMST versus global ERF for the 1850-2024 period. I found 12 outlier years which were as follows: 1863, 1873, 1884, 1885, 1944, 1963, 1964, 1983, 1992, 2016, 2023 and 2024. All those years can be associated with major volcanic eruptions and all appear above the trend line, On removing the outliers and regressing those series, the R square value went from 0.80 to 0.86 and with residuals that better validated the regression.
Very interesting article to me. After I read the first one, I wondered how the predictions would end up.
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
Without any climate knowledge, I knew instantly that this would have an enormous impact, globally, based on what I heard of watermolecules have a 1000x more effect on temperature behavior then CO2. No computers, just common sense.
Einstein thought that in this universe, stupidity was one of the 2 things which were infinite. Me included, why not “climate guru’s”.
What I like to know if somebody ever thought of measuring radio activity in that area.
More or less helping nature (narrative) at a seismic sensitive crack.
Two facts about climate science you need to learn:
(1) The difference between a climate forcing and climate feedback.
(2) The stratosphere contains only 1% of all atmospheric water vapor. If Hunga Tonga increased stratospheric water vapor by 10%, that means total atmospheric water vapor only increased 0.1%. That tiny percentage increase of atmospheric water vapor explains why Hunga Tonga had no visible effect on the global average temperature.
“Without any climate knowledge, I knew instantly that this would have an enormous impact, globally” BolTune
Your prediction was wrong.
CO2 as a “Forcing”:
CO2 is a non-condensable gas that remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Humans can directly control its levels, making it the primary driver of current warming trends.
Water Vapor as a “Feedback”:
Water vapor is short-lived, typically cycling through the atmosphere in about 10 days. Its concentration is a function of temperature (governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation); as CO2 warms the planet, more water evaporates, which in turn increases the warming caused by CO2 alone.
ENSO is the leading factor explaining the 2023-2024 temperature spike. It had and outsized impact compared to every event since the 1870s because it evolved differently from all events since that time. The sequence of Nina, Nina, Nina, Nino and the rapid transition between them, coming from a starting point with substantial warm water volume, and including the effects on the middle latitudes (each sequential Niña storing heat in the middle latitude and tropical oceans), and the Nino emerging quickly and being insufficient to remove the Nina accumulated heat, meant that the Nino associated tropical heat wasn’t offset as it normally would be by extratropical cooling driven by westerlies.
But the El Niño event in 2023-2024 WAS special. Amplitude is only part of it. A similar thing happened in the ENSO event of the late 1870s. Normally El Niño warm signals of the Pacific tropics are offset in the global average by cold anomalies that occur concurrently near the Maritime Continent and in the middle latitudes, but the triple preceding Nina events compounded warmth into these regions and made it impossible for the El Niño event to offset them in a single year, so, the Nino tropical warmth coexisted with Nina extratropical warmth and Maritime Continent warmth, leading to all the anomalies pointing in the same direction. Also helping the event was that the Nino event emerged so rapidly, so that neutral conditions in the interim were insufficient to substantially cool the middle latitudes and Maritime Continent region. Further, the atmospheric Rossby wave response to the developing event had a different shape from normal ENSO, because the lack of cool signal near the Maritime Continent changed the wave train. It meant that blocking patterns emerged from the subtropics toward the pole in the Atlantic basin (for example), leading to incredibly high SST there spring 2023.
Short and long term influences interact. It takes 600 years or more….
The Global Conveyor Belt serves as a model for the mechanism of how heat is transported throughout the ocean. Global thermohaline circulation is a relatively slow process. Radiocarbon measurements show that deep water in the ocean is replaced by new bottom water only every 600 years. Although slow, global thermohaline circulation is important because of the large amount of upper ocean water converted into deep bottom water, approximately 15,000,000 cubic meters per second (m3/s) in the Atlantic ocean basin. As a comparison, all the rivers in the world combined deliver about 1,000,000 (m3/s) of fresh water into the ocean. Although the motion of water in the ocean is complex and affected by many different factors, scientists can use the global conveyor belt model to help make predictions about global ocean circulation.
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/density-driven-currents/climate-connection-global-conveyor-belt
In contradiction to the warmist idiocy which Ritard Greene bleats, that with which I’ve already stomped his brain into a creamy paste on CFACT:
Based upon an analysis of over 60 million daily temperature observations from over 1600 global weather stations, with continuous records spanning from the pre-1900 era to 2024:
From 1983 to 2024, temperature increased by 0.697 K (0.017 K yr-1).
From 1899 to 1940, temperature increased by 0.902 K (0.022 K yr-1). Back when atmospheric CO2 concentration and CO2 emission rate was much lower.
You’ll note that’s a steeper rise than from 1983 to 2024. When atmospheric CO2 concentration and CO2 emission rate was much higher.
https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/revisiting-co2-emissions-and-global-warming-implications-for-soci/
“This paper revisits the relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming by analysing over 60 million daily temperature observations from over 1600 global weather stations, with continuous records spanning from the pre-1900 era to 2024.
The analysis reveals a significant disconnect between the rise in annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rate of temperature change. Notably, the period of the sharpest warming occurred in the early 20th century when CO2 emission levels were modest. In contrast, subsequent periods with rapidly accelerating CO2 emissions experienced slower warming or even cooling trends. These findings challenge the conventional assumption that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, highlighting key gaps in our understanding and calling for a more critical approach in research, education, and a thorough reassessment of the premise underlying current climate policies.”
https://notrickszone.com/2025/12/30/new-study-finds-a-higher-rate-of-global-warming-from-1899-1940-than-from-1983-2024/
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Now we sit back and watch Ritard Greene re-bleat the same idiocy he attempted on CFACT in defense of his religious belief in the poorly-told and easily-disproved AGW / CAGW scam.
It is called a logarithmic response, not a disconnect. Please, what disproves AGW?
Mr. Kook does not distinguish between real AGW and Imaginary, unproven. CAGW.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a conservative term used to describe the IPCC conclusion. The term is often used as a rhetorical tool or “snarl word” to imply that those who express serious concern about human-caused climate change are being hysterical or alarmist … which is true.
Liberals have been predicting climate doom for the past 50 years. Probably will for the next 50 years unless they find a better boogeyman. My vote is for predicting an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus.
A list of failed climate predictions (Climate Comedy) should be read every year. Here’s the best article I found recently.
https://www.masterresource.org/co2-climate-optimism/co2-climate-optimism-vs-statism/
AGW contains at least fur different ways that humans can cause global warming:
(1) CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions,
(2) Reducing air pollution
(3) Land use changes (clear cutting forests, economic growth / UHI albedo changes).
(4) GAT measurement errors or bias
(5) Yet unknown manmade causes of warming & it is possible the sum of four causes of AGW, when combined, will cause more warming than each one separately. This concept is known as a synergistic effect or a positive feedback loop.
And then there are at least three climate feedbacks that affect climate in unknown ways. Except to say these feedbacks try to moderate climate forcings and save the planet from runaway warming or runaway cooling.
How does Earth prevent runaway global warming, for one example?
(1) Increased rate of cooling based on The Stefan–Boltzmann Law
(2) Increased evaporation, temporarily cooling Earth’s surface. Some studies suggest increased evaporation can lead to more low-level clouds, which reflect sunlight and provide secondary cooling,
(3) Increased cloudiness (Which may not be happening in the past 25 years, although the % cloudiness data are inaccurate and statistically insignificant too).
(4) Feedbacks yet unknown & it is possible the three feedbacks to global warming, when combined, will moderate warming more than the sum of each one. This concept is known as a synergistic effect or a positive feedback loop.
While Earth has seen many warmer eras, current data suggests our planet has been warmer than today for a significant portion of the last 600 million years, with temperatures often averaging 10°C (18°F) hotter, meaning Earth has spent most of its history in a warmer state, interrupted by periodic ice ages.
Runaway warming has never happened on Earth or we would not be here to discuss it.
Richard Greene wrote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a conservative term used to describe the IPCC conclusion.
When and where has the IPCC ever supported a claim of “catastrophic” climate change.
Link to it.
Quote it.
If you listen to Mr. Kook, which makes no sense:
There is no greenhouse effect.
Humans cannot ’cause global warming.
CO2 causes global cooling, not global warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is currently 95% natural. The correct number is 67%
Global warming from 1899 to 1940 was +0.9 K. (It was actually +0.3 to +0.4 K)
Over 99.9% of scientists are wrong about these 5 facts, per Mr. Kook?
When you remind Mr. Kook that the 99.9% includes Mr. Spencer, Mr. Christy, Mr. Happer, Mr. Lindzen and Ms, Curry, he gets angry and replies with a barrage of insults. Some of which are already in his comment here.
Liberals make many crazy claims about climate science. But they can’t top the crazy claims from Mr. Kook. A man who falsely claims there is only one expert in the world on climate science, and that man is him.
‘ … what disproves AGW?’
Now, Leftist Western Academia wants to redefine the scientific method to prove a politically-driven conjecture.
‘Science needs to advance by following the scientific method. This needs to be independent of culture or any other external influence.’ ~Roger A. Pielke, Sr.
The scientific method does not prove or disprove anything. Science collects evidence to support theories. The evidence becomes stronger if it is collected over a long period of time. And there has been a long period of time for other scientists to falsify the theory.
The theory that there is a greenhouse effect and human CO2 emissions add to it, has been supported by evidence collected over the past 128 years. That’s why scientists have an over 99.9% consensus on the greenhouse effect and AGW. Mr. Kook claims they are all wrong and he is right.
Scientists rarely agree on how much warming CO2 emissions will cause in the long run. They rarely even discuss if global warming is good news or bad news. I have promoted the theory that global warming and more CO2 are both good news … for the past 28 years.
I want to thank the moderator here for publishing all of my posts, which were many. It is rare for any conservative website to publish most, or even any, of my comments.
Of course, no liberal website would allow me to publish a comment because I am anti-windmills, anti-solar panels, anti-batteries and anti-net zero. Liberal heads explode when I tell him I am pro- CO2 and pro-global warming. They usually get upset and stop talking to me about climate change. Then I try to cheer them up by telling them climate change will kill their dog. Which they usually believe.
My climate and energy website with over 1.34 million lifetime page views. 6,000 page views in the past five days:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
“Finally,” Michael Crichton would remind us to notice, “where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
From 1983 to 2024, temperature increased by 0.697 K (0.017 K yr-1).
From 1899 to 1940, temperature increased by 0.902 K (0.022 K yr-1). Back when atmospheric CO2 concentration and CO2 emission rate was much lower.
It’s a clear sign of a befuddled denier to
1) quote warming to three significant figures
2) not give a data source
3) quote notricks
4) act like all climate change is due to CO2
This is someone who should be ignored.
All of the hullabaloo began as a wildly inaccurate of vision of nature known as the greenhouse metaphor that was simply stuck into science, where it remains today despite its departure from reason, as follows:
‘For 190 years the atmosphere has been thought to warm Earth by absorbing a portion of the outgoing LW infrared radiation and reemitting it back toward the surface, thus augmenting the incident solar flux. This conceptualized continuous absorption and downward reemission of thermal radiation enabled by certain trace gases known to be transparent to solar rays while opaque to electromagnetic long-wavelengths has been likened to the trapping of heat by glass greenhouses, hence the term ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’. Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. Nevertheless, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ stuck in science.’ ~Environment Pollution and Climate Change (by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller)
Welcome to the conservative world of greenhouse denialism. You will never be taken seriously by anybody who has even a small amount of climate science knowledge.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect (impedes Earth’s cooling by absorbing upwelling longwave (infrared) radiation that the planet’s surface emits after being heated by the sun) … is not compared to actual greenhouses (a structure preventing convective cooling) inside it, except by you.
Denying the greenhouse effect will not persuade liberals global warming is not dangerous. It will make most people stop listening to you for a very good reason.
77% of registered voters favor being in the Paris climate accord. You won’t change any minds by telling them over 99.9% of scientists have been wrong about the greenhouse effect for 128 years.
https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-politics-and-policy-fall-2025/
You believe 77% of Americans support the Paris climate accords based on a small Yale survey. How about when the country voted for Trump.
Rob, I believe it, based on many polls ranging from 65-80%. What do you think the value is?
advocacy driven public opinion polls are notoriously agenda driven with questions designed to achieve desired results. The only astonishing thing is that people believe they are accurate reflection of public opinion.
Joe,
Yes, that is why I look at multiple polls. And, I note that the percentages increase with education level, particularly in sciences. What do you think the percentages are?
Some people will dismiss the results of any poll when they don’t like the results.
An annual Gallup poll of climate change found that 48% of Americans fear climate change in early 2025. A new record and up from 44% in 2024 and 25% in 1997.
Trump won 49.8% of the popular vote, but he would lose an election today with only a 36% approval level, per Gallup. Trump, living in some fantasy land, recently claimed his approval level was 64%.
My article on public opinion of climate change:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2025/12/thank-you-for-1057-page-views-yesterday.html
I believe support by Americans on the Paris climate Accords is less than 50%.
In a survey it depends exactly what the question is
As stated – the only astonishing thing is that there are people that believe those advocacy driven polls are an accurate reflection of public opinion. The games played with those polls are well known.
Rob Starkey, Your personal opinions are not evidence of anything – polls are.
It doesn’t matter what I believe. Some people will believe anything– e.g., will the single beat of a butterfly’s wing change the world? Some say… Yes! I have my doubts. The scientific method is the only tool we have to separate fact from fiction. A greenhouse is not hot because carbon dioxide is inside any more than a dog will fry in the backseat of a car with the windows rolled up because the CO2 builds up in there.
Michael Crichton Is not a scientist.
He implies if that there is a scientific consensus, then the consensus must be wrong. Perhaps that’s why Mr. Crichton mainly wrote fiction books
Almost every subject in science has a majority opinion. It would be fair to call a majority opinion “a consensus” as long as it was not close to 50% versus 50%. In the long run, a majority of these consensuses will be revised or reversed / deleted. The long run can be 100 or 200 years.
The consensus about the greenhouse theory has based on data and has lasted for 128 years.
The bottom line is a consensus is not automatically right or automatically wrong.
Novelist and physician Michael Crichton’s works and public statements have been highly influential among conservatives in fostering the impression that “consensus science” is most often wrong and politically motivated.
In the world today, few liberals or or conservatives are interested in climate science. Are mainly interested in claiming the other political party is 100% wrong.
So we often get an argument of CO2 does everything versus CO2 does nothing. The Either – Or logical fallacy (False Dilemma or False Dichotomy).
And during these arguments, the key question is never asked: How has the past 50 years of global warming affected your life? Here in southeast Michigan, we have warmer winters and a lot less snow to shovel than 50 years ago. That deserves a climate celebration.
Michael Crichton was a scientist. He held a PhD from the Salk Institute in San Diego. He just found a more lucrative way of using his scientific training.
Javier,
Having a science PhD does not make a scientist, although it is a good, but not necessary, starting point. The parallels between you and Crichton should not be overlooked.
Javier:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_695f2f9453608191a64614e7b669b82d
“No — Michael Crichton did not have a PhD from the Salk Institute in San Diego. That’s a misconception.
Here’s what’s accurate about his education and affiliation with the Salk Institute:
Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and then earned an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1969.
Michael Crichton
After medical school, he served as a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla (near San Diego) from 1969–1970.
That fellowship was a research appointment, not the awarding of a PhD degree.
So while he did conduct postdoctoral research at the Salk Institute, he did not earn a PhD there or anywhere else — his highest degree was his M.D. from Harvard Medical School.’
Javier: Crichton did not hold a PhD from the Salk Institute in San Diego.
The consensus on climate science is perhaps not as strong as you would like us to believe, Mr. Greene. Two polls of published climate scientists showed that 66% of published climate scientists believe that half or more of the current warming is caused by humans. A clear majority, although some of them may have felt that 51% was human caused, but still a clear majority. But nothing like the 97% that the activist propagandists like to bruit about.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
Two polls of published climate scientists showed that 66% of published climate scientists believe that half or more of the current warming is caused by humans.
It’s very odd that you wouldn’t give a link to these purported polls.
https://www.academia.edu/3077313/The_Scientific_Consensus_of_Climate_Change_Revisited
https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/consensus-on-consensus-a-synthesis-of-consensus-estimates-on-huma/
You will have to read past the abstracts–they bury the lede.
Sigh… Twelve years later…
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e
Verheggen’s survey was intended to measure how robust the scientific consensus is on climate change. As the report notes in the Introduction, “The general public is strongly divided over the question of human causation of climate change. Many believe that climate scientists are equally divided with respect to the same question, in contrast to what several studies have found. Perceptions about the level of agreement or disagreement among scientists influence people’s acceptance of scientific conclusions and their support for related policies.Public perception of climate change and of the scientific consensus on the subject, in turn, is influenced by ethical, social, and political values and attitudes.”
So it is very surprising that a survey intended to measure the consensus goes to such great lengths to avoid telling us what the answer is.
The answer is very clearly found in the data. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the respondents to the survey believe half or more of recent warming is attributable to human emissions of CO2.
That is the answer.
Now look at the only mention of that figure in the report: “There are two ways of expressing the level of consensus, based on these data: as a fraction of the total number of respondents (including undetermined responses), or as a fraction of the number of respondents who gave a quantitative or qualitative judgment (excluding undetermined answers). The former estimate cannot exceed 78% based on Q1, since 22% of respondents gave an undetermined answer. A ratio expressed this way gives the appearance of a lower level of agreement. However, this is a consequence of the question being difficult to answer, due to the level of precision in the answer options, rather than it being a sign of less agreement.
As a fraction of the total, the level of agreement based on Q1 and Q3 was 66% and 83%, respectively, for all respondents, and 77% and 89%, respectively, for the quartile with the highest number of self-declared publications. As a fraction of those who expressed an opinion (i.e., excluding the undetermined answers), the level of agreement based on Q1 and Q3 was 84% and 86%, respectively, for all respondents, and 91% and 92%, respectively, for the quartile with the highest number of self-declared publications.”
In journalism that is known as ‘burying the lede.’ In climate science it is perhaps best known as ‘hiding the decline,’ in this case the decline in the consensus from the 97% invented by pseudo-scientist John Cook (who is actually a cartoonist), who actually is part of Verheggen’s team.
I don’t care what the percentage is for the quartile with the highest number of self-declared publications. (Number of publications is a notoriously poor indicator of expertise in science, although it is a good indicator of networking ability and writing skills.) How strong is the consensus?
I don’t care what the fraction is of those who expressed an opinion. ‘I don’t know’ is a valid answer to this question. (Surveyors will sometimes remove those saying ‘I don’t know’ to questions like “Do you prefer the purple car or the red car?” But never for a question like this.) How strong is the consensus?
And I most certainly don’t care that the question is ‘difficult to answer.’ It’s a difficult question. Had you consulted me or any of 10,000 market researchers with the requisite level of skill in writing surveys we could have made it a bit easier for respondents to express their true perceptions on this issue. But this is the question you have and these are the answers you have.
It is painfully obvious they are trying to bury the answer. They refer to it as Q1, not as the question that inspired the survey. They conflate it in the same sentence with a follow up question. In the same paragraph they try to dilute its impact by citing higher percentages for sub-groups of respondents, those with a high number of publications and the total of those who didn’t say ‘I don’t know.’
What percentage of practicing climate scientists believe half or more of recent warming is caused by human emissions of CO2?
Any answer other than 66% is dishonest.
The survey done by Verheggen et al is a good survey. The data they gathered is useful, relevant and important.
The report–not so much.
Sigh… https://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray_and_von_Storch_Surveys_on_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_3_report_codebook_and_XLS_data
Von Storch Bray 2008
In 2008, Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray surveyed 375 scientists from 34 countries who had authored papers in peer-reviewed climate journals. 65% had worked in climate science for more than 10 years and 66% had authored more than 6 papers. 78% of them were working in the physics of climate science, on model development, data acquisition, etc.
And 66% were either ‘very much convinced’ (35%) or ‘convinced’ (32%) that ‘most of recent or near future warming is/will be a result of anthropogenic causes. Furthermore, 62% were ‘very much convinced’ (35%) or ‘convinced 28%) that ‘climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity.’
But because the survey also disclosed that climate scientists had very real issues with the quality of data they were working with and the ability of current models to predict precipitation in the future, the Alarmists don’t really like to talk about the von Storch Bray survey. Besides, 66% doesn’t sound… convincing enough.
Verheggen et al 2012
Atmospheric scientist Bart Verheggen teamed up with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency to conduct a larger survey of climate scientists in 2012 . (Disclosure—I offered some advice to Verheggen on how to field the survey.) 1,868 scientists participated. The research went out of their way to insure that those skeptical of climate science were included in the survey. Some of the skeptics had not published in peer-reviewed journals—many had, as had all of those recruited in other ways.
More or less replicating the von Storch findings, Verheggen’s study found that 66% of the respondents felt that more than half of the global warming since the middle of the 20th Century was anthropogenic in origin. Those who felt that way were far more confident in their perception than those who felt that humans had been responsible less than 50% of the current warming period. This is a solid consensus about recent climate change.
Again, the survey has not been frequently cited by Alarmists—66% just isn’t sexy enough. So Alarmists went to work to create a false picture of a consensus that would satisfy their needs. Cue John Cook, Jim Prall and Stefan Lewandowsky…
would satisfy their needs. Cue John Cook, Jim Prall and Stefan Lewandowsky…
The Disturbing Data From The Surveys
I mentioned above that one reason Alarmists don’t use these surveys in their discussion of climate change is that some of the data might not be helpful to their cause. Here are some examples.
In the Bray von Storch survey:
• 43% of the surveyed climate scientists said that the direction of research in climate science has been influenced by external politics in the last 10 years, either ‘very much’ or ‘much’.
• Only 9% said that atmospheric models are adequate in dealing with vapor in the atmosphere and only 1% said they were adequate in dealing with clouds. 2% said the models were adequate in dealing with precipitation.
• Only 5% said the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence and only 5% said the same for land surface processes. 9% said the same for sea ice and 32% said the same for anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
• Only 9% said that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of model temperatures for the next 50 years.
In the Verheggen et al study:
• 30% of respondents set the lower bound for sensitivity at below 1.5C. 38% gave their best estimate for sensitivity at 2.4C or below.14% gave their upper bound for sensitivity at 4.4C or below.
• 46% of these climate scientists believe that the lower bound for sea level rise this century is below 26 centimeters. 40% believe the upper limit for sea level rise this century is below 70 cm.
This is why the Konsensus turned to John Cook, Prall et al, and Stefan Lewandowsky. The consensus wasn’t strong enough so they had to manufacture a Potemkin Village of opinion, a Konsensus.
Thomas Fuller,
Thanks for reminding us what climate change consensus was like 20 years ago. Should we remind you of all the results in the 90-100% range from climate scientists since then, or are you just cherry-picking and willfully ignorant?
Bushwah, show me the money. Where are your citations? David Appell wants to know.
Fullerofit,
https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370
And references therein.
So, even better. Michael Crichton was a postdoc at a research institution, which is a research position.
Saying that he was not a scientist is incorrect.
“…evidence for human-induced climate change.”
As a politically endorsed enforcement mechanism, any percent can be ascribed: 100%, 30%, 15%, 5%–these are all available made-up metrics to draw from within a tyranny of science conceptualization, unless a figure can be quantified beyond feelings; otherwise prove that any poll is valid science. Ascribing any percent for causation is purely a subjective endorsement that utilizes politics as a mechanism for action–unless it can be scientifically quantified–I haven’t seen this. Correlation as a representing of causation isn’t good enough, how many times need it be said.
ganon The Technician
I’ve read the Lynas, 2021 study that is linked in your link.
Table 4 shows that out of 1,000 studies they reviewed , 760 took no position. I’ve been working feverishly to make 760 become 1% of 1,000, but to date have been unsuccessful. I will keep at it for a few more hours, interrupted by the NFL game of course. I’m sure if I keep torturing the data I can come up with the 1%.
Babushka, from the article in the Conversation that you link to: ” US researchers examined the peer-reviewed literature and found more than 99% of climate scientists now endorse the evidence for human-induced climate change.”
Many skeptics and lukewarmers such as myself do too. What the papers I cite say is that 66% of published climate scientists believe that half or more of the current warming is caused by human activity.
Or can’t you read?
Tommy boy, I can read, and I know the difference between “believe” and “believed”. I also noticed the lack of time-frame and references for the 66%. Thanks for fixing that.
Michael Crichton nailed the logic employed by the Left which essentially is, gonna believe what I’m gonna believe and it’s up to you to prove me wrong, science be damned. So, in Crichton’s lecture about space aliens causing global warming, why not believe– the burden of proof is on the deniers, right?
Wagathon wrote:
Michael Crichton nailed the logic employed by the Left which essentially is, gonna believe what I’m gonna believe and it’s up to you to prove me wrong, science be damned.
What projections have climate scientists made that haven’t come true. Surface is warming, sea ice is melting, sea level is rising, ocean is acidifying.
So what hasn’t come true?
Ocean acidification is an impossibility- it:s infinitely buffered…
Wagathon | January 10, 2026 at 3:07 pm |
Ocean acidification is an impossibility- it:s infinitely buffered…
Wrong – everything can be true if you change the meaning of words!!!!
Our ancestors were pleased to live in a much warmer climate in the Eemian, 140,000 years ago. CO2 around 280 ppm. No SUVs.
Wagathon: Absolutely right. Scientific method is based on process: observation, speculation (hypothesis), correlation, and confirmation by evidence current and/or historical (presumptive until refuted), and attempts at refutation.
Jim White wrote:
Our ancestors were pleased to live in a much warmer climate in the Eemian, 140,000 years ago. CO2 around 280 ppm. No SUVs.
So you think changes in atmo CO2 only come from burning fossil fuels?
You gotta lot of learning to do you.
David, you’re missing the point – that CO2 changes after 220 ppm or so make little measurable difference (asymptotic decline in effect), entirely overwhelmed by the other 8 major forces.
Jim, Doubling CO2 from 220 ppm to 440 ppm (~current) is expected to increase earths equilibrium temperature by about 3.5 C. That is measurable.
Le débat sur la contribution du CO 2 à la variabilité climatique, se clôt instantanément dès lors qu’on constate que le réchauffement depuis 300 ans est celui des océans … or iis dont totalement inaccessibles énergétiquement, aux infrarouges et donc au CO2
Seule la série de hiatus solaires depuis 700 ans explique ce redressement climatique et la sortie du « Petit Âge Glaciaire »
Thank you, Blais.
Actually Earth is warmer than Moon not because of the presence of atmosphere, but because of the very strong Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Actually Earth is warmer than Moon not because of the presence of atmosphere, but because of the very strong Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Absurd and stupid.
The average equatorial temperature of the Moon is about 212 K:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
For the Earth it’s about 31 C, or 304 K.
No rotational anything is going to provide an additional 92 C of warming, and you certainly haven’t proven that.
{Sigh}
David Appell wrote:
“No rotational anything is going to provide an additional 92 C of warming, and you certainly haven’t proven that.
{Sigh}”
David, what do you want from me!!!
I have proven it to you already three (3) TIMES!!!
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blais,
No, IR in the wavelength region of Earth’s (and its atmosphere) thermal emissions is strongly absorbed by liquid water. All the relevant IR is absorbed within the first 10 micrometers of the surface, creating heat energy which then diffuses downward through turbulence and diffusion.
Pingback: Die Temperaturen seit 2022 oder das variable Klimasystem – KlimaNachrichten
Javer, I have had a post awaiting moderation for a while now.
That post was up for a while and now it has disappeared. I will repost it. I did some research on volcanos and forcing for that post.
Pingback: Dramatic Fall in Global Temperatures Ignored by Narrative-Captured Mainstream Media – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Oral.sk - Necenzurované správy Dramatický pokles globálních teplot se očividně nehodí klimatické propagandě
Javier, I am giving a brief summary of my analysis of outlier years for GMST and global ERF here. I have had a couple of my analysis summaries buried in the poorly maintained posting system here and do not want to waste my time on another long post in case it is also buried.
In order to obtain meaningful residuals for GMST and ERF for the period 1985-2024, I smoothed the series with a cubic spline in R (smooth.spline with df=7 and spar = 0.75). The smoothing parameters were selected based on obtaining the highest R square value from regression of the smoothed series. The R value for the parameters listed above was 0.96. The residuals come from subtracting the smoothed series from the original series.
Below I am listing some of residuals and ranking (ranked from smallest to largest and 1 to 175) with the year of occurrence. The years that were outliers in the regression of GMST versus ERF are marked with an x following the year.
For ERF:
1884x -1.96 1, 1992x -1.89 2, 1885x -1.19 3, 1964x -1.18 4, 1863x -1.14 5, 1963x -1.07 6, 1873x -0.92,
1862 -0.87 8, 1913 -0.77 9, 1857 -0.73 10, 1993 -0.71 11, 1886 -0.66 12, 1883x -0.61 13, 1944x -0.41 19,
2016x 0.01 59, 2023x 0.04 67, 2024x 0.08 80
For GMST:
1964x -0.20 1, 1976 -0.20 2, 1929 -0.18 3, 1862 -0.18, 1992x -0.13 15, 1884x -0.13 18, 1885x -0.11 23, 134x 0.12 156, 2023x 0.12 155, 2016x 0.15 166, 2024 0.18 169, 1998 0.19 170, 1915 0.19 171, 1900 0.19 172, 1944x 0.23 173, 1877 0.28 174, 1878 0.34 175
ERF rankings of residuals follow the expected pattern from previous analyses where most major volcanic eruption years show highly negative forcing and with a few showing a positive forcing.
GMST rankings provide some more interesting results with regard to 2023 and 2024 being exceptional years for residuals. There were 20 years with more positive residuals than year 2023 and 6 years more positive than Year 2024. A number of those years were intense El Nino years including 1878, 1877, and 1998. The year 1944 had a major eruption of Mt Vesuvius. The year 2016 was a strong El Nino year while 1983 had a major eruption of Mt Kilauea and 1982 and 1983 were El Nino years. Year 2023 and one-half of 2024 were El Nino. The years 1900 and 1915 were El Nino but like years 2023 and 2024, not considered “Super” El Ninos.
1985 should have been 1850.
Pingback: Unormal varmetopp 2024, hvorfor? - Klimarealistene
Pingback: Don't mention the volcano - Climate Discussion Nexus
The issue of the problematic forcing error which frankclimate referenced in this thread was something of which I was vaguely aware but had not analyzed. Recently I did some analysis of the observed GMST and global ERF relationship.
In my analysis I found:
1. A regression for the period 1950-2024 of GMST(Berkeley) versus global ERF and NINO3.4 with the volcano year outliers removed produced an R squared value a little over 0.95. Without the removal and NINO index the R squared value was 0.84.
2. A regression of GMST versus Global ERF for only the volcano years and the period 1850-2024 had an R squared value of 0.69 with slope coefficient approximately one half that of the same coefficient using all years 1850-2024.
My concern is why this difference problem remains with the published ERF data, since we are looking at observed and not modeled data.
I assume the observed ERF values stemming from a volcano are based on the estimated materials put into the atmosphere/stratosphere by the eruption and the temporary lasting radiative effects of those materials. The high correlation of the GMST and ERF in the volcano years indicates to me that the material estimate accuracies do not vary much from eruption to eruption.
I ask the question of Google AI: “Observed GMST and global ERF are very well correlated except for volcano years – why has climate science not corrected this difference?” I received the following reply:
“The lack of “correction” in the observed correlation between Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) and Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) during volcano years is not a failure of oversight, but rather a reflection of the physical limitations of the climate system and current modeling capabilities
The divergence occurs due to several fundamental scientific challenges:
1. Transient Response vs. Equilibrium
GMST and ERF are generally well-correlated over long periods because the Earth has time to reach a new thermal equilibrium. However, volcanic eruptions create a transient forcing that lasts only 1–3 years.
Ocean Thermal Inertia: The deep ocean does not cool as quickly as the surface, creating a lag that prevents the GMST from fully tracking the sharp, temporary spike in volcanic ERF.
Sensitivity Mismatch: Scientists have found that climate sensitivity estimated from short-lived volcanic events can differ by up to 20% from long-term sensitivities, making it difficult to “correct” one using the other.
2. Modeling & Observational Underestimation
Recent research highlights that climate models often struggle to accurately represent the full cooling effect of volcanoes.
Small Eruptions: The cumulative cooling effect of frequent, small-magnitude eruptions is likely underestimated by a factor of two to four in standard projections.
Discrepancy with Proxies: There is a known “mismatch” where climate models often predict stronger volcanic cooling than what is actually recorded in natural proxies like tree rings.
3. Masking by Internal Variability
The cooling signal from volcanoes is frequently obscured or amplified by other natural factors that occur simultaneously.
ENSO Overlap: Phenomena like El Niño can override or mask volcanic cooling. For instance, the warming from a strong El Niño can “cancel out” the expected cooling from an eruption in the GMST record.
Pattern Effects: The location of an eruption matters; equatorial eruptions impact global climate, while high-latitude ones may only affect one hemisphere.
Rather than “correcting” the data to force a correlation, climate scientists use these discrepancies as observational tests to improve understanding of how the Earth’s energy budget responds to rapid shocks.
Would you like to explore how specific eruptions (like Mount Pinatubo vs. Hunga Tonga) have uniquely impacted recent temperature trends?”
I have been previously exposed to the hypothesis presented by Google AI above (of which some are addressed in my analysis) and remain unconvinced to their validity in explaining what I have observed and found.
Fritsch, thank you for your deep probe.
Relative specifically to: 3. Masking by Internal Variability.
Notwithstanding the particulars in the record, I’m very interested in a response to the questions you pose.
Pingback: Frío, lluvia, nieve: ¿cambio climático? – Ejército Remanente🏹 Noticias
Pingback: When Winter Bites Back: What Real Data Says About Climate Hype – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Detrás de los cristales llueve y llueve… Frío, lluvia, nieve: crítica al relato dominante sobre el clima. – Desde la Taifa del Suroeste, junto a la "Raya"
Hi Javier, thanks for the lecture yesterday. To find some clue I made a comparisn of 6 El Ninos for time behaviour and spatial SST patterns. Perhaps this could be helpful. https://i.imgur.com/BnxeYCS.jpeg