H. Sterling Burnett
YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY.
IN THIS ISSUE:
- Hot Summer Due to Many Factors—Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Not One of Them
- Podcast of the Week: Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response: (Guest: Judith Curry, Ph.D.)
- Large Increase in Atmospheric Water Vapor Likely Contributing to Current Heat Waves
- Solar Panels Production Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than the IPCC Admits
- Video of the Week: Climate Lockdowns: The British Change Their Stance
- BONUS Video of the Week: The Era of Global Boiling Has Begun!? That Sounds Serious
- Climate Comedy
- Recommended Sites
Miss Anything at Heartland’s Climate Conference? No Problem.
Hot Summer Due to Many Factors—Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Not One of Them
Let’s state the obvious and get it out of the way. It’s hot out there. Yeah, it’s summer and summer is typically hot, but it has as a matter of fact been “hotter than [usual in] July” (hat tip to Stevie Wonder) across much of the globe.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of daily temperature records in cities and towns around the world have been set during the present heatwaves, which, in some locations, have persisted for an extended period. The heatwaves are real. I say heatwaves because it is not a single global event but a series of regional ones.
Why now? For many progressive, bloviating politicians and alarmed reporters in mainstream media the answer is simple: climate change. In the immortal and insightful words of H. L. Mencken, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
Climate change is a complex, long-term phenomenon, driven by a combination of numerous factors at different locations during different time periods. We can debate the causes of the modest warming of the past 150 to 170 years until we are blue in the face: the extent to which human greenhouse gas emissions contribute to it; the extent to which present measured temperatures are an artifact, at least in part, of the urban heat island effect—as was recently revealed in Houston and Phoenix; deforestation; solar activity; large ocean circulation patterns; and so forth. But the truth is, a recently warming world serves as a backdrop or baseline for the recent heatwaves; it is not their cause. The question is, what accounts for the large temperature spikes this summer—which are widespread, but not universal?
It turns out a confluence of overlapping weather and meteorological events, some having global or hemispheric effects, some more localized, occurring simultaneously, account for the ongoing heatwaves (a series of similar but disconnected heatwaves, which the media has misleadingly treated as a single related event) this summer.
One event that is contributing to a global rise in temperatures this year, and likely will for the next few years, is the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption, described in more detail below. Water vapor makes up the vast majority of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 98 percent or more, and the subsea Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption added an additional 10 percent to 13 percent to atmospheric water vapor. Scientists from NASA and the European Space Agency agree this huge addition to the dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas is contributing significantly to this years’ temperatures.
In addition, El Niño is back, and it’s a strong one. Before the U.S. summer heatwave struck and the ever climate-obsessed mainstream media focused on climate change as the reason behind it to the exclusion of almost every other factor, the media was warning that with the shift from La Niña to El Niño hotter temperatures would result. Commenting on the role El Niño is playing in the present warming, Michael Wysession, Ph.D., of Washington University in St. Louis, writes at The Conversation:
El Niño is a climate phenomenon that occurs every few years when surface water in the tropical Pacific reverses direction and heats up. That warms the atmosphere above, which influences temperatures and weather patterns around the globe.
Essentially, the atmosphere borrows heat out of the Pacific, and global temperatures increase slightly. This happened in 2016, the time of the last strong El Niño. Global temperatures increased by about 0.25 F (0.14 C) on average, making 2016 the warmest year on record. A weak El Niño also occurred in 2019-2020, contributing to 2020 becoming the world’s second-warmest year.
Heartland and other groups held a press briefing in early July, when the El Niño was officially declared, warning that as summer heated up, the mainstream media would largely begin to ignore El Niño’s role in present temperatures, focusing instead on climate change. Our concerns proved prescient. As heatwaves began setting local records, discussions of El Niño’s role disappeared, and climate change claimed the headlines. The media was right in the spring, they are wrong now. El Niño, a cyclical event, is contributing to this year’s hot summer. By contrast, there is no evidence climate change is more than a baseline against which the current spike in temperatures is occurring.
One little-discussed factor affecting this summer’s temperatures is the increasingly active sun. After a period of relative quiescence with little solar activity, the sun has become active again. An active sun has a direct, if modest, effect on the Earth’s temperatures. Some scientists also claim it has larger indirect effects because of its impact on cosmic rays, but that’s a discussion for another time. The point is, Sol’s recent increase in activity is contributing to this summer’s heatwaves.
Regionally, a variety of entirely natural weather patterns have also contributed to warming, and even below normal temperatures in some areas.
Across parts of the western and southeastern United States, and in southern and central Europe, heat domes or “blocking patterns” formed and persisted. As CNN described the situation, “[an] enormous, relentless stubborn ridge of high pressure has trapped air inside in a ‘heat dome’ resulting in extreme temperatures as the dome parks itself over areas.”
The blocking patterns in Europe trapped a heat dome there as it did in the western U.S. In addition, in early July the jet stream shifted. These two meteorological events combined to deliver colder-than-average, even fall-like temperatures in northern Europe and across the United Kingdom, in July and into August, while locking-in, for an extended period of time, extreme summer temperatures in a large swath of southern European nations abutting or near the Mediterranean Sea.
Yet one more factor contributing to hotter than average temperatures over much of the globe this summer are changes in the ocean circulation patterns in the North Atlantic. In a complex story explained by Judith Curry, Ph.D., and Jim Johnstone, it seems that sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic are unusually high this summer, due largely to a period of rapid warming that began around March-April. That period of warming was brought about by significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation and weak surface winds, limiting ocean currents and surface mixing. The resulting increase in Atlantic Ocean temperatures has been hyped in the media, but, of course, wrongly linked to long-term climate change rather than weather anomalies of the type that naturally occur every so often.
In short, there is a complex explanation for the complex weather patterns that have prevailed this summer. Multiple geologic, solar, meteorological, and atmospheric events have occurred simultaneously, resulting in unusually high summer temperatures obtaining over much of the world. Fossil fuel use does not cause volcanic eruptions, oceanic and wind current shifts, or changes in solar activity, thus climate change cannot fairly be blamed for the present pattern of heatwaves, which long-term data show have not increased.
Source: NPR; The Conversation; CNN; Climate Etc.; The Daily Mail; Climate Realism
Get your Copy at Amazon TODAY!
Podcast of the Week
https://share.transistor.fm/e/7648b520
In her book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Dr. Judith Curry describes how the climate science community has been captured by certain points of view concerning society and the desire for consensus, undermining its pursuit of objective facts. Climate change claims are fraught with uncertainty, only to be shrouded in secrecy for those who seek real-world data. The result is a society that bases it’s policy decisions of improper, and often incorrect, scientific assertions, rather than advancing human wellbeing.
Subscribe to the Environment & Climate News podcast on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And be sure to leave a positive review!
Large Increase in Atmospheric Water Vapor Likely Contributing to Current Heat Wave
Evidence suggests one factor contributing to the above average heat many parts of the globe are experiencing this summer is the undersea eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcano.
Both NASA and the European Space Agency are reporting that the eruption ejected enough water into the atmosphere to temporarily raise the Earth’s temperature.
Peer reviewed studies have estimated that Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai’s eruption added the equivalent of 10 percent to 13 percent of the pre-existing water vapor into the upper atmosphere, between 8 and 33 miles above the Earth’s surface where it will remain for years to come.
Although little acknowledged or discussed, water vapor rather than carbon dioxide makes up as much as 98 percent or more of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by volume. As such, adding an additional 10 to 13 percent to the atmospheric load of water vapor in the short three months studies estimate it took to disperse and mix across the globe is bound to have a significant effect on measured temperatures, which recent studies have acknowledged.
Concerning the impact of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai’s eruption researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory wrote:
Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions—the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile—sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes. But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.
This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat.
When was the last time, amidst the thousands of stories blaming climate change for the current heatwave, you saw a headline in the mainstream media, “Volcanic Eruption Causes Summer Heatwave”? I’ve seen not one.
Sources: Climate Realism; American Thinker
Heartland’s Must-read Climate Sites
Solar Panel Production Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than the IPCC Admits
Recently, researchers have tried to calculate the cradle-to-grave carbon dioxide emissions from the global solar energy push. So far, such analyses have found the solar industry has a much higher carbon footprint than previously claimed. As a result, government policies incentivizing and mandating the use of solar energy undercount carbon dioxide emissions from solar panel production by 300 percent or more. A report by the group Environmental Progress sums up the problem of solar energy’s green bona fides, writing:
Information unearthed by Environmental Progress points to a gaping oversight in how the figures influencing government net zero policy and investments in solar worldwide are compiled and collated …
Key to this blind spot is that the source material for most of the assessments is provided by a small number of data compilers, many if not all of them working in collaboration with the International Energy Agency (IEA). The data is voluntarily submitted by the industry in response to academic surveys.
… This data is relied on by institutions worldwide, including the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and IEA itself, to calculate their carbon footprint projections, including the sixth assessment report published as recently as March 2023.
Based on such data, the IPCC claims solar PV is 48 gCO2/kWh. But, … a new investigation started by Italian researcher, Enrico Mariutti, suggests that the number is closer to between 170 and 250 gCO2/kWh, depending on the energy mix used to power PV production. If this estimate is accurate, solar would not compare favorably with natural gas, …
Due to low energy costs when compared to Europe, the United States, and elsewhere (due to the vast majority of the electricity being generated by coal), heavy government support, and cheap labor, most of the world’s solar silicon wafer production moved from Europe, the United States, and Japan in less than a decade as industrialized economies began to increasingly mandate solar energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. China proved more than happy to feed their solar addiction.
The problem is that China’s emission reporting is opaque. As such, instead of using real world data on emissions as they are actually produced in China, the data used by the IEA and the IPCC to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions from solar panel production is based on modeled emissions from Europe and the United States from when they dominated solar panel production—yet they get their energy from sources that emit much less CO2 per unit of energy than does China. The discrepancy is huge. And this calculation doesn’t even include the emissions from mining, installing, operating or disposing of solar panels.
The IEA projects that China will continue to dominate solar panel and solar panel component production well into the future. How dominant is China now, one might ask? Environmental Progress provides an answer:
[I]n 2021 China produced more than 80 percent of global solar-grade polysilicon, a critical input into solar arrays. It doesn’t stop there; China manufactures 97 percent of the global supply of solar wafers, another essential component.
… Until the mid-2000s the market was dominated by Japanese, US and German manufacturers, many of whom were in the midst of automating their production lines, when Chinese manufacturers swooped in to take their market share. The disruption happened in under a decade, with China’s global share of PV production surging from 14 percent in 2006 to 60 percent by 2013.
The coal-fueled electricity used in a single one of China’s polysilicon wafer production regions alone is more than double the electricity from all sources used for such production in the Germany, Japan, and the United States combined.
Environmental Progress used Mariutti’s math to calculate how badly the EU underestimated the emissions from the solar installations brought online in Europe in 2022 alone. The undercount was “5.4 to 7.6 million metric tons, equivalent to adding 3.4 to 4.8 million cars to the road.”
According to Cowboy State Daily, Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, was not surprised by Mariutti’s and Environmental Progress’ findings.
“The dirty little secret with so-called renewable energy—I call it unreliable energy—wind and solar, is that it takes immense amounts of energy to create them,” said Deti. “The hypocrisy of it all is that they [China and other countries] don’t have the environmental standards, the pollution standards and the emission standards of the U.S.
“That’s the dirty little secret with so-called clean energy,” Deti told Cowboy State Daily.
Sources: Environmental Progress; Cowboy State Daily
Video of the Week
In this episode of Climate Change Roundtable, we will head across the pond to the UK to look at the results of a joint poll conducted by YouGov, CAR26, and The Heartland Institute. According to the most recent results, there has been a 20% decrease in the number of Brits who strongly supported the idea of climate lockdowns back in October 2021.
Joining us is special guest Lois Perry of CAR26 to discuss what she observes going on with the climate policies in Britain. We also have our usual fun poking holes in the craziest climate news of the week!
Watch every episode of The Heartland Institute’s Climate Change Roundtable show LIVE every Friday at 1 p.m. ET.
BONUS Video of the Week
Can the climate catastrophists get any crazier? Old and cold: The hottest July in the last 120,000 years. New and hot: The era of global warming has ended, and the era of global boiling has begun.”
Heartland Institute President James Taylor was a guest of the great Tony Katz debunking these ridiculous claims that are causing real mental damage to those who are conditioned to trust their “superiors” in media and in government.
United Nations Secretary General António Guterres recently stated this: “Climate change is here, it is terrifying, and it’s only the beginning. The era of global warming has ended, and the era of global boiling has begun.”
Climate Comedy
via Cartoons by Josh
A large increase in the temperature of the troposphere in the tropics is evident. This may have been influenced by the eruption of an underwater volcano, supplying large amounts of water vapor to the troposphere (in the tropics). This coincided with a weak El Nio. The effect of increased water vapor in the troposphere will be offset by a strong monsoon in India and the western Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/global2/mimictpw_global2_latest.gif
There is increased solar activity
It has been mentioned that an increase in atmospheric water vapor could heat the troposphere. But I think there could be another mechanism: decrease in Earth’s albedo. Here’s a NASA research paper which explains how this started, in 2020.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping
This finding is corroborated by recent Ceres data which shows albedo has been reduced:
I wonder if Willis has checked this claim out?
The natural variability of Earth’s climate long preceded the advent of fossil fuel powered ships, or even ships for that matter. I know it’s tempting to give credence to NASA’s seemingly innocent explanation of short wave insolation variability, but doing so leaves the door wide open for their main belief that CO2 is the Earth’s ‘control knob’,
That’s why I suggest that Willis take a look at the CERES data 1) to verify that there was a significant reduction in planetary albedo and 2) if it was a big enough reduction to account for all of the excess warming (i.e. above the warming which has been occurring since the end of the LIA
Seems more likely that cloud cover is the control knob. Sunlight which is not reflected into space, because of more (or less) cloud cover, cools (heats) the planet. How could it get any simpler?
Ireneusz Palmoski:
If you are speaking of the Jan 15 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption, it erupted during the long 2020-2023 La Nina, not during a weak El Nino
Therefore, this El Niño does not fully explain the large increase in tropospheric temperature in the tropics, since the effect may have occurred in July, but could not have been strong.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202308.gif
Yes, water vapor in the stratosphere lowers the surface temperature, but it first finds its way into the troposphere, where it raises the temperature of the troposphere (not the surface), as happens during El Nino. During El Nino, the area of the warm Pacific surface increases, which causes a large amount of water vapor to dissipate into the troposphere and increase the temperature of the troposphere. All the time we are talking about the temperature in the troposphere and only the troposphere.
The Earth’s rotation may have caused water vapor to dissipate after the volcanic eruption along the equator.
“Water vapor makes up the vast majority of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 98 percent or more…”
Is there any reference to substantiate this? I see it often, with nothing to back it up. The American Chemical Society says 60%.
Do you have a link for the ACS estimate, David? It seems unreasonable.
I don’t know of a reference for the 98% estimate, but a back of the envelope calculation shows that it’s about right.
Water vapor is not well-mixed in the atmosphere and varies by temperature from 0.2 to 4% while CO2 varies seasonally as well, but is a much smaller component around 0.043% (425 ppm).
In the wettest tropical regions, therefore, if we neglect methane and other minor greenhouse gases (GHGs), we can take the total GHG % to be 4.04%, with water vapor being 4/4.04 = 99%
In the driest cold regions, it could be 0.243% total GHGs with water vapor representing 0.2/0.243 = 82%
It would seem that the lower bound is far above 60% and a simple average would be 91%. I would not take that as evidence that 98% is an overestimate necessarily because the area of earth with very low humidity is small and the very wet tropics are something like 30%. If I had to make an estimate I’d weight it 3:1 which would yield ~95%
To be accurate they should probably have said that water vapor represents between 82% and 99% of the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases. Another consideration is that CO2 and H2O infrared absorption spectra overlap so that even under the driest conditions, most of the available IR is absorbed by water vapor, leaving little for CO2 to enhance. (The analogy being that after you put a coat of paint or two on a window, additional coats have little effect on the amount of light that gets through).
A few years ago, ACS had a primer on global climate change that in one place said the 1900 global temperature was 15C and in another place it said that the 2010 global average was 14.1C, as I recall. It has since been scrubbed.
Like many similar institutions, political correctness has captured the leadership of ACS. I still subscribe to some publications and take advantage of some meeting opportunities, so I still belong as a member. I used to ague with an editor about his stance on AGW and mandated vaccinations.
He died suddenly of an aggressive cancer.
Note to self:
Don’t argue with Scissor!
😝
LOL
It’s saved somewhere in my notes, but I can’t find it, but there was no support for the 60% value, or was simply stated as fact.
The AGW hypothesis relies on supposed H20 feedback. Why doesn’t this recent volcanic injection of H20 lead to runaway global warming?
If the theory states something, then that something happens without the theoretical effect, then the theory is obviously wrong.
In a controlled experiment yes. Doesn’t work well in recursive chaotic systems.
My issue is that among intelligent, educated and otherwise well informed peers, it’s commonly believed that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas.
The problem isn’t that at all. The problem is that climate enthusiasts have isolated one mechanism, out of dozens of possibilities, then declared the science ‘settled’. The theory states that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperatures, essentially, and increases in water vapour have a feedback effect magnifying the increase. This has never been observed in the real world; rises in both CO2 and water vapour have not led to runaway global warming so the theory can’t be right, whether in a laboratory or the real world. The climate enthusiasts got it wrong – CO2 is irrelevant and the effects of water vapour haven’t been studied because they don’t know how to model it on their computers.
You mean other than the idea of a runaway feedback being absurd on a planet with 4.5 billion years of not having a runaway feedback? Yes there are tipping points, between pleasant life-giving warmth and deadly frigid cold.
Personally I don’t subscribe to the opinion that Hungry Tonka was/is a big factor in our weather.
A problem I have with this article is that it says 10-13% of the water vapor normally in the atmosphere which sounds significant. Actually it’s 10-13% of the wv normally in the STRATOSPHERE, which is a very small amount. It’s a very thin low pressure part of the atmosphere. So not so significant.
If it’s currently heating us up how did it manage to avoid dispersing for a year and a half and then poof! suddenly leap into action? It should have immediately heated up the south Pacific with a hotspot that slowly dissipates as the rest of the world warms up.
“In addition, El Niño is back, and it’s a strong one.”
I really don’t get how this could have affected the July temperatures. So far we have had just one month where the ENSO index has been slightly positive. From past evidence it takes several months for changes in ENSO to appear in UAH anomalies.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
The MEI uses an increasing baseline so one should be careful. The raw temperatures of the NINO regions is increasing more than your chart.
With that said, I agree that El Nino is not the biggest cause. One of the effects of increased stratospheric water vapor is a decrease in ozone. This should allow more UV to reach the surface and since this is high energy solar, it will penetrate the ocean surface and warm the oceans just as we’ve seen.
The ocean warming will also share some energy with the atmosphere leading to some overall warming just as we’ve seen. Some of this may have been blamed incorrectly on El Nino.
Richard:
You (and everyone else) have it backwards El Ninos do NOT cause warming temperatures. Rising temperatures cause El Ninos.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wyarr.2023.17.1.0124
One then can only shake his/her head and wonder how it is possible that a “warming Earth” still experiences La Ninas.
ToldYouSo:
Simple. SO2 aerosols from volcanic eruptions temporarily cool the Earth, as do industrial SO2 aerosol emissions. The long 2020-2023 La Nina was due primarily to industrial SO2 aerosol emissions from China and India.
And the “warming Earth” is due to the removal of industrial SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere due to “Clean Air” and similar activities.
Unfortunately, we cannot have cleaner air without higher temperatures.
And the scientific evidence correlating all La Ninas to “SO2 aerosols from volcanic eruptions” is provided exactly where???
IOW, that’s an absurd claim.
Why would an oscillation depend on a long term trend? If your car has bad shock absorbers (dampers) does it only bounce on flat ground or going downhill?
ENSO = El Niño – Southern OSCILLATION.
The boy (el niño) spends the money (heat) that the girl (la niña) saved up. In the current rising trend, that looks like pauses and step changes up. In a no-trend world it would be steps down reversed by equal steps up. In a cooling trend it would be step changes down followed by pauses.
“still experiences La Ninas.”
And 3 in a row for that matter. ! 😉
Sorry, typo
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
I never said El Nino events cause global warming.
No that was bnice2000.
You are the one says CO2 causes El Ninos.
You and your fellow AGW zealots are the ones praying for an El Nino so you can get some warming.
You and your fellow AGW con-artists are the ones always using El Nino steps to create a trend.
I said that the only warming in the UAH data has come at El Ninos Event.
This is demonstrably true.
There is essentially no warming between those major El Nino events.
Hence the series of long PAUSES that you all like to DENY.
Now, where’s that evidence for CO2 warming that you have been totally unable to produce and keep running away from like a headless chook.
Don’t you see the absolutely idiocy of pretending El Ninos don’t give warming..
then turning around and saying something like…
“there’s an El Nino coming, so we expect warmer temperatures”
(with accompanying wailing and panicking)
You continue to display a complete lack of any rational thought capability.
“Don’t you see the absolutely idiocy of pretending El Ninos don’t give warming..”
So you are saying El Ninos give warming? What a funny old man you are. Find me a credible reference that says El Ninos are responsible for the last 100 years of warming…. and I’ll stop laughing. Till then you are just that…. an old man yelling at his computer screen. Sure you can abuse people and gnash your teeth, but it doesn’t make you right. If you don’t know that by now you will never know it.
Yet you and the AGW scammers will cheer on every El Nino because you know it will provide a warmer temperature.
You are so dumb, that don’t even realise how stupid you sound. !
You know the only atmospheric warming in the last 45 years has come at El Nino step.
You just continue to live in little fantasy DENIAL of the facts in front of your eyes.
Now, where’s that evidence for CO2 warming that you have been totally unable to produce and keep running away from like a headless chook.
You know you have none, yet still you keep up the gormless, mind-numbed pretence.
Boy I bet there is a lot of spittle on the keyboard after that rant…..
Look at them salivating.
Better contact all your AGW cultist rags and tell them all they are wrong….
El Niño planet-warming weather phase has begun – BBC News
Warning of unprecedented heatwaves as El Niño set to return in 2023 | El Niño southern oscillation | The Guardian
El Niño could push global warming past 1.5℃ – but what is it and how does it affect the weather in Europe? (theconversation.com)
Poor simpleton, your comments can’t just be bad luck..
… they must be backed by a deep-seated ignorance of everything going on around you.
Even funnier. None of your links say El Nino is the cause of the warming over the last 100 years. Not one……
Every link is your AGW cult rags salivating on El Nino bringing warming.
You really have closed your eye, and empty your tiny little mind, in an incredibly stupid attempt to maintain your DENIAL.
You are looking incredibly stupid !
And another three..
El Niño is looming. Here’s what it means for weather and the world. – The Washington Post
El Niño is here and the world must prepare for more extreme heat, UN weather agency warns | CNN
El Nino declared to bring droughts, heat to Australia | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
You can’t seriously keep your ignorance going, when it is stated so obviously by the very alarmist rags that you get your AGW garbage from.
More of the same. None of your links demonstrate what you say. Maybe you should give up and have a little lie down. And you know what… sometimes it can be quite healing to admit you are wrong.
You are one moronically stupid little cretin, Simon.
Rampant DENIAL that all your AGW cult rags are saying the El Nino will push up temperatures.
Your comprehension level is that of a 2 year old. !
“Rampant DENIAL that all your AGW cult rags are saying the El Nino will push up temperatures.”
I’m not denying that at all. Rather than acting like a spoilt 5 year old, perhaps quote where I said that?
Yes up they go in an El Nino and down they go in a La Nina. But the process is neutral i.e it has no effect on the long term temperature data. Now if you have proof that El Nino is contributing to the long term temperature increase we are seeing, then let’s see it? But you don’t and it seems you have now backed yourself into a corner and can’t get out. True to form when you do that you resort to childish putdowns. Classy.
You poor mindless child,
You are now admitting that El Ninos cause warming…
.. just like everyone else does.
Finally, you are agreeing with reality !!
You are now admitting that the only warming in the satellite record is from EL Ninos.
Still waiting for any evidence that CO2 causes warming.
You are totally lacking, as always..
Why do you bother posting when you have absolutely NOTHING RATIONAL to post ?
You are the one in the corner sucking your thumb.
You are the very definition of the class IDIOT.
I don’t need to do put-downs of you… your comments do-that.
I see no point in your comments. Do you?
I see no point in your worthless existence…. Do you?
“I don’t need to do put-downs of you…”
I would agree with that. If your arguments hold water you should be able to state them without using childish putdowns. Can you?
Can you quote any comment I have made that states I think the last 100 years of warming is caused by El Nino. If not that makes you a dishonest person given you have stated this many times?
And… do you have any evidence that the last 100 years of warming is caused by El Nino? It seems you don’t given you make no effort to answer this honestly.
“I see no point in your comments. Do you?”
My point is to highlight your incorrect dishonest comments.
“I see no point in your worthless existence…. Do you?”
True to form childish comment that highlights you have no arguments that hold water, so you resort to putdowns.
You seem to have gone away bnasty2000?
“The MEI uses an increasing baseline so one should be careful.”
Of course they do, that’s the point – to detect changes against current temperatures that indicate a coming warming or cooling event.
If you don’t increase the baseline as the world warms you are just measuring the sea temperature. As the word warms you would have nothing but el Niños by now, if you only used the raw temperatures.
This says otherwise.. or are you denying that long tongue of warmer water in the Eastern Pacific.?
I’m simply saying what the indices say. And pointing out that in all other cases UAH does not start showing much warming until there have been several months of strong positive ENSO,
Look at the ONI data. MJJ was up to 0.8, but it was still negative a few months earlier. Compared to previous big El Niños we are around where we were in early 97, or the end of 2014. The UAH spikes didn’t happen until 1998 and 2016.
If ENSO is contribution to the July temperature record it must be behaving in a very different way this time.
“ behaving in a very different way this time.”
And why do you think that might be.
THINK… if you can…
and don’t blame CO2.. that would be very stupid.
“And why do you think that might be.”
I don’t. I’m not the one claiming an El Niño that is only just starting has somehow already caused record breaking temperature.
Admitting your deep-seated ignorance..
… is a good start. !
You should try it some time.
I know you never will…
You are arrogance and ignorance combined in one little sad sack..
Tip…
Apparently, the 2022 study on locations used for temperature determination has been fact checked by USA Today…
“”Location of temperature measurement sites doesn’t prove most climate data ‘corrupt’ | Fact check
Our rating: False
The 96% claim drastically overstates the scope of a study that examined one type of data collected by one agency, then only analyzed a fraction of that data in two groups 13 years apart. No other types of climate data collection methods or environmental organizations were discussed in the study.””
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/11/study-falsely-claims-96-of-climate-data-is-corrupt-fact-check/70531209007/
They seem upset
Witch-hunts and execution of accused witches was real and about 99% of the people went along with it. It had more support than the stated “climate emergency.”
“No other types of climate data collection methods or environmental organizations were discussed in the study.”””
What a giveaway.
What else could have been causing crop failures and bitter cold winters if not witches, Scissor? Be reasonable and always “follow The Science ™ !”
Water vapor released in the tropics has a very large impact on the global temperature of the troposphere, which is particularly evident during El Niño and La Niña.
This is because water vapor packets in the tropics are high in temperature and lighter than air. As a result, they are carried to high altitudes and carried by jet currents (at 500 hPa) to higher altitudes. In a dense atmosphere, water vapor molecules transfer energy to air molecules through collisions and release latent energy when they change their state of aggregation.
CORRECTION:
As a result, they are carried to high altitudes and carried by jet currents (at 500 hPa) to higher LATITUDES.
Here’s a simple solution: Cap all underwater volcanos. (I suspect it would be more effective and cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.)
Maybe use a 10m thick plate of unobtainium. Certainly more feasible than building enough bird shredders, slaver panels and Lithium fire bombs.
Well it’s an idea. Until they pop up somewhere else.
There are quite a lot of underwater volcanoes though.
In fact, the more you block, the higher the likelihood of an even bigger one occurring.
Risking repetition by showing this graph again, the US heat patterns contrast with the gentle cooling of the air over Australia in the last decade shown in UAH temperatures.
Mechanisms for explaining heat also have to explain big regions with lack of heating. Geoff S
Don’t be so obtuse Geoff. Don’t you know that Climate Change ™ includes cooling as well as heating? Start believing in The Science ™ mate!
It’s pretty simple really, if the effect is bad then it’s Climate Change ™ and if the effect is good we still call it bad, and it’s… anyone?… Climate… anyone? Change ™ … that’s right!
Current sea surface temperatures.
The atmosphere is still not responding to El Niño and the easterly circulation is concentrating water vapor in typhoons in the western Pacific.
Large decrease in the number of sunspots. Circulation in the upper troposphere will again slow down.
By my estimation the increase in stratospheric water vapor didn’t contribute more than
to downward LW radiation. I doubt it’s a viable explanation. Rather something even more fundamental is suggested — that something being not convenient for warmists, i.e. a sampling issue combined with natural variability.
Meanwhile…
Gov. Hobbs has declared an Arizona summer heat emergency. One of the daffiest quotes in the article is this
Note: Base of the Grand Canyon. How about a temperature up on the Kiabab Plateau?
A slow-moving typhoon will pass over Japan to the north.
It doesn’t look like a strong El Niño.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/12/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-129.39,5.09,699