By Javier Vinós
The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history.
1. Off-scale warming
Since the planet has been warming for 200 years, and our global records are even more recent, every few years a new warmest year in history is recorded. Despite all the publicity given each time it happens, it would really be news if it didn’t happen, as it did between 1998 and 2014, a period popularly known as the pause.
Figure 1. Berkeley Earth temperature anomaly
Since 1980, 13 years have broken the temperature record. So, what is so special about the 2023 record and the expected 2024 record? For starters, 2023 broke the record by the largest margin in records, 0.17°C. This may not sound like much, but if all records were by this margin, we would go from +1.5°C to +2°C in just 10 years, and reach +3°C 20 years later.
Figure 2. Berkeley Earth 2023 temperature anomaly
Moreover, to produce so much warming, almost the entire globe experienced above-average warming. 2023 was a year of real global warming, although most of the warming occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.
Figure 3. 2023 global surface temperature anomaly over pre-industrial baseline in six datasets.
As a result, one of the major databases, Berkeley Earth, has exceeded the +1.5°C limit for a full year for the first time, and 2024 promises another temperature record. Crossing the dangerous warming threshold so early has caused some confusion, exacerbated by the fact that not much difference seems to be noticeable. Even Arctic ice remains above the average of the last decade. And if we’ve already crossed the line and the climate is beyond repair, what’s the point of trying?
Figure 4. Global temperature calculation by Copernicus system.
But the authorities have been quick to point out that even if we are above +1.5°C in 2023 or 2024, we will not have crossed the threshold. There is a catch. The global temperature is not the temperature of one month or one year, but the temperature of the linear trend of the last 30 years, which according to the European Copernicus system is +1.28°C and is expected to exceed +1.5°C in 10 years.[i]
2. Uncharted territory
In June 2023, the North Atlantic experienced a heat wave unprecedented in 40 years, with temperatures 5°C warmer than usual. Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, said the world was “entering uncharted territory. We have never seen anything like this in our life”.[ii] To understand what has puzzled scientists so much, it is necessary to look at the evolution of the temperature of the Earth’s oceans throughout the year since 1979.
Figure 5. 60°N-60°S global ocean surface temperature by year since 1979.
On average, the Earth’s oceans are warmest in February-March and coldest in October-November, with an intermediate maximum in August. This is an annual cycle caused by the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the arrangement of the continents, and seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation and albedo. A cycle that has never been broken as long as measurements have been kept until 2023. This year shows an accentuated warming since January, leading to daily temperature records since the beginning of April. But what is absolutely astonishing is that the ocean continued to warm in June and July and reached an annual maximum in August, something that has never happened before. And the warming through August is staggering, about 0.33°C above the 2016 record, which is huge for the ocean. After that, the annual cycle begins to behave normally, but at a much higher temperature, which is slowly falling. In June 2024, after 415 days of record temperatures, the ocean is still about 0.2°C warmer than it should be.
Buontempo means good weather in English, and his phrase “we have entered uncharted territory” has become very popular. However, it assumes that we have reached and will remain in this situation, whereas the data suggest that this is a one-off anomaly with diminishing effects. For now, it tells us that nothing dramatic is happening as we approach the politically established warming threshold.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s climate monitoring institute, also uses the expression “uncharted territory” when he explains that the 2023 anomaly worries scientists, saying that climate models cannot explain why the planet’s temperature suddenly spiked in 2023. Not only was the temperature anomaly much larger than expected, but it occurred months before the onset of El Niño. In his own words: “The 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”[iii] According to Gavin, we could have broken the climate and the models would no longer work.
Instead of abandoning science for wild speculation let’s examine the possible factors responsible for the abrupt warming that Gavin Schmidt dismisses by saying they could explain at most a few hundredths of a degree, for which he has little evidence.
3. The little boy is innocent
El Niño is unlikely to be responsible for the simple reason that such abrupt global warming is unprecedented in our records, and El Niño has many precedents. In addition, El Niño warms a specific region of the equatorial Pacific and primarily affects the Pacific, while the “2023 event” warmed parts of the North Atlantic to an extraordinary degree. This does not prevent scientists like Jan Esper and Ulf Büntgen from saying that 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gas-induced warming trend amplified by an El Niño.[iv] They clearly did not examine the data before writing this, nor did the reviewers of their Nature paper.
The relationship between the temperature of the equatorial Pacific and that of the global ocean during an El Niño is shown in the figure below.
Figure 6. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended satellite global ocean temperature anomaly (black).
The temperature anomaly in the Pacific Niño 3.4 region shows the very strong Niños of 1983, 1998, and 2016, and the strong Niños of 1988, 1992, 2009, and 2024. The years correspond to the month of January during the event. When the satellite global ocean temperature anomaly is plotted without its long-term trend, we observe a very close correspondence. The long-term trend responds to other causes, but the temperature variations correspond to the export of heat from the equatorial Pacific to the rest of the globe.
We also observe two things. The first is that the correspondence fails in two periods, in 1992 as a result of the Pinatubo eruption a year earlier, and in 2024. The second observation is that in all strong or very strong Niños, the source of the heat, the equatorial Pacific, warms earlier and warms more or as much in relative terms as the global ocean warms later. This does not happen in the 2024 El Niño. The warming is simultaneous and greater than it should be outside the equatorial Pacific.
Figure 7. Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (red) and detrended ERSST PDO (blue).
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is often described as a long-lived pattern of climate variability similar to El Niño in the North Pacific. And this is evident when we compare the two after removing a long-term trend that the PDO should not have. The agreement is very strong, and again we see a significant anomaly in 1991 due to the Pinatubo eruption. But even more important is the anomaly in 2023-24, when the PDO shows extraordinarily small changes and remains negative when it should be positive.
Figure 8. During the 2023 event the North Pacific stayed in negative PDO conditions, while the equatorial Pacific displayed El Niño conditions.
To understand this response, one must consider that the warm phase of the PDO requires the Northwest Pacific to be cold, but as we have shown above, the Northwest Pacific was very warm in 2023, causing the PDO to remain in a cold phase. A negative phase of the PDO during El Niño is unprecedented and categorically rules out El Niño as the cause of the abrupt warming that has puzzled scientists. In fact, it is possible that the ocean warming that began in March 2023 was the cause of the 2024 El Niño by weakening the trade winds in the equatorial Pacific.
I’d like to thank Charles May for bringing this data to my attention and for doing such an excellent job analyzing it each month.
4. Sulfate aerosols are not responsible
Another possibility that is under consideration is the reduction of sulfate aerosols as a result of the change in marine fuel regulations in 2020.
Figure 9. Global sulfur emissions for the past 64 years
The reduction in sulfur emissions since the late 1970s is considered a significant warming factor by reducing emissions of shortwave radiation reflected from the atmosphere. However, the reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from marine fuels since 2020 is estimated at 14% of total emissions.
Figure 10. Model-calculated global temperature effect of an 80% reduction (red curve) in marine fuel sulfur content from pre-2020 situation (blue curve), and decadal mean difference (green bars).
A recent study, still under peer review, used a climate model to calculate that sulfur emission reductions from 2020 could cause global warming of 0.02°C in the first decade.[v] Since the warming in 2023 was 10 times greater, it is difficult to believe that emissions reductions since 2020 could have been a major factor in the abrupt warming in 2023.
In the figure, the blue curve is the global warming predicted with the previously used marine fuel, and the red curve is the one predicted with the fuel with 80% less sulfur. The difference between the two curves for the decade 2020-30 is the green bar of 0.02°C.
5. CO₂ increase didn’t do it
The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased slightly by about 2.5 parts per million in 2023.
Figure 11. Monthly (red) and 12-month (black) CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa.
The increase from 418.5 to 421 ppm represents an increase of 0.6% and is similar to the increase that has occurred each year for the past several decades. Nothing in our knowledge of the effect of CO₂ increases on climate suggests that such a small increase could have led to such a large and abrupt warming. There is no study to suggest that the gradual increase in CO₂ could lead to a sudden increase in climate variability. Therefore, all model predictions are long-term and affect the statistics of weather phenomena. The proof is that scientists and models cannot explain what happened in 2023.
6. Tonga volcano prime suspect
Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga. How unusual? It was an eruption of VEI 5 explosivity, capable of reaching the stratosphere, which occurs on average every 10 years.
Figure 12. Time and cone elevation of VEI ≥5 volcanic eruptions of the past 200 years, their distribution by altitude (yellow bars), and the suggested depth for a submarine eruption capable of projecting a large amount of water to the stratosphere (red line).
There have been a number of eruptions with VEI 5 or higher in the last 200 years, although not all of them have affected the global climate. This figure shows with dots the date they occurred and the elevation at which the volcanic cone was located. The yellow bars show the distribution of eruptions in 500 m elevation bins. The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere.
In our 200 years of records there is only one other submarine eruption with VEI 5, which occurred in 1924 off the Japanese island of Iriomote at a depth of 200 m and did not affect the atmosphere. Only surface effects were observed. NASA scientists believe that the Tonga explosion occurred at the right depth to project a lot of water into the stratosphere.[vi] This depth is indicated by the red line. So, the Tonga eruption is a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium. Science was very lucky. We are not so lucky.
We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year. The eruption of Mount Tambora in April 1815 had a global effect on the climate, but it took 15 months for the effect to develop, during the year without a summer of 1816. These delayed effects coincided with the appearance of a veil of sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere due to seasonal changes in the global stratospheric circulation.
Figure 13. Stratospheric water vapor anomaly at 45°N.
In this image on the vertical axis, we observe the water vapor anomaly in the stratosphere between 15 and 40 km altitude with ocher tones for negative values and greenish for positive ones. The measurement takes place at 45° latitude in the northern hemisphere. On the horizontal axis is the date, and we can see that the large anomaly created by the Tonga eruption does not appear in the Northern Hemisphere until one year later, in 2023, when the warming occurred. Thus, there are dynamical events in the stratosphere that have the appropriate time lag to coincide with the abrupt warming in 2023.
Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.
As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%.[vii] And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.
Figure 14. Global water vapor anomaly above 68hPa.
The stratosphere has already begun to dry out again, but it is a slow process that will take many years. In 2023 only 20 million tons of water returned to the troposphere, 13%.[viii]
7. Dismissing natural warming
On the one hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented abrupt warming that the models cannot explain and that has scientists scratching their heads. Such anomalous warming cannot logically respond to the usual suspects, El Niño, reduced sulfur emissions, or increased CO₂, which have been going on for many decades.
On the other hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented volcanic eruption, the effects of which we cannot know, but which, according to what we know about the greenhouse effect, should cause significant and abrupt warming.
Of course, we cannot conclude that the warming was caused by the volcano, but it is clear that it is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.
So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.
This article can also be watched in a 19-minute video with English and French subtitles.
[i] Copernicus Global temperature trend monitor.
[ii] CNN July 8, 2023. Global heat in ‘uncharted territory’ as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record.
[iii] Schmidt, G., 2024. Why 2023’s Heat Anomaly Is Worrying Scientists. Nature, 627.
[iv] Esper, J. et al., 2024. 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years. Nature, pp.1-2.
[v] Yoshioka, M., et al., 2024. Warming effects of reduced sulfur emissions from shipping. EGUsphere, 2024, pp.1-19.
[vi] Lee, J., & Wang, A., 2022. Tonga eruption blasted unprecedented amount of water into stratosphere. NASA Jet Propulsion Lab.
[vii] Solomon, S., et al., 2010. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science, 327 (5970), pp.1219-1223.
[viii] Zhou, X., et al. 2024. Antarctic vortex dehydration in 2023 as a substantial removal pathway for Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha’apai water vapor. Geophysical Research Letters, 51 (8), p. e2023GL107630.
[ix] Guterres, A., 2024. Secretary-General’s special address on climate action “A Moment of Truth”.
If it can’t be blamed on human wickedness or corporate greed, it isn’t news. It isn’t even relevant. The climatistas are interested in denouncing sin, not in finding facts.
The REAL Handmaids tale is lived out by the incestuous global warmists
Antarctic sea ice dramatically shows the effect of the eruption.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
_____________________________________________________________
What is the dangerous warming threshold? Is that the new name for the tipping point? After all, the new name for “Climate Change” is “The Climate Crisis” so why not a new term for the tipping point?
Anyway, I stopped reading there.
I thought that sentence was off too, but don’t let that stop you from reading the rest.
You missed the point, entirely. It doesn’t say the climate isn’t changing, it says there is no crisis. I don’t know where you get your news but the alleged climate crisis is what is driving Net-Zero, decarbonization and deindustrialization and other assorted nonsense.
He was referring to the alarmist 1.5C “dangerous” threshold.being crossed (albeit temporary) and nothing bad happened. It is a crippling blow to the narrative that there isn’t going to be anything to worry about, after being fed a diet of tipping points, boiling oceans, endless heatwaves, perennial drought, floods, fires… and its a false alarm.
Yes. They are on the horns of a dilemma they created themselves. The purely arbitrary number of the beast used to 2.0C. For equally arbitrary reasons they then decided to reduce it to 1.5C, in order to make ‘disaster’ more imminent.
But in so doing they also accelerated the arrival of the date at which…nothing terrible has happened.
As with that 350.org twaddle. Atmospheric CO2 has coasted past 400ppm and the worst result I can think of is that the lawn needs cutting more often, maybe.
“the lawn needs cutting more often,”
That does seem to be a real thing.
The planet has been warming for about 325 years, since the depths of the Maunder Minimum in the 1690s.
Longer term, it has been cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 5200 years ago. Also since the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum some 40 million years ago.
Just when I think the science is settled, they pull me back in.
Michael Corleone
“ we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year”
Basic fallacy here. There is in fact nothing in the article to explain why 150 Mtons of water should be so much more effective than the 35000 Mtons of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere every year. Let alone why it should have done nothing for 18 months, and then a precipitous rise.
But the fallacy is that adding GHGs increases the rate of warming. Actual warming is the accumulation of that rate. That is why everyone agrees that CO2 emission alone could not show that sudden rise. And the same applies to wv. It’s ppm may have suddenly ticked up, but the resulting warming would be gradual, just as with CO2.
1) H2O injected into the stratosphere is far more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2 in the troposphere.
2) The injection was all at once into the southern tropics.
3) The delay was caused by ongoing triple Las Niñas and the initial cooling effect of SO2 and particulate injection, as typically temporarily occurs with big tropical eruptions, eg Pinatubo.
The fallacies are yours. Continuing CO2 can’t explain a sudden spike, after seven and a half years of cooling following Super El Niño of 2015-16 and 16 years of pause before It.
“Continuing CO2 can’t explain a sudden spike”
Exactly what I said, and neither can wv. It can only produce a trend. But we’ve been injecting CO2 for decades, and that has raised the base level for these other perturbations.
Except, as I pointed out, CO2 hasn’t. Strady increase led to a Pause between Super Los Ninos of 1997-98 and 2015-16, and cooling after the latter SEN until El Nino of 2022-23.
Rising CO2 from 1945-77 coincided with pronouced global cooling, hence the cold scare of the ’70s. After the 1977 PDO shift, slight warming coincided with continued CO2 gain, until the Pause, followed by renewed cooling. It’s down mainly to natural cycles and ENSO.
CO2 can’t explain anything… not scientifically, anyway.
Maybe in sci-fant land. !
“It can only produce a trend”
So CO2 warming “hides away” like Trenberth’s heat…
… only to jump out at El Nino time.
It really is a travesty, isn’t it. !
The problem here, Nick, is the same as with solar effects on climate. You (and IPCC scientists) can’t look past the paradigm of global radiative effects even when the evidence of stratospheric dynamic effects is overwhelming.
We have studied very extensively why the NH winter after a strong stratospheric-reaching tropical eruption is actually warmer. Lots of bibliography on that. Try to explain that with radiative effects. You believe volcanic effects are only due to radiative effects.
‘It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.’
None of this begins to give a quantitative basis for our claims. It is arm-waving.Why can 150 Mt water in the stratosphere give a sudden warming when 35000 Mt CO2 cannot. You say there is something else at work, but that is a hell of a thing to try to explain, and you have no numbers.
There is no evidence CO2 causes any warming at all.
You have no evidence.
Ask yourself… WHY are you supporting this scam. !!
What is in it for you ???
Not being able to quantify the effect of an unprecedented event does not mean it isn’t real, right? It means the state of our knowledge is insufficient. That is not my fault, is it?
My contribution is to point to the evident that you seem to ignore.
“None of this begins to give a quantitative basis for our claims. It is arm-waving”
3 parameters gives you an a elephant, four wags it’s tail, and 47 gives you a GCM
“Why can 150 Mt water in the stratosphere give a sudden warming when 35000 Mt CO2 cannot.”
uh, different chemicals have different effects at different places and times?
you might as well ask why a thin layer of snow on the surface can change the Earth’s albedo while CO2 cannot
Jeez, Nick! Don’t you listen. Because H20 has a massively more potent “greenhouse” effect than CO2.
And both are essential to life on earth and 0.04% of CO2 is an irrelevance.
We must give credit where credit is due:
― Ronald Reagan
Comparing the Troposphere and Stratosphere moisture is another apples/oranges error. Unlike the lower atmosphere, the stratosphere is extremely dry – but not now – thanks to Tonga. It’s like an extra greenhouse blanket – that is very slowly drying – while heating earth. Tonga’s unprecedented water vapor injection into the stratosphere is causing an unprecedented warming spike. The data is clear to see – for those who look.
“Tonga’s unprecedented water vapor injection into the stratosphere is causing an unprecedented warming spike.”
There is the rate fallacy again. GHG’s in the atmosphere cause heat flux. There may be a sudden small rise in flux. But it won’t translate into sudden warming, any more than CO2 produces sudden warming. It could only produce a trend.
“Comparing the Troposphere and Stratosphere moisture is another apples/oranges error. “
Well, someone has to try to quantify the stratosphere effect, and there is none of that here. And explaining why water in the stratosphere should be hundreds of times more effective would be a start.
Welcome to the skeptical side! Why should anything other than correlation be needed to show that H2O in the stratosphere could warm the earth dramatically? That is all there is for proving CO2 causes CAGW. Don’t be a hypocrite. What’s good for goose is good for the gander!
“Why should anything other than correlation be needed”
It doesn’t correlate.
We have two unprecedented events, one capable of altering the climate and the other a climate alteration. What do you think William of Occam would say?
And Hunga Tonga correlates as much as Tambora that nobody doubts about. That says a lot about the sorry state of climate science these days where theories are judged in terms of political usefulness. If it is cooling it is a volcano, if it is warming it can’t be.
There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 produces ANY warming !
Baseless conjectures don’t count !
The effect from stratospheric water vapor contributes a fraction of the temperature change from man-made greenhouse gases.
While the stratospheric water vapor is a small percentage of all water vapor warming. it’s not the dominant driver of climate.
Following Hunga Tonga
The water vapor cooled the middle stratosphere (roughly 14–25 miles above Earth’s surface) and warmed the lower stratosphere (6–14 miles above the surface), with the largest changes of 2–5° Fahrenheit in March–June 2022, several months after the eruption.
De-sequestered CO2 does not contribute any measurable warming.
You keep proving that by not posting any measured CO2 warming.
The troposphere is very moist. The average height of emissions is 6 km. This means a lot of IR is emitted from the upper troposphere directly into space, because the stratosphere is very dry. The effect of adding water to the stratosphere is thus much higher because it intercepts very effectively IR radiation that otherwise would have already escaped.
Have you asked yourself why ozone is such an important GHG when it is so little abundant in the atmosphere. It is because almost all of it is in the stratosphere.
That sounds like a good explanation of how water vapor in the stratosphere can cause additional warming,
“an unprecedented warming spike”
Which also happened to coincide with a strong El Nino event.
I have asked many times for people to show human causation… But they can’t.
The stratosphere is still extremely dry. The HT eruption only injected 150 MtH2O into the stratosphere. That is enough to increase the concentration there by about 1 ppm. And that’s 1 ppm in a layer that is relatively thin (in terms of density).
What kinds of data would you accept that would falsify the hypothesis that the HT eruption is the cause of this unprecedented warming spike.
In a civil society, the accuser has the burden of proof.
In science hypothesis are falsifiable. The hypothesis you presented is “Tonga’s unprecedented water vapor injection into the stratosphere is causing an unprecedented warming spike.” So I want to know what kind of test and result you propose that could falsify it.
And don’t think the irony of you accusing Hunga Tonga of causing the warming spike and then making a statement that in civil society the accuser has the burden of proof went unnoticed.
You are a hypocrite. If GHG’s and CO2 specifically are the control knob(s) for warming, how is that hypothesis falsifiable? What kind of test and result would falsify the CO2 hypothesis?
If you truly believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for global climate change, then you need to propose a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested.
Don’t ask others to do what you won’t do
All I ask for is some measured empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Shirley, they must be able to provide some as part of their hypothesis. ! ?
Mr. Gorman: I notice that the letter-salad-for-name poster replied to other posts below, after you posted your question. Silence = consent, so he must be a hypocrite. Of course, we knew he would not reply here, or it’s game over and he has to come up with a bunch of new letters.
He stops replying to people after he assigns them to his “contrarian” list, regardless of content. Moi is there also. Apparently he doesn’t want his ideas challenged.
I usually ignore the Gorman’s because they ignore me. His post has nothing to do with John Shewchuk’s post or my response. He also misrepresents my position on almost every matter. He did that in his post too. I have no problem having a genuine discussion with people. I only ask that they respond to something I say instead of making up absurd arguments that they expect me to defend.
I’d be more than happy to have a genuine discussion with you. Do you have a specific comment or concern with John Shewchuk’s post or my response?
Also, I’m sorry my username offends you. It is never my intention to offend people with my username or otherwise. My username is a combination of my initials and wx which is the ITU-R M.1172 shorthand for weather.
Please see my response below.
Fading El Niño muddies the waters, but dropping T with water leaving the stratosphere confirms the Tongan volcano hypothesis.
I agree that El Nino muddies the water, but Javier Vinos says “The little boy is innocent”.
Hence the HUGE El Nino spike in the UAH data…. right !! 😉
And it is innocent. Warming spike started months before El Niño, and is continuing long after El Niño. On top of that MEI says this Niño was not strong, global ocean warming is pushing up SST making it look bigger than it actually was, but wind and pressure data shows it was an intermediate strength Niño. This Niño could even be the result of the volcano. It is well known that volcanoes can cause El Niño events.
ONI started increasing 5 months prior to UAH TLT increasing. ONI peaked 5 months prior to UAH TLT peaking. So I’m not sure what the problem is.
In regard to MEI…remember that it is a metric that takes into account atmospheric responses to the ENSO cycle. It is lower than ONI now because El Ninos are being attenuated and La Nina’s augmented relative to global SSTs since the ENSO region has not warmed significantly in recent decades while globally it has. As a result El Nino responses are muted while La Nina responses are amplified. This is one reason why RONI was created. [Oldenborgh et al. 2021]
Anyway, my point was that Milo is at least partially disagreeing with you. And based on the data I have to disagree as well since there is little evidence to suggest that ENSO stopped having an effect on UAH TLT temperatures.
UAH TLT is not the best way to look into this issue. If you look at Figure 5 the global ocean surface temperature went from 5th warmest to warmest in the first three months of the year with an unusually high warming rate. ONI doesn’t have a positive anomaly until its AMJ data, so it could not have been causing that warming.
So that is the problem. ENSO cycle is winter-tied. A new event starts in Spring-Summer. Warming started too early, and it is not only my opinion. Gavin Schmidt says the same in his paper:
I use UAH because that’s one of the few datasets that still seems to be accepted on WUWT.
And just to be clear I’m not saying that the magnitude of the UAH TLT wasn’t on the early side. I think it was. But both the timing and magnitude are still within the 95% CI of the expectation, albeit only barely, so given that and the ±0.20 C uncertainty on the anomalies we can’t falsify the null hypothesis that there is no change in the UAH TLT today versus its responses in the past.
And just to be clear…I’ve said on multiple occasions that I think the warming impact of the HT eruption may be underestimated so it’s not like I’m challenging the hypothesis that HT had a significant influence. Afterall, it may explain part of the discrepancy in my model below. I am, however, challenging the hypothesis that ENSO had an insignificant influence.
You mentioned below that UAH typically lags ONI by 5 months, so according to your logic, the warming peak indeed started too early.
Even casting aside the timing issue, there is more evidence to look at. The disruption of the typical seasonal cycle shown by Javier in Figure 2 is very strong evidence against El Niño as a significant factor.
ONI peaked in 2023/12. UAH TLT peaked 2024/04. That is a 4 month lag which is inline with expectations.
I think you mean figure 5. And I don’t think that falsifies ENSO’s impact. That cycle is what you’d expect with a lagged ENSO response super imposed on the season cycle.
Lying is not good for your credibility.
https://postimg.cc/kVQ4RhSd
Excuse me?
Excuse me? Don’t pretend to be naive.
Figure 5 clearly indicates unusual behavior starting in early to mid-2023. As Javier aptly points out:
I’m not. My position on the matter is as I said it was. I’m not lying about that.
It’s not unusual though. When you superimpose the expected rise in temperature from a rapid change from La Nina to El Nino on the seasonal cycle you get, generally speaking, something that resembles figure 5.
The same old, tired curve fitting.
That is not my hypothesis. It is obvious that El Niño added subsurface heat to the surface as it always does. And the significance limit in my scientific discipline is 2%, so El Niño added a significant amount of heat to the unprecedented event, but it was not its cause. As the global SST evolution shows, even with a neutral ENSO, the 2023 event would still have taken place with an unprecedented warming. Therefore, El Niño was significant but irrelevant.
That’s where you and I disagree then because I think the consilience of evidence says it was both significant and relevant.
BTW…don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the HT eruption had no effect. In fact I think it did have an effect and possibly even a measurable effect. Afterall, it could be the missing link in my model above that causes the model to underestimate the timing and magnitude of the warming spike.
“Warming spike started months before El Niño, and is continuing long after El Niño.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about and are very far out on a limb.
The global SST warming spike began after the Niño3.4 region changed.
The Relative ONI 12-month-average-change strongly affected global SST change, and according to this metric the 2023/24 El Niño was the 4th strongest since 1950. Furthermore, global SST lags the RONI, causing SST to linger high after an El Niño; SST is falling now from the peak anyway following the TSI peak. This El Niño was solar caused.
“It is well known that volcanoes can cause El Niño events.”
Let’s see if you can name one ENSO event in modern times that can be verified to be caused by a volcano; and provide data, hand-waver.
For a start I think you need a better explanation, because Occam’s razor favors the volcano.
I think you have me confused with John Shewchuk. It’s not my hypothesis. I’m just trying to get John to explain what test could be used to falsify it. Describing the test is usually enough to tease out the technical details of the hypothesis.
I don’t need any test — just data — which clearly show an unprecedented warming spike following an unprecedented water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) injection into the stratosphere. Most people can understand this simple correlation.
Let me make sure I have this right. Are you saying there is no test, experiment, and/or data that you would accept that would falsify the hypothesis that the HT eruption is the cause of the unprecedented warming spike?
Yes and No. We don’t need a test, because the test is right in front of you. Now we know that an unprecedented submarine volcanic ejection of an unprecedented amount of earth’s primary greenhouse gas (water vapor) into the stratosphere will cause global warming — just NASA said it would. Better yet … the test continues as we watch it unfold … Cheers.
And what specific result are you looking for in this test that is unfolding that would falsify your hypothesis?
Can you post a link to the NASA materials that say this warming spike is caused by the Hunga Tonga eruption?
“That is enough to increase the concentration there by about 1 ppm”
Which should give around 0.1 W/m2?
Nothing compared to 2-3 watts from ENSO (-24/24 N).
The effect is debatable. 0.1 W.m-2 isn’t an unreasonable estimate. However, right now I’m only trying to explain to John Shewchuk how much water vapor actually went into the stratosphere. The first step in quantifying its effect is to first quantify how much it increased.
Bingo. Thanks, John.
With about 1% of total atmospheric water vapor, the stratosphere getting a 10% burst water vapor means total atmospheric water vapor increased by only 0.1%.
The strongest climate effect of that burst of water vapor in January 2022 would be in the next few months after the volcano in early 2022. But there was no obvious spike in the global average temperature.
By mid-2023 there would be less water vapor in the stratosphere than i January 2022.
Mid-2023, 18 months after the eruption, is the start of a warm period that coincides with an El Nino heat release.
There is no 18 month magic bullet delay of the effect of Hunga Tonga. That is silly science by an AGW denier.
I don’t listen to narratives … I listen to data … https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_31hPa.pdf
The data you link to says water vapor increased less than 1 ppm in the stratosphere.
Most people think in 3 dimensions … https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00652-x
I know. The QBO website has charts at all levels and latitudes both in time-pressure for a specific latitude and time-latitude for a specific pressure. BTW…that link is also consistent with ~1 ppm (or less) increase in the stratosphere.
As Einstein said, everything is relative … and so is the 13% vapor increase.
What does that even mean? Are you saying you don’t accept the result of Khyakin et al. 2022? Are you saying the 13% is relative to whatever it needs to be to give you the answer you want?
As any proponent of the CO₂ would tell you, it is not the amount, it is the effect.
chuckle.. funny that isn’t it..
they say that a 13% increase in in stratospheric H2O has no effect,
…. but an increase from 0.03% to 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is meant to boil the planet. 😉
Bizarre and ridiculous. !
This ^
What does that even mean? Are you saying you too don’t accept the result of Khyakin et al. 2022? Are you saying that the law of conservation of mass does not apply to water vapor because of its effects?
No, why would I not accept what they say?
I completely agree with that.
But the effects of water vapor are not only related to their mass, they are related to their location. As happened with Tambora, when the plume reached the NH extra-tropics the effects greatly increased. I do not know why but it is an observation from multiple volcanoes that the effects on both hemispheres are very different. We have volcanic eruptions inducing El Niño events and warm NH winters at certain times but not at others.
There’s still lot to learn about the effects of volcanic eruptions and Hunga Tonga is a special case because it is unprecedented. But to learn from it we must first accept the evidence of the effects it is causing. If it is unprecedented it is likely from the volcano.
That’s has nothing to do with John’s challenge of the fact that water vapor only increased by 1 ppm in the stratosphere.
That’s has nothing to do with John’s challenge of the fact that water vapor only increased by 1 ppm in the stratosphere.
Climate scientists cannot look at anything that isn’t a “global average”, this is a perfect example.
You forget the 13% vapor increase. Try to remember. Thanks.
I’m not the one challenging Khyakin et al. 2022 here.
No, it doesn’t. A typical El Niño would have subsided by now, but UAH remains elevated.
El Niño also cannot explain Figure 2, which shows that the usual seasonal cycle of the ocean has been disrupted for the first time ever recorded in 2023.
The typical lag of UAH TLT wrt to ONI is 5 months. UAH TLT peaked 5 months after ONI peaked and is now declining inline with expectations of the ONI. What’s the problem you see here?
1) If UAH lags ONI by 5 months, July’s UAH value reflected ONI conditions from March (2023), which were still essentially La Niña conditions. Therefore, the onset was too early.
2) The PDO is in its negative phase, which factors against development of a strong El Niño.
3) It cannot explain the unprecedented disruption of the typical seasonal cycle in the oceans.
You’re moving the goalpost. I’m addressing your comment “A typical El Niño would have subsided by now, but UAH remains elevated”. Let’s handle that first before handling the goalpost at a new distances, which I’m more than happy to address.
A typical El Niño would have completed its cycle by now, but this one apparently hasn’t. It’s still dropping.
Are you saying that it is typical for UAH TLT to drop to it’s ENSO neutral state 7 months after the ONI peak?
You are just an ignorant with bad manners. Study the Tambora eruption of 1815 and why the effects took place 15 months later, in 1816.
You’re not wrong. It takes a few months at least to circulate and disperse the volcanic plume. So it’s not unreasonable to hypothesize a lag between the eruption and the response.
Javier understands volcanic lag far better than you (see atch diagram). He provides data – while you provide accusations. You should read his book — Climate of the Past, Present and Future … there is no better climate book on the market.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not accusing Javier of anything. In fact, at least in regard to the possibility of a lag I agree with him.
“That is silly science by an AGW denier.”
And your whole comment is a mindless rant by a rabid AGW-zealot !
You have yet to produce any evidence at all that humans have altered the “global” climate.
Speaking of looking (at the data):
1) Pressure in the stratosphere ranges between 20,000 Pascals near the tropopause to 100 Pascals near the top.
2) Temperatures in the stratosphere range between about -50 °C near the tropopause to about -15 °C near the top.
3) Most of the “150 million tons of water” injected into the stratosphere by the HT explosion will have quickly condensed into micro crystals of ice (a very fine snow) due to the rapid convective cooling, combined with evaporation/sublimation cooling induced by the low ambient pressure. It is problematic how much of this snow precipitated out due to gravity within a couple of months following the injection versus how much remained suspended in the stratosphere for a longer time period.
4) Compared to the normal ambient pressure profile of the stratosphere noted in (1) above, the saturation pressure of water vapor over ice ranges from about 4e-9 Pascals at -50 °C to about 2e-7 Pascals at -15 °C. That’s at least a nine orders-of-magnitude lower water vapor pressure compared to stratospheric ambient pressure.
Therefore, I cannot see there being an “unprecedented water vapor injection” remaining in the stratosphere for more than a couple of days following the HT explosion event.
What you can not see satellites can clearly see. This image is just one level of data … https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_31hPa.pdf
Well,
1) The data plot you linked to is identified in upper right corner as being for the pressure level of 31.6 hPa, equivalent to a standard atmosphere altitude of 23.5 km. This is much lower than Javier Vinós’ assertion that most of the water was injected by the HT eruption to an altitude of 35 km.
2) The lower left corner of that same data plot identifies “Aura MLS”. According to https://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/mls.html , the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument measures both water vapor content and ice content. So, without any further information, one cannot say if the dark green coloration in the plot noted after beginning of 2022 represents water vapor or water ice or both.
3) The plot’s coloration scale difference between the “normal” light blue colors plotted prior to start-2022 and the dark blue-green colors plotted post start-2022 is in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 ppm “H2O”. Since this plot only gives anomaly values against an undefined H2O reference (baseline) value, it is not possible to know if the noted variation is really meaningful percentage-wise.
4) There is a difference in the word “see” as used in the context of reasoning versus “see” as used in the context of visually examining.
I agree with Javier Vinos, who said … “Most water in the stratosphere is in the form of vapor, not ice, due to the low pressure. Ice can be found near the tropical tropopause where tropospheric air entering the stratosphere is freeze-dried, and at the polar vortices, where temperatures are so low that stratospheric polar clouds can form.”
Then look at the data. At the pressure and temperature at 35 km high in the middle stratosphere, where the volcano injected the water, this would be in the form of vapor, not solid. Ice can only be found in the lower stratosphere and the polar stratosphere.
According to the US Standard Atmosphere, at 35 km altitude the expected pressure is about 560 Pascals and the expected temperature is about -36 °C.
Water ice forms normally (i.e., without any carefully controlled sub-cooling) at close to 0 °C, pretty much independent of ambient pressures lower than 100,000 Pascals (i.e., sea-level pressure).
Since the HT volcano launched a large (predominate?) amount of water into the stratosphere as liquid droplets—nowhere near all as water vapor*— that water would have frozen in the stratosphere almost immediately due to (a) convective cooling with the cold air then existing between, say, the tropopause and 35 km altitude, (b) the evaporative cooling created as the relatively warm liquid water boiled (evaporated) due to the low ambient pressure, and (c) additional bulk cooling created by formed ice that then sublimated due to the very low ambient pressure.
*Why do I assert that a large quantity was injected as liquid water and not just as water vapor? As you well know, water vapor is transparent in the visible spectrum, so clouds become visible only by reason of having condensed liquid water droplets. An examination of the HT explosion as seen from space (see the lead-in photo at the top of your article, as well as time-lapse videos of the explosion as seen from space that are available on YouTube), shows a massive plume of visible clouds erupting upward and outward.
Your last sentence is true with the following modification in bold:
“Under normal conditions and considering gravitation settling due to density differences, ice can only be found in the lower stratosphere and the polar stratosphere.”
The HT volcanic injection of 150 million tons of water (most of it in liquid microdroplets state) was NOT a normal condition.
You forget your meteorology and physics lessons. This triple-point diagram clearly shows that water vapor does indeed exist in sub-freezing temperatures when it is also under very lower pressure — like in the Stratosphere.
I did not forget. Did you not read in my post that I stated:
“. . . the saturation pressure of water vapor over ice ranges from about 4e-9 Pascals at -50 °C to about 2e-7 Pascals at -15 °C”?
Heck, I even bolded a portion of that statement for emphasis.
Good grief.
ERRATUM:
Thanks to a posting of the phase diagram of water above by John Shewchuk, I was forced to go back to check on what I asserted above in my posting paragraph (4) to be the values for the saturation pressure of water vapor over ice for -50 °C and -15 °C. I stated those values based on a table given at this link:
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/vapor_saturation_pressure_15731.htm
but it turns out they are wrong . . . and by a large amount.
Using the computational formula that is also provided at this reference instead of the table, I get the following vapor pressures that are in agreement with the values given on the phase diagram that Mr. Shewchuk posted:
the saturation pressure of water vapor over ice ranges from about 4 Pascals at -50 °C to about 160 Pascals at -15 °C.
My apologies for trusting the tabulated values at the link and not bothering to double check using the cited mathematical equation.
You present absolutely zero evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever.
It is just AGW crap mantra.
There is no “gradual” atmospheric warming.
Zero trends most of the time.
Tell me you either didn’t read the article, or are incapable of understanding the article….
This past year has been truly unusual. El Niño alone doesn’t account for it, as the extreme warming started early last summer and is still ongoing. Typically, El Niño’s effects would have subsided by now.
Despite this, many political and scientific organizations are disingenuously claiming this situation aligns with an El Niño superimposed on a long-term warming trend from rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, even the extreme models can’t replicate the past year’s intense warming.
Our inability to study this event in detail is due to the premature consensus on human-caused climate change.
If you don’t understand the system you’re studying, you can’t grasp how it behaves when a new variable (anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is superimposed on it. It’s that simple.
We know something unusual is happening, Nick. Since you dismiss the Hunga Tonga eruption hypothesis, we’re waiting for your explanation.
Various studies have shown empirically that CO2 follows temperature and so is not the cause for increased temperature.
CO2 does follow temperature…sometimes. But it also goes the opposite direction with temperature following CO2. But even if you don’t accept the later we know indisputably and unequivocally based on the law of conservation of mass that CO2 is not following temperature today. Humans inject 695 GtC (326 ppm) into the atmosphere. The hydrosphere took 180 GtC (85 ppm). The biosphere took 225 GtC (106 ppm). That’s it. Full stop. Humans are wholly the cause of carbon increase in the atmosphere and we did it independent of the temperature. [Friedlingstein et al. 2023]
95% of atmospheric CO2 is natural. Both natural and anthropogenic are removed at the same rate and have a residence time of about 5 years. (Berry, 2019)
69% of atmospheric CO2 is natural according to the law of conservation of mass. Berry’s conclusion violates the law of conservation of mass. And his analysis conflates adjustment time with residence time which is the probably the flaw that led him to violate the law of conservation of mass in the first place. He’s been informed of the mistake and refuses to acknowledge it nevermind fix it.
Where has Berry been so informed and what was his response?
As Berry noted, IPCC says that natural is 210GtC/y +/- 20% and Boden says that anthropogenic in 2014 was 9.7/y GtC which is in the close to Friedlingstein 2022 value. Where has the IPCC and Boden been refuted?
Berry discusses your concern about adjustment time and shows the error made by IPCC and why he uses e-time.
Friedlingstein is only concerned about anthropogenic emissions and not natural. Your arithmatic assumes no change in natural CO2 emission since 1850 which is false. It also assumes a Bern model type of residence time for anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 which is physically impossible.
Here, here, and here.
They aren’t. That’s why Berry’s wrong.
There is no error. There can’t even be an error because they’re just definitions of concepts. Berry literally doesn’t understand the definitions and as such conflates two different concepts. He literally doesn’t understand that residence time is different from adjustment time and thinks residence time (which is what he is effectively computing) describes carbon mass lifetime as opposed to carbon molecule lifetime in the atmosphere which is so absurd it almost defies credulity that a guy with a PhD and self proclaimed expert in the carbon cycle could make such an egregious mistake.
That is patently false.
First…the purpose of the Bern model isn’t even about quantifying residence time. It’s about quantifying adjustment time. Those are two different concepts.
Second…of course the carbon cycle is going to be time partitioned because there are different physical processes that act on different timescales at which carbon mass (as opposed to carbon molecule exchange) is depleted. As a result the carbon mass lifetime is significantly longer than carbon molecule lifetime.
Here, here and here are blog comments and Berry responded to some or all. In short, no peer reviewed rebuttal. Perhaps you could be the first.
If IPCC and Boden are not refuted then saying that’s why they are wrong is irrational.
The confusion associated with IPCC’s use of residence, adjustment, e-time etc. is adequately discussed by Berry and has not been refuted.
Unless I missed where he did Friedlingstein is not concerned about natural emissions. He mentioned them in passing and did not attempt to quanitfy them or their absorption. That’s needed for your simple 69% calculation.
The Bern model assumes that natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 are absorbed at different rates by ocean, land, etc. which is nonsensical.
The IPCC and Boden accept the law of conservation of mass. The law of conservation of mass has not ben refuted. Therefore Berry is wrong.
The IPCC is using the term “adjustment time” for the lifetime of carbon mass and “residence time” for the lifetime of specific carbon molecules in accordance with the well established and widely used definitions in the academic literature they cite. Berry does not. This is likely the root of Berry’s confusion.
Figure 2 in Friedlingstein et al. 2023 is an example of the authors concern with natural emissions.
The Bern model does not assume that natural and anthropogenic CO2 are absorbed at different rates (aside from the minor isotopic uptake preferences). I suspect your confusion is rooted in the fact that you too are conflating adjustment time with residence time. I say that because of your previous comment in which you thought the Bern model quantifies residence time.
If you are willing I can go through a simple and intuitive example that demonstrates both residence time and adjustment time and how they are different. Is that something you are interested in?
Berry uses IPCC and Boden values.
Berry uses e-times for the reasons explained in his paper.
Friedlingstein is aware and does not deny natural emissions but only considers anthropogenic in his analysis.
As Berry has noted, IPCC’s Bern model assumes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2. This is a false premise but it is consistent with IPCC’s charter to only consider the “scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”. The model partitions anthropogenic CO2 into e-time fractions and does not allow movement between them. Natural CO2 is not partitioned and has a single fast e-time. The model predicts that a large fraction of anthropogenic CO2 stays in the atmosphere “nearly forever” and a smaller fraction leaves the atmosphere.
As you know Berry’s Bern argument and associated references debunked this nonsense, thereby destroying the indefensible position that the increase in CO2 in the modern era is due to anthropogenic sources. You apparently are not convinced. So get it from the horse’s mouth. Explain your position on his blog, including both the Bern and e-time problems as you see them, and he and perhaps others will respond and either disagree or agree with you.
Berry’s e-time is roughly the same concept as what everyone else calls residence time.
That is just patently false.
No it doesn’t. The Bern model uses the law of conservation of mass. That is not an assumption. It is an indisputable and unequivocal fact.
No it doesn’t. There is no significant difference in the way the carbon cycle processes natural or anthropogenically released carbon. The carbon is partitioned because there are different physical processes operating that act on different time scales. For example, within the ocean the DIC rate is different than the gaseous rate, the mixed layer rate is different than the deep layer, the biosphere rate is different than the hydrosphere, etc. There is no single rate at which nature buffers carbon. And this has nothing to do with Berry’s e-time which, like I said, is most similar to residence time.
That is literally a violation of the law of conservation of mass.
I’ll ask again. Are you willing to go through a simple and intuitive example that demonstrates both residence time and adjustment time and how they are different?
“Berry’s e-time is roughly the same concept as what everyone else calls residence time.”
There are many definitions of residence time and only one for e-time so it is better to use e-time.
“That is just patently false.”
Wrong. Ocean, for example, is only considered as a sink.
“No it doesn’t. The Bern model uses the law of conservation of mass. That is not an assumption. It is an indisputable and unequivocal fact.”
Conservation of mass is not the issue. Time in each anthropogenic fraction and the single natural fraction is the problem. If both were treated equally the argument that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is nonsensical. With an undisputed emission ratio of 95:5-natural:anthropogenic claiming that this is not maintained in the atmosphere is nonsensical if both were treated equally by the IPCC Bern model.
“There is no significant difference in the way the carbon cycle processes natural or anthropogenically released carbon”
That is why the IPCC Bern model is wrong as it treats natural different from anthropogenic. Anthropogenic is given a range of e-times but only a fast one for natural.
“intuitive example that demonstrates both residence time and adjustment time and how they are different?”
Berry clearly discusses this in detail. I don’t have a problem with his argument but if you do then then take it up with him.
This thread is going in circles so it’s time to end and I’ll watch for your discussion with Berry on his blog.
(reposting – post got kicked out as spam)
“Berry’s e-time is roughly the same concept as what everyone else calls residence time.”
Residence time has several definitions while e-time does not. e-time gets around this.
“That is just patently false.”
Wrong. Friedlingstein does not consider major sources such as ocean. They are only considered as sinks. His sources are fossil fuel related and human effect on land.
“No it doesn’t. The Bern model uses the law of conservation of mass. That is not an assumption. It is an indisputable and unequivocal fact.”
The IPCC Bern model definitely makes that assumption. Conservation of mass is not the issue. The use of multiple e-times for anthropogenic is problematic as is the use of a single fast e-time for natural.
“No it doesn’t. There is no significant difference in the way the carbon cycle processes natural or anthropogenically released carbon.”
Wrong. There is no difference in the processing of natural and anthropogenic but the IPCC Bern model does differentiate. That’s the problem. Berry’s discussion and references are quite clear on this point.
“That is literally a violation of the law of conservation of mass.”
Using different e-times for natural and anthropogenic is the issue not conservation of mass.
This thread is going in circles. If you dispute Berry’s argument then go on his blog and tell him so. He and maybe others will respond. I’ll look for your post.
It may just be queued for moderation.
Residence time has only one definition. It is the lifetime of specific molecules in the atmosphere.
Figure 2. The ocean emission flux is 80 GtC/yr. That is more than 8x as much as the fossil source.
That is precisely the issue because Berry’s analysis and conclusion violates it.
No it doesn’t. If you pulse 695 GtC into the atmosphere the carbon cycle will behave exactly the same way regardless of whether that pulse was sourced by humans or by nature.
I’m disputing it with you. I’ve invited you to listen to the reason why Berry is wrong and so far you have refused. You are doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling “la…la…la” repeatedly so that you don’t have to listen to the reason. People have already tried with Berry. He won’t listen. I was hoping you’d be more open to the law of conservation of mass than he was.
“Residence time has only one definition. It is the lifetime of specific molecules in the atmosphere.”
What reference do you have that refutes Berry’s discussion about this?
“Figure 2. The ocean emission flux is 80 GtC/yr. That is more than 8x as much as the fossil source.”
Figure 2 does not address the issue of Friedlingstein not consider major sources in his calculation. Table 10 summarizes the sources and sinks used in the calculations: emissions from fossil CO2 sources, emissions from land use change, ocean sink and land sink. No emissions from major CO2 sources was included because they are only looking at anthropogenic – “Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere”
“That is precisely the issue because Berry’s analysis and conclusion violates it.”
Wrong. There is no conservation of mass problem and you have not shown that there is. If you really believe that there is then tell him. Amazingly nobody has published a rebuttal to his paper which if it is as incorrect as you posit would have appeared by now.
“No it doesn’t.”
Wrong. Berry has demonstrated that the IPCC Bern model differentiates between natural and anthropogenic CO2. You say that both behave the same which is correct but that is not the way the IPCC Bern model treats them – fractions for anthropogenic CO2 perhaps for the reasons you gave and no fraction for natural CO2. If you disagree then tell Berry and see if he can defend his paper.
“I’m disputing it with you. I’ve invited you to listen to the reason why Berry is wrong and so far you have refused.”
Wrong. You are disputing Berry’s discussion. Berry discusses the difference between residence and adjusted times and why e-time is preferred. If you disagree with Berry then tell him and let’s see what he says.
The bottom line is that you reject Berry’s description of IPCC Bern model’s handling of anthropogenic CO2 but have not provided any evidence that he is wrong. If and when you discuss this with him I suggest that you first get your ducks in order.
You can have the last word as this discussion is a waste of time.
IPCC AR6 WGI Annex VII page 2237
That is absurd. You can see for yourself that the authors quantify the ocean flux as 80 GtC/yr and the land flux as 130 GtC/yr. It is literally right there in the graphic.
It includes the ocean and land reservoirs both of which are natural. They are called sinks in the table because the net flux (emission minus absorption) is negative. I have boldened net here to drive home the point that the law of conservation of mass is applied ΔM = Min – Mout.
[Friedlingstein et al. 2023] Humans emitted 695 GtC (326 ppm). The hydrosphere took 180 GtC (85 ppm). The biosphere took 280 GtC (131 ppm). That’s it. Full stop. The law of conservation of mass say indisputably and unequivocally that humans are wholly responsible for all of the mass increase in the atmosphere. It is that simple. This is me literally showing you the problem.
see above
“IPCC AR6 WGI Annex VII page 2237”
This does not address or refute Berry’s discussion.
“That is absurd. You can see for yourself that the authors quantify the ocean flux as 80 GtC/yr and the land flux as 130 GtC/yr. It is literally right there in the graphic.”
Wrong. Your simple arithmatic is only for anthropogenic CO2 which is 5% of total which is inadequate for a conservation of mass analsysis. In addition, the graphic clearly says that it only considers ocean and land UPTAKE (i.e., SINK) anthropogenic fluxes and that’s all that enters the calculations. Friedlingstein is not interested in a COM calculation. There is no input to the calculation for CO2 emissions from ocean or land and if there were that would have to be subtracted out because the paper is only looking at anthropogentic CO2.
“The law of conservation of mass say indisputably and unequivocally that humans are wholly responsible for all of the mass increase in the atmosphere.”
Wrong. You can’t do that calculation without all inputs as you have been repeatedly told. IPCC and other sources all agree that CO2 emissions are 95% natural and 5% anthropogenic and Berry has shown that atmospheric CO2 has the same ratio.
There is no sense debating this with a flawed conservation of mass argument which is scientific nonsense.
Until you can refute Berry (be the first) his analysis controls.
I am not sure where Berry got his natural emissions from but the AR6 WG1 chapter 5, page 700 but there is a lot of uncertainty in these numbers and Dr Berry seems to be in the right ball park.
The total emissions of CO2 is shown in the AR6 chapter 5 page 700 are
Respiration 111.1
Fire 25.6
Freshwater 1.5
Net land use change 1.6 ± 0.7
Fossil Fuels and Cement 9.4±0.5
Ocean 54.6
Ocean Anthropogenic 23
Total = 226.8 Gt/yr (close to Berry’s 219.7 GtC/yr)
Atmospheric content is 591 plus 279 =
Lifetime = Amount ÷ Emissions
= 870 GtC ÷ 226.8 GtC/yr
= 3.8 years
Given the large uncertainties, this is not too different from the IPCC AR1 saying it was about 4 years (IPCC AR2 p.76
To convert CO2 ppm to GtC multiply by 2.13
To convert GtC to Gt CO2 multiply by 3.667
1 billion tonnes = 1 Gt = 1 Petagram (Pg)
Wrong.
Certainly being “inform” by a practitioner of AGW anti-science, who makes unscientific assumptions… is meaningless.
Berry’s numbers are very close to the IPCC WG1 AR2 numbers.
On page 76 of the second IPCC Assessment report it says the turnover time for CO2 is about 4 years.
On the same page it says “Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass (M) of a reservoir – e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere – and the
total rate of removal (S) from the reservoir: T = M/S”
However, on p.77 in figure 2.1 the value for Atmospheric mass is 750 GtC.
The value for total emissions (adding up all the emissions) is 157.1 GtC/yr.
To get the turnover time (aka lifetime) divide 750 by 157.1 to get a turnover time of 4.8 years.
I think Dr. Berry’s 5 years looks to agree with the IPCC’s result.
That’s the reference he gives.
Thanks Ollie.
Something quite funny. In successive IPCC reports, the total emissions gets higher. It appears this is because they are using the atmospheric content divided by the removal rate (aka turnover rate) to calculate the emissions value. As the atmospheric content rises, the total emissions has to rise.
But they got the value for the removal rate by dividing the content by the removal rate.
In other words, they are using emissions to calculate the removal rate and the removal rate to calculate the emissions.
As Berry’s discussion notes IPCC’s use of those type of terms is at best confusing.
I am still trying to get me head around it all. I am fairly sure the IPCC are deliberately confusing the issue by conflating in people’s minds the adjustment rate and the removal rate. In the most recent few assessment reports they say there’s no specific lifetime and then start talking about adjustment rate. Also, by using the word “lifetime ” they make people assume it is like half life.
The IPCC is confusing the issue. Berry discusses the various definitions and how the IPCC used resident and adjustment times. He argues that this murky use of the terms is why he prefers e-time which does not have a definition problem.
OOps. Sorry. That should have been “But they got the value for the removal rate by dividing the content by the total emissions.”
When has temperature followed CO2?
PETM and the modern warming period.
Complete garbage.
Show us the reference that you are relying on.
An increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 can be both a cause and effect of increasing atmospheric temperature.
Because there is evidence of CO2 following temperature during periods of deglaciation it does not logically follow for that reason it cannot therefore be a cause of increasing temperature.
That is the deductive fallacy of affirming a disjunct.
The evidence that CO2 follows temperature is found in both the historical ice core data as well as in recent instrumental data. There is no logical fallacy at play here only empirical data. There is no empirical data that shows CO2 (natural or anthropogenic) has more than a minor effect on temperture. On balance it is a net coolant.
There may be reasons why CO2 cannot be causing warming (I don’t know any) but the ice core evidence that comes up frequently is not one of them.
I’m not arguing the science but the logic, take a completely unrelated example of two often linked subjects.
Take the proposition drug addiction can cause homelessness, it does not logically follow that therefore homelessness cannot be a cause of drug addiction.
That is just faulty logic.
No, causation can be deduced from the order of events. If drug addiction always precedes homelessness, then the former is the cause of the latter, or at the least one of the causes.
But there are two propositions or sequences of events, both can be true.
The fact that one is true it does not logically follow that the other must be false.
The ice core evidence of rising temperature probably due to Milankovitch cycles preceding rising CO2 concentrations due to ocean out-gassing represents a chicken-or-egg dilemma.
In addition to the argument based on causation, we also have the observation that, from ice core data, that temperatures always increase when CO2 is at a minimum, and decrease when it is at a maximum. This is completely inconsistent with the standard CO2 narrative.
When has a change in CO2 preceded a change in temperature, if ever?
PETM and the modern warming era.
One event 55Mya and one within living memory and nothing in between?
I was under the impression that modern warming started at the end of the LIA, before CO2 began rising.
How do you account for the global cooling from 1940 to 1980?
You asked when has a change in CO2 preceded a change in temperature. I gave examples.
The global average temperature started increasing until about 1800-1850. This was after CO2 began rising.
Aerosols.
Glacial recession and the rise in sea level began in the 18th Century, well before the rise in CO2.
If aerosols were responsible for cooling, why did said cooling only start in 1940 and not earlier? Why are the aerosols over India and China from coal burning (far worse than the past pollution in the West) not causing cooling?
CO2 rise began in the 18th century.
It was during WWII that industrial activity began releasing aerosols in large quantities.
The aerosols being released today to produce a cooling force. It’s just that the warming force of GHGs dominates.
Your graph disproves your assertion that the increase in CO2 began in the 18th Century.
Coal smoke is the source of most aerosol. Why do you claim that industry during WWII was the source?
No it doesn’t. Just because the graph has a low resolution doesn’t mean CO2 forcing didn’t start increasing in the 18th century. I’ll point you [Friedlingstein et al. 2023] which has a more detail analysis of the early emissions showing that accumulation had already occurred by the 19th century.
I didn’t say it was the source. I mean, it is a source; just not the source. What I said is “It was during WWII that industrial activity began releasing aerosols in large quantities.” and that was in response to your question “why did said cooling only start in 1940 and not earlier?” Look at the graph. Notice that aerosol forcing increased rapidly during and after WWII to the point that it dominated over the forcing increase of CO2 for a period of time.
Your Friedlingstein reference says nothing about CO2 before 1850.
It literally shows 35 GtC being emitted between 1750 and 1850. That is 4.8% of the 730 GtC total emitted through 2022.
It is an estimate based largely on guesswork.
How do you know the warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2?
Pretty sad leaving out H2O, hey.
Need to make the graph 10-20 times taller. !
There is no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, the “radiative forcing” is a load of malarkey.
It doesn’t change the temperature gradient, so it can’t change the net outward radiative flux.
Even if CO2 did get a chance to radiate, which it doesn’t in the lower atmosphere, most of it is sideways anyway.
(68% of radiation has more horizontal component than vertical component.)
This is not an exercise in logic. We are dealing with data and logic does not trump data.
In your example, you know that both are correlated and you say that you also know that drugs are the cause of homelessness. To determine if the reverse is also true you will need to do an appropriate experiment as there is no reason given in your statement to reject homelessness could cause addiction. Logic will not suffice – an experiment is needed.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” ― Richard P. Feynman
“Various studies have shown empirically that CO2 follows temperature and so is not the cause for increased temperature”.
Only dumb people make that claim.
It is equivalent to saying nearly 100% of scientists have been wrong about CO2 since 1896. And you are smarter than all of them.
Anybody who rests their case on Arrhenius is a fool as shown by Angstrom in 1900.
The only evidence you have is a pathetic call to a mythical consensus.
Pretty sad, hey !!
An increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will theoretically increase the temperature of the atmosphere at a rate of about 1C per doubling of that concentration all else being equal.
All else known and unknown are not equal over any and every time scale.
Although a factor nothing can be inferred about the effect of the increasing CO2 concentration from the supposed global average temperature trends over the relatively short history of reasonably reliable GAT data.
Nick writes “the resulting warming would be gradual, just as with CO2.”
Nick, if you believe that and know your chemistry, the pace is set by a rate-limiting step, a mechanism involving key chemicals that react with each other at some speed.
Can you show the chemical reaction that limits the rate of which you speak, with the usual descriptors of the conditions like exothermic or endothermic, etc.
It not, are you not just going along with theories of The Establishment?
Geoff S
Could Stokes explain why warming should be gradual with increasing CO2? The radiative model predicts the effect should be instantaneous.
People just can’t get their heads around temperatures and fluxes. The flux effect should be rapid. Like when you turn on the gas under a kettle. But the kettle does not instantly boil.
Okay, smart guy, what caused the abrupt warming? As Vinós said:
What’s your candidate? Support it with evidence as Vinós did. Persuade us.
You are obviously wrong, Nick.
The radiative response to an instant large increase in GHGs is very different to the response to a gradual increase of the same magnitude over a long time.
See for example: Donohoe, A., Armour, K.C., Pendergrass, A.G. and Battisti, D.S., 2014. Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(47), pp.16700-16705.
Compare Fig. 1C and 1D.
Then, according to you, what is being said that stopping emissions will stop the temperature increase below the +1.5°C limit is also a fallacy, right?
I do not have to explain why the effect took 18 months because nobody knows that, but we have a clear precedent in the 1815 Tambora explosion. The effects took 15 months to kick in. 1815 had a similar temperature to the previous years, but 1816 was extraordinarily cold. So I play the cards of the Tambora precedent and of our ignorance of the climatic effects of volcanoes. It is not up to me to explain something nobody knows.
Javier
“Compare Fig. 1C and 1D.”
Well, first they are about GCM response to 4x CO2 increase. But it comes back to this rate fallacy. They show a varying speed up of build-up of rate in these computer models. But even if the top rate was achieved instantly, it is not anywhere near enough to explain such a rapid rise in temperature (which that paper says nothing about).
“we have a clear precedent in the 1815 Tambora explosion”
No, you don’t. The current claim is that wv is blocking OLR. Tambora emitted aerosols which blocked incoming SW. Totally different. The Tambora effect had almost gone within 2 years. HT was 2.5 years ago.
Besides, Tambora was VEF 7. HT was VEF 5.
“Well, first they are about GCM response to 4x CO2 increase”
“of build-up of rate in these computer models”
So…. meaningless anti-science gibberish. !
Baseless juvenile computer games.
Tambora is a precedent for the delayed effects of volcanic eruptions on climate. It shows that the effects on the NH are very important.
You assume … aerosols are stronger in effect than water vapor — without regard to volume and space/time factors. Try again.
Why does the warming start to take off when the Clean Air Acts were brought in around 1975-1980?
Possible answer is sulphate reduction.
But impossible to prove, since the warming ~1920-1945 is visually and statistically indistingushable from that of ~1976-2000. And the CAA had nothing to do with the former period. And per AR4 WH1 SPM fig 4, neither did CO2.
Let’s look at SO2 over the USA. (using rough estimates from graph)
from 2005, est 90ppb, to 2015, maybe 15ppb.. That’s a 4-6 fold reduction in SO2
USCRN shows no warming.
“USCRN shows no warming”
FALSE
URCRN reflects +0.34 degrees C. per decade warming since 2005
If you need to lie to make a point, try to be somewhat devious, so it takes more than three seconds to refute you.
Read what I said, you mindless muppet. !
I said from 2005-2015
And you should already know that the monkey type linear trend calculation comes from the 2016 El Nino.
ZERO warming from 2005-2015 as I said above, then an El Nino surge, then COOLING from 2017 until the start of the recent El Nino.
Then let’s look at a longer period… sulphates in GISP2
Massive increase after 1900.. and the globe warmed.
Sorry.. I’m not seeing the “reduced SO2 causes warming” thing !
SO2 can rise as CO2 rises but attenuates the warming due to CO2, then when SO2 is removed the hidden effect of CO2 is realised as warming. My take is that it’s all consistent with CO2 warming rate dropping because of the saturation effect but warming is now artificially too high to be attributed to current CO2 rises.
And the 2023 spike after the 2020 low-S bunker fuel rules kicked in, delayed by the COVID economic slowdown.
That is a stretch !
And the delay doesn’t make sense if there were less ships due to covid…
…. because that would mean an even greater reduction.
Look at satellite imagery showing reduction in reflective cloud cover following shipping tracks before and after the ship bunker fuel change.
Do you believe the Clean Air Acts were so effective that the climate measurably changed immediately? Might just be coincidental, after all, the same people (figuratively) trying to scare us about the impending Ice Age in the late 1970s suddenly decided it is Global Warming that is to be our doom.
SO2 doesn’t hang around long as it gets washed out by precipitation. It’s precisely the cloud nucleation that it forms that causes the cooling effect by reflecting sun’s heat. Investigation of impacts on Tmax would be more sensitive to SO2 reduction and Tming for CO2 increase. Just looking at (Tmax+Tmin)/2 hides many details. ie CO2 reduces cooling SO2 reduces warming.
I have an entire chapter dedicated to that in my book:
Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun’s Surprising Role.
In 1976 a climate shift took place that altered the global atmospheric circulation. The evidence can be found in the change in atmospheric angular momentum and wind torques. It resulted in many climate variables undergoing a step change. There is quite a lot of bibliography that is very clarifying about what happened in 1976.
Climate shifts are a feature of the climate. They take place every few decades. Another one took place in 1997 triggering Arctic warming.
Well do I recall that winter in the Pacific NW.
Sulfur compounds are being analyzed for their ability to increase cloud cover.
Eliminate the clouds and change the general albedo of the atmosphere.
Clean Air Act of 1970 also eliminated particulate carbon. SMOG is smoke and fog. The pictures of smog haze over LA should be a clue.
Climate gonna do what it does. The best thing to do is adapt. Adaptation has always been humanity’s solution to dealing with climate change.
It’s only arrogance that makes people believe humanity controls the climate thermostat and complete hubris that says we can control the future weather.
The old light a candle rather than curse the darkness philosophy.
Climate models predicting (“projecting”, if you wish) the future.
Without a computer some science fiction writers were closer than “climate science” has ever been.
(“1984”, “Fahrenheit 451”, plus others. “Animal Farm”?) They were just off by a few decades.
BUT, they never claimed to writing about “science”, climate or otherwise.
Nooooo!!! Man MUST act before it’s too late!! Plug all the volcanoes now!!! Cover them all in a giant polymer blanket!
Nah….. just use a CO2 blanket…. Will radiate all the heat back down causing inverse convection.
Climate models are used to set the absolute temperatures of the hemispheres. This is clear when the temperature of the hemisphere is so narrow it’s close the temperature of the tropics.
21.8C NH Tropics 25.8C.
When 11% of the hemisphere (southern) is covered in ice with low’s between -30C to -60C, (that’s over 60C difference of heat between the pole and the tropics) do have 12C as the average. Only computer model decides this. Reality the hemisphere winter average is close to or below freezing.
So i don’t accept this article as truth.
Models don’t reflect reality, models create reality. umm,,,ok,,,got it.
“Climate models are used to set the absolute temperatures of the hemispheres.”
That is a completely ludicrous and anti-science sentence.
Computer models have set real climatology back by decades.
Tambora, Pinatubo, and now Tonga Huska are natural stratosphere ‘experiments’. The first two injected volcanic ash, which reduced opacity to incoming SWR and so induced strong transient cooling, settling out after 3-4 years. Tonga injected water, which at stratospheric temperatures becomes fine ice chrystals transparent to ISWR but opaque to OLWR. So, just like high troposphere cirrus, should warm until settles out, probably over similar time frames for similar reasons.
I think Javier adequately made the general case by ruling out alternatives.
I make the general case simply by using a variant of Lindzen’s adaptive iris hypothesis, which showed tropical warming produces bigger Tstorms, which ironically produce less cirrus because of more rainout (most cirrus is Tstorm leading ‘anvil’ cloud induced), so cools. His ‘adaptive cirrus iris’ mechanism.
Most water in the stratosphere is in the form of vapor, not ice, due to the low pressure. Ice can be found near the tropical tropopause where tropospheric air entering the stratosphere is freeze-dried, and at the polar vortices, where temperatures are so low that stratospheric polar clouds can form.
Javier,
The highest clouds are noctilucent, to 85,000 metres altitude, and composed of water ice.
They undergo a daily cycle, which is a measure of a rate limiting step that is fast in the natural world. If other processes involving water vapour in the stratosphere are said to have long rates, then there needs to be an explanation of why the cloud daily change rate does not apply.
Although the distance between molecules such as water and CO2 become much greater with altitude, it seems reasonable to infer that the interactions under discussion are of one dominant type over all altitudes, rhather than some different processes and rates at different altitudes within the stratosphere.
This field is far from my specialty, so please correct any amateur version from me.
Vinos is correct. Water vapor in the stratosphere is still vapor. Just look at any water-triple-point diagram. Water can exist as a gas under very low temperatures and very low atmospheric pressures — like the stratosphere.
I’m curious…what UAH TLT anomaly value or behavior would we need to see to falsify the hypothesis that the HT is the primary cause?
Easy. If T stayed as elevated as two months ago after stratospheric water vapor returns to normal range.
It is estimated that stratospheric water vapor should return to normal in about 10 years. In the meantime would you expect T to slowly drop to about the 0.2 C (1991-2020 baseline) area by 2034 in accordance to the decay profile of stratospheric water vapor?
Not necessarily, because there are other factors besides the huge injection of water into the stratosphere.
Wouldn’t that be a problem 10 years from now as well?
Yes, but if T then be substantially lower than now, the Tongan hypothesis would be supported. It wouldn’t have to return all the way to the 1991-2020 baseline.
It was at 0.2 C before the eruption.
Certainly a huge problem “predicting” anything 50-100 years out.
Wouldn’t you agree. ! 😉
You have just destroyed the whole climate model meme with one statement.. Well Done ! 🙂
Disentangling the HT effect from the strong, extended, double-peak El Nino is difficult isn’t it.
Still … neither has any human causation, does it.
I assume from the red thumb that you can’t produce any human causation.
Thanks for the confirmation. ! 🙂
A quick return to values prior to the eruption that we can’t explain by another event.
A volcanic origin of the warming implies slow return to pre-volcano conditions. Obviously we have to discount the long-term warming trend that is not related to the volcano.
But the AMO is showing signs of moving into its cold phase. Hunga Tonga + AMO = cooling trend for about a decade or more. Add to that low solar activity and the fun is guaranteed.
NOT FAIR….. 🙁
I don’t like cold weather !!!
” Add to that low solar activity ”
There has been no low solar energy measured at TOA with satellites since the late 1970s.
Are you ignoring those data?
Or are you predicting a new trend in the future? If that is your prediction, then it is not based on data and is meaningless. Science requires data.
“Science requires data.”
Still waiting for your empirical measurements.. ie data.. showing warming by atmospheric CO2.
I give you a tip of the cap describing a test that would falsify the hypothesis and for making a prediction. Now let’s wait and see how the experiment plays out.
I completely agree — which follows your analyses showing that global warming is slowing down. Our future looks a bit cooler.
I liked this article. Surely part of the large effect is that the ejected water was likely hot?
Maybe we should consider too the latent heat effect of adding hotter water vapour to the atmosphere?
Yeah, we can do that. The enthalpy of vaporization is 2257 kj/kg. HT injected 150e9 kg into the stratosphere. That is 2257 kj/kg * 150e9 kg = 34e18 j. As a point of comparison a 1 W.m-2 planetary energy imbalance would take about 19 hours to yield that amount of energy.
Great article, with thanks.
The author practices silly science
There was a very unusual underseas volcano that increased stratosphere water vapor by 10%
The volcano was January 2022
The warming increase was in mid-2023
A unexplainable 18 month delay
Of course an El Nino temporarily amplifying a post 1975 warming trend could explain the warming in 2023. That would be too logical for the author.
What we need is an exciting magic bullet climate theory – the 18 month magical delay for a water vapor burst to have a climate effect. That’s just silly science.
When you are a Climate Change is 100% Natural Nutter, the climate change explanations get complicated, unprecedented, unbelievable and amusing.
You are always full of horse hockey. Here is what the author said about the delay.
Why don’t you present some confounding evidence to rebut this instead of simply calling the author a “100% Natural Nutter” and dismissing the entire article as “amusing”?
His CO2 religion prevents him from doing so.
There is no precedent for Hunga Tonga in modern climate history.
There was no knowledge of what Hunga Tonga water vapor would do to the climate.
There was no data to claim an 18 month or one year delay in the climate effect of Hunga Tonga water vapor, assuming the effect on the global average temperature was large enough to measure.
There is no evidence to prove the warming effect of Hunga Tonga was eve +0.1 degree C.
The author is speculating without data or historical precedents.
That is junk science.
And he has always been a Climate Change is Natural Nutter, strongly biased against all evidence of manmade climate change.
“There is no evidence to prove the warming effect” of CO2 is even measurable.
Yet you keep yapping on about it.
You are a rabid AGW-cult mantra nutter. !
It’s not unexplained. How silly of you so to assert without having read the reasons for the delay, or even thought about them yourself.
“or even thought about them yourself.”
Nah.. not going to happen.. he gets what little science he has from AGW cultist propaganda.
“The warming increase was in mid-2023″
Wow…. RG finally recognises the El Nino !
Well done, little child… “you have answered all the questions.”
When you are RG, any rational explanation or evidence is totally impossible.
When you are BeNasty, you post a never ending stream of inane comments.
Thanks for the confirmation of my comment , RG. !
No rational response and no evidence.. as usual.
Or do you DENY that the warming starting mid 2023 was because of the El Nino …
… or maybe it was HT. 😉
You could “pretend” to yourself it was CO2
That would be funny ! 🙂
Looking at the image of Hunga Tonga, I would say that the volume of water ejected could be greater than simply the area of the circle and the depth of the water. That volume would lift off virtually instantly, but the surrounding water flowing in would go straight down the throat of the volcano a few km into the incandescent magma chamber creating a high velocity fountain of steam.
The stratosphere is 15 to 50km above the sea surface. The initial mass directly above the volcanic mound likely rose high in the the stratosphere, but the following fountain of steam from the throat could have penetrated lower lower levels.
!s there any info on the real time elapsed in the animation.
The only attempt to quantify what this 150 Mt of wv might do cited here is the 2010 paper of Solomon et al. But here is what they say:
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases”
There is that rate thing again. A 10% jump in wv (similar to HT) would produce a rate of warming 25% of what GHGs would. So what is that rate? IPCC says about 0.2C/decade, or 0.02C/year. 25% of that is 0.005C/year. That isn’t what we saw in 2023.
Far from the only attempt to analyze the effect of stratospheric water vapor changes.
It’s the only one I saw cited here. Well to be pedantic Javier did cite the 1924 Iriomote eruption, but it had no impact on the atmosphere.
Nick – I have not read that paper, but I’m pretty certain that 10% decline that they are talking about was not insantaneous. It was natural processes, likely over a period of years.
Honga Tonga however was, for all practical purposes instantaneous. However, it dumped all that water in one location. It would take time for that water vapour to spread evenly over the planet. At first it would be all concentrated in one place, but over time it would spread out. How long? How about 18 months? In geological time that’s pretty close to instantaneous, so a step change is still logical, but easily hidden due to other processes in the system as a whole.
My bet is that the current sudden warming in in fact Honga Tonga and barring any other major events, we’re going to see a long slow pause or perhaps even decline in temps for the next 10 years.
Cue the ice age rumours!
“ but I’m pretty certain that 10% decline that they are talking about was not insantaneous”
Doesn’t matter. Tnat is the point of the rate thing. Whatever the history, if the ppmv is 10% higher, the flux induced is 10% higher.That leads to a warming rate which, they say, is 25% of GHGs. Now it is generally acknowledged that the 0.02C/year warming for GHGs is not causing the 2023 rise. Even less could the 0.005C/year from wv.
“Now it is generally acknowledged that the 0.02C/year warming for GHGs”
Is a load of total mumbo-jumbo !!
That is a totally immeasurable amount.
lol how on Earth did you infer from Solomon that the stratospheric effect must always be “25% of GHGs”?
of course as most of us know from CERES observations, the post-2000 GHG effect is small relative to shortwave cloud effects so the claim that stratospheric vapor level effects have any such relation to GHGs is bunk anyway
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
but don’t let your lying eyes confuse you 🙂
“lol how on Earth did you infer from Solomon that the stratospheric effect must always be “25% of GHGs”?”
From the abstract
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. “
“which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide”
There’s that ASSumption driven model thing again. !!
Solomon et al. 2010 only dealt with radiative effects. They were the first ones, to my knowledge, to study this issue, but there have been quite a few to study it afterwards. Finding them is as easy as going to Google Scholar and looking for papers that cite Solomon et al. 2010.
Then we have non-radiative effects that you seem to ignore. Others don’t ignore them and find them very important.
Jucker, M., Lucas, C. and Dutta, D., 2024. Long-term climate impacts of large stratospheric water vapor perturbations. Journal of Climate.
They find exactly what is going on, cold winters in the Southern Hemisphere, and predict warm winters in the Northern Hemisphere.
So yes, the evidence in favor of the volcano is accumulating and will be overwhelming as more and more studies are produced. Quite simply, there is no other way to explain the biggest abrupt climatic anomaly of our lives. It is all natural. There is no human control of climate.
“cold winters in the Southern Hemisphere”
They actually say cold winters in Australia. And 2023 was our warmest winter ever:
They also got a small amount of global warming:
“Global mean surface temperature anomalies (including SSTs) are 0.032±0.022◦C with this model, which is again very close to the 0.035◦C estimated by Jenkins et al. (2023).”
And as the title says, that is a long term result.
The January 2022 Hunga Tonga volcano eruption: an answer in search of a proper question, not to be found in the above article.
NOAA’s Climate Reference Network for the lower 48 shows no unusual trends. June in fact was very little different from May and by far, not hot. Yes, some areas were hot and some not, but isn’t that weather?
The USCRN trend is +0.70 F/decade.
Taking into account the 2016 and 2023 El Ninos…. which have no human causation…
Otherwise, ZERO trend from 2005-2015, then cooling from 2017-2023.
This is just wrong.
August is often the warmest month for ocean surface temperature. It was a regular feature of the naughties per attached.
I don’t know about that chart. Here you have the daily SST 60°N-60°S. If it is wrong I am not the one to question.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
This HTHH idea is just a poorly conceived ad hoc explanation. I’ve not seen a credible mechanism forwarded from anyone that is supported empirically tying the stratospheric water vapor to ocean warming. The cited Solomon etal paper claims 70% of surface warming is due to anthropogenic warming so they are probably wrong on all counts.
The supposed HTHH climate impact can’t even be distinguished from other larger prior anomaly spikes in the SH lower stratosphere when there wasn’t a stratospheric water vapor injection, according to Robert Cutler’s UAH LS plots, so why does anyone think the ocean will warm from it?
The 2023 temperature spike was a result of higher (and long duration) TSI above the sun-ocean decadal warming threshold, and the breach of the 1.5°C ‘limit’ was predicted ahead of time for SC#25 by me in May 2022, as I expected another ocean temperature step-up in synch with SC#25.
Javier:
If they don’t erupt during an El Nino, and are not quenched by a closely following VEI4 or higher eruption, all VEI4 and higher volcanic eruptions form a volcanic-induced El Nino.
The mechanism for their formation is that when their volcanic SO2 aerosols eventually settle out of the stratosphere, usually after approx. 18-30 months, their descending SO2 aerosols, (a fine mist of Sulfuric Acid droplets) coalesce with others in the troposphere, flushing enough of them out on the way down to cause temperatures to increase due to the less polluted air.
The water from the Hunga-Tonga eruption began falling out during an on-going La Lina in late Feb.of 2023, and since the Sulfuric Acid in the troposphere has a very strong attraction for moisture (sometimes being used as a drying agent) the water was extremely effective in flushing SO2 aerosol pollution from the troposphere, causing temperatures to quickly rise to that of an El Nino.
As long as there still is Hunga Tonga moisture in the stratosphere, the same result should occur when it eventually settles out.
Since the IMO has mandated low-sulfur fuels for maritime shipping, it is not surprising that temperatures are rising, because of the less polluted air.
You are assuming that water vapor settles out of the stratosphere much as do sulfate aerosols. However, note that sulfate aerosols are blobs of molecules. While I can assume they pick up water vapor, I can also assume that as they settle out they leave behind a lot of the water vapor that we see, err, measure.
Water vapor, H2O, has an atomic weight of 18, N2 is 28, O2 is 32, and Ar is 40. The stratosphere has little convection. Will water vapor float upward? What happens to the water vapor injected high into the stratosphere and any that floats up there? The extreme UV breaks down O2 and leads to O3. It seems to me that one hydrogen ought to be easy to knock off. The remaining hydroxyl – I don’t know. If it does split, that could lead to more O3. Whatever H2 is formed is molecular weight 2 and lighter than water vapor. And faster. If it floats into the mesosphere can it be blown off of Earth? I don’t know.
Perhaps meteoric dust can can absorb water vapor. That could make water settle out, but I imagine it would be a slow process.
It may be more that the water vapor. Remember, the HTE sent salt water into the stratosphere. That means lots of chlorine. This could influence ozone which normally protects us from UV radiation. If it was reduced that means more high energy radiation could be warming the lower atmosphere or surface.
In addition, immediately after HTE we started seeing a reduction in clouds. This would allow more solar energy to warm the surface.
I don’t expect any climate scientists to understand what happened. They can’t figure out CO2 induces evaporative cooling. Why would they have any clue what’s happening now.
Runaway warming is here! sarc/off
Seriously, why doesn’t USCRN have a hockey stick shape since 2005?
You mis-read…… Warming is running away ! 😉
Thanks, a very useful article. I’m way behind my intention of keeping up with this science, I’ve been busy with things like a presentation of my Raspberry Shake and Boom seismic instrument and lately scanning some 200 photos (of 600) from my 2,700 mile bicycle tour 50 years ago. 50 years ago today I reached Yellowstone.
I figure it will take years for water vapor to “settle out” of the atmosphere, so I’ll keep my focus on the past a while longer. (Next up – the PiDP-10, a working replica of the PDP-10, my all time favorite computer thanks in part to its great console and lights.)
In New Zealand and in Australia, lay people are still recording volcanic twilights in both the morning and evening. from my place tonight I recorded one very strong, pink, crepuscular ray angling up toward the crescent moon. 33 years ago, I started recording the aerosol cloud from Mt Pinatubo in early August of 1991, and captured many more on sporadic dates for another four years. When signs of the Hunga Tonga eruption arrived here in the first week of April 2022, I was amazed that we had volcanic twilights on consecutive nights for nearly nine months! The latest ones have been far less dramatic, but they are still definite. They have however been vivid enough to fool novice would-be auroral observers, until it is pointed out that their images are looking due west. It will be interesting to see just how long the twilights last.