Essay by Eric Worrall
If climate models can’t even get heat spikes right, what use are they?
‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
Jonathan Watts Global environment editorThu 15 Aug 2024 22.00 AEST
…
In a remarkably candid essay in the journal Nature this March, one of the world’s top climate scientists posited the alarming possibility that global heating may be moving beyond the ability of experts to predict what happens next.
“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, when satellite data began offering modellers an unparalleled, real-time view of Earth’s climate system,” wrote Gavin Schmidt, a British scientist and the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
If this anomaly does not stabilise by August, he said, it could imply “that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated”.
…With August now here, Schmidt is a fraction less disturbed. He said the situation remains unclear, but the broader global heating trends are starting to move back in the direction of forecasts. “What I am thinking now is we aren’t that far off from expectations. If we maintain this for the next couple of months then we can say what happened in late 2023 was more ‘blippish’ than systematic. But it is still too early to call it,” he said. “I am slightly less worried, but still humbled that we can’t explain it.”
…
Looking back at the most extreme months of heat in the second half of 2023 and early 2024 when the previous records were beaten at times by more than 0.2C, an enormous anomaly, he said scientists were still baffled: “We don’t have a quantitative explanation for even half of it. That is pretty humbling.”
He added: “We should have better answers by now. Climate modelling as an enterprise is not set out to be super reactive. It is a slow, long process in which people around the world are volunteering their time. We haven’t got our act together on this question yet.”
…
The recent El Ninõ added to global heat pressures. Scientists have also pointed to the fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum, and pollution controls that reduced cooling sulphur dioxide particles. But Schmidt said none of these possible causes was sufficient to account for the spike in temperatures.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/15/we-should-have-better-answers-by-now-climate-scientists-baffled-by-unexpected-pace-of-heating
Despite Schmidt’s skepticism, I don’t believe the Hunga Tonga eruption should be dismissed as a candidate explanation for this year’s temperature bump. It seems logical to infer that the temperature spike which followed the volcano which filled the stratosphere with an enormous spike of powerful greenhouse gas was possibly caused by the volcano.
The fact nobody knows whether or how much Hunga Tonga contributed to this year’s temperature bump, and climate scientists like Schmidt admit there are no other good explanations, is an unusually candid glimpse into how incomplete our understanding of the climate system is.
If climate models cannot capture significant temperature excursion events, how can we rely on them to get anything right? Current climate models are clearly unfit for the purpose of advising government policy.
One silver lining to this scientific embarrassment, the 1.5C disaster narrative has been thoroughly debunked. But the 2C global warming limit is still the real deal, right? /sarc
First, what was ever the big deal about 2 degrees C? It is not as if the Little Ice Age was some paradisical era, and it was warmer than that in this interglacial with no reported ill effects.
Any more of this gentle warming and I’ll have to take my jacket off.
Well, I am in Texas, and it is 95 F, 35 C at 8:43 PM. But I do know history, and we are at the latitude of Morocco.
Here in Vermont, it was a balmy 59 F, and foggy, at 6 am
The sun may or may not appear, and winds are non existent most of the year, except in spring and fall
Keep those boutique wind and solar subsidies coming though, as otherwise we would be even more impoverished
It would be helpful for the US to re-industrialize to make America great again, with tens of millions of meaningful, well-paying jobs, with good benefits, to make the everyday products we now import
People in Glasgow may have to discard a vest in summer.
And those wool kilts
Don’t worry, virtually naked in all weathers including snow and ice will continue to be the norm in Newcastle.
That doesn’t even threaten the typical temperature increase from the time I make the coffee in the morning until the time I wander out to my garden.
2 degrees?
“Looking back at the most extreme months of heat in the second half of 2023 and early 2024 when the previous records were beaten at times by more than 0.2C, an enormous anomaly”.
I don’t want to tempt fate but the extreme hurricane season
that was also predicted has not so materialized.
That’s because no one knows how the climate system works. Anyone who says they do know should be given a wide berth.
Yes, but we do know how models work. CO2 in, high temps out.
I’ll wait another month before I’ll tempt fate. We’re up to five named storms now. We’re only half way to the peak rate of formation.
True but most regions are currently well below the rate for this date,
LINK
The public is being misled now that they are naming tropical and subtropical cyclones. When they named only hurricanes, the public saw fewer named storms. Now they see more, giving the illusion that there are more serious storms. They name these cyclones supposedly to make references to them less confusing, but the scheme adds to storm hysteria.
What’s interesting is that I’ve yet to see a mention of the Pacific region.
There’s a typhoon at 36.7 N, 143.8 E, just off the coast of Japan, with an eye pressure of 966 hPa.
Silence…..
That’s a lovely picture of a fire Ric 🙂
Shush, shush!!!
Anton Petrov has a YT out where he talks about some study of the Hunga Tonga eruption, and the conclusion of the study was that it caused a net _cooling_.
His YT vid…
https://youtu.be/cGgmVWl0TXU?si=Cpc5bh5SVCi09pLh
A link to the study…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD041296
I have no idea how good the study is, but it would seem that there isn’t even agreement among experts of the sign of the effect from the eruption.
If Hunga Tonga caused net cooling, and UAH spiked to new highs, then the elephant in the room that no one can see is even larger than we thought.
“There is something fundamental that we are missing here.”
Story of my life.
Indeed pillage, the Sun is much larger than most think
Hunga Tonga caused a warming of about 0.5 C and the El Nino, rated strong, also caused a warming of 0.5 C, for a total of 1 C, which means the atmosphere can hold a lot more water vapor and clouds.
.
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
PART I
Impetus of El Niños
Near the Equator, a 9000m-deep plateau, near Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. The plateau covers about 150,000 square miles. It is:
1) One of the most geologically active regions on Earth
2) Home to the junction of five active fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,
3) Has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents. See URLs
https://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nios-originate-from-geologic-not-atmospheric-sources
https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologist-how-geologic-factors-generate-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/
.
The plateau has several tectonic plates slide over each other. There are hundreds of vents and lava eruptions.
The cause of sliding is mostly gravitational pull of the moon. The forces must be enormous to move around so much water every 24 hours.
Just as the oceans react with tides, the floating land masses react as well, but with much smaller amplitudes, except at weak points, such as the 9000-m deep plateau. The Pacific Rim has many weak points, with vents and eruptions, as does the mid-Atlantic rift.
The normal condition is with trade winds from east to west, so called La Nina, but every 3 to 7 years additional sliding occurs on the plateau. This causes additional venting and eruptions and additional heating of the already warmish water; the impetus of an El Niño, rated weak to very strong, whose development and consequences are well known. This warmish water rises, and with pre-vailing currents, arrives at Peru. That El Niño process takes several months to develop.
.
The upwelling weakens the trade winds , which changes air pressure and wind speeds, and push warm water toward the west coast of South America.
At higher latitudes, these changes in the tropics allow the Pacific Jet Stream, a narrow current of air flowing from west to east, to be pushed south and spread further east. The jet stream steers weather systems, thereby determining the weather patterns seen across a wide geographic area.
.
Water Vapor
Near the Equator, the sun shines on the Pacific surface nearly vertically, while the water travels, causing much evaporation and huge cloud formation.
As the water vapor and warm air rises, other air flows in to fill the “vacuum”. This causes winds, which ripple the surface, which causes greater rates of evaporation, which causes increased winds and waves, which causes even greater rates of evaporation, etc.
.
Hunga Tonga Underwater Eruption
Now comes along a rare event, the very large Hunga Tonga eruption on January 15, 2022, which sent 146 million metric ton of WV into the upper atmosphere and stratosphere within a few days, which caused a 10 – 15% increase in total WV in the atmosphere.
This had a minimal impact on worldwide WV ppm, but a major impact on local Pacific WV ppm.
WV, abundant in the Tropics, is a strong green house gas (CO2, a trace gas, is a weak greenhouse gas), so the El Niño process (rated strong in this case) likely would gradually heat the lower atmosphere, aka troposphere, by say 0.5 C (measured from the start of 2023, blue line), as shown by NASA satellite measurements, which means the troposphere can hold additional WV.
The Hunga Tonga eruption likely would add another 0.5 C (measured from the start of 2023, blue line), which means the troposphere can hold even more additional WV.
The total temperature increase, due to the two events, was about 1.0 C, which enabled the atmosphere to hold 7% more WV, or about 0.07 x 3984 = 278.9 ppm more, which is 278.9/0.0458 = 6089 times greater than the rapid 0.0458 ppm increase due to the 146 million metric ton WV of the Hunga Tonga eruption.
It required 2009 EJ to evaporate that much WV over a period of at least 18 months
This shows the magnifying power of the sun creating additional WV after the onset of the two events.
See Image 2 and below section “Hunga Tonga Type Eruptions are Weather Influencers”
It may take up to 5 years for the increased WV to dissipate, and while this happens, the lower atmosphere would have elevated temperatures, gradually decreasing, to more normal levels.
.
Images 1, 2 and 3 can be seen by opening URLs.
Ummmm . . . that would be:
— only for a couple of hours around daytime noon,
— only for a few days around the times of the spring and fall equinoxes, and
— only if there is no or little cloud coverage in the sky.
During the summer and winter solstices , the sun’s peak elevation in the sky at the equator is only 66.5 degrees.
Factors like sine, cosine, T⁴ have been erased in climate science.
Please read my articles.
Thanks for the invite, but your post above has given me all the reason not to.
All effects of “T^4 and sines and cosines” ultimately show up as temperatures.
WV has to be in the atmosphere before the effects of “T^4 and sines and cosines” take place.
My articles explain how the WV gets into the atmosphere.
Each of these articles have about 1600 views
That’s an absurd statement, devoid of any understanding of the physics of radiation and the effects geometry has on radiation exchange.
As a limit case, if what you asserted were true, the Stephan-Boltzman equation (i.e., T^4 dependence) used to calculate radiation energy losses from the Moon’s surfaces under sunlit and dark sky conditions could not be performed . . . a slew of fundamental astronomy texts and peer-reviews scientific papers would have to be withdrawn, hah!
Similar comment for calculating the reduction of solar intensity at various lunar latitudes and longitudes as a function of the sine of the Sun’s elevation above the lunar horizon.
Oh, I probably need to point out to you: the Moon has no atmosphere.
But the facts are:
1) According to the US Standard Atmosphere, at 20 km altitude (which is approximately the top of the troposphere over the latitude of Hunga Tonga) the expected air temperature is about -57 °C. Temperatures in the stratosphere range between about -50 °C near the tropopause to about -15 °C near the top.
2) 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).
3) 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 as a result of (a) convective cooling with the cold air then existing at that 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.
*4) Why do I assert that a large quantity was injected as liquid water and not just as water vapor? 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 the above 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.
Bottom line: the Hunga Tonga eruption very likely put a large amount of ice crystals, and relatively small amount of water vapor, into the upper troposphere and even up into the stratosphere.
I would expect ice crystals from the HT eruption to cause net atmospheric cooling, not warming.
Thank you for your lucid explanation.
The free cloud contained eruption gases and solids and entrained warm air, warm water droplets and warm water vapor
The cloud was spreading/exploding while still under water (water meeting 1000 F lava), and even more so when it broke free. See videos.
Hence, its buoyancy to the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
The water part of the cloud, reaching higher elevations and low temps, would freeze as ice crystals, similar to contrails of high flying planes.
Those ice crystals emit refracted sunlight in all directions, at least 50% downward, which would increase troposphere warming, as observed by satellites.
There is a calculation, with graphs, in my articles showing a 17% increase in water vapor ppm above 20 km, as measured, which is slowly decreasing, as measured.
It was bouyancy that lifted the mass of water (as liquid and vapor) through the troposphere and some even up into the stratosphere?
R-i-g-h-t . . . ROTFL.
Ice crystals refracting incoming sunlight in all directions, including back toward space, increases warming of the underlaying troposphere compared to what it would be if the sunlight had otherwise been transmitted directly there?
R-i-g-h-t . . . ROTFL.
The cloud looks enormous from a satellite
The center opening of the underwater volcano is small, in comparison.
Huge expansion and evaporation under water for days, like an underwater explosion
The free cloud contained hot eruption gases and solids, and entrained warm air, warm water droplets and warm water vapor.
The ice crystals are additional interceptors of sunlight, providing additional warming to the troposphere, which cause additional evaporation at high rates in the tropics
As a result of your valuable input I revised my articles, as follows:
Hunga Tonga Underwater Eruption
Now comes along a rare event, the very large Hunga Tonga eruption on January 15, 2022. The free cloud looks enormous from a satellite. The opening of the underwater volcano is small, in comparison. Huge expansion and evaporation under water for days, like an underwater explosion. The free cloud contained hot eruption gases and solids, and entrained warm air, warm water droplets and warm water vapor, a total of about 146 million metric ton of water droplets/WV/ice crystals into the atmosphere and lower stratosphere within a few days. The ice crystals are additional interceptors of sunlight, providing additional warming to the troposphere, which cause additional evaporation at high rates in the tropics, as does the WV.
ToldU.Big difference between what you “expected” and what happened. It got warmer not cooler.
But the issue is did “it get warmer” because of the Hunga Tonga explosion or despite the Hunga Tonga explosion. There is no scientific consensus on this question, much less anything approaching a preponderance of evidence one way or the other.
One major area of scientific debate is the cause of the delay between the HT volcano explosions (and resulting injection of liquid water, water vapor, aerosols and marine sediments into the stratosphere and troposphere) and the more recent onset of a perceived increase in GLAT warming rate.
deleted
Here’s follow-up to my comment:
“One major area of scientific debate is the cause of the delay between the HT volcano explosions (and resulting injection of liquid water, water vapor, aerosols and marine sediments into the stratosphere and troposphere) and the more recent onset of a perceived increase in GLAT warming rate.”
Nobody has offered a scientifically compelling hypothesis (as compared to arm waving) to explain the 14-16 month delay between the date of the HT volcano explosion and the “breakout” from previous maximums in GLAT seen over the preceding six years, as show in the attached graph:
Wyss Yim’s PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here: https://bit.ly/3YiDmaK
Comment: See slide describing 170,000 sq. km with 2C temperature increase and main conclusions that explain how volcanism not human CO2 drive climate change.
No need for me to see it, I’ll take your word for it. However, I’ll also note that the total surface area of Earth is 510 million sq. km . . . meaning that Wyss Yim is commenting on effects calculated for about 0.03% of Earth’s atmosphere.
If we just linearly applied that ratio to adjust the claimed 2 °C rise in “local” temperature to the entire atmosphere, the temperature increase would be .0003 * 2 °C = .0006 °C . . . IOW, undetectable.
Thanks Wil, last week I spent at least 20 hours searching the web in an attempt to tie the pacific ring of fire to El Nino events and missed those sites. Thanks also for your analysis. I’ll have a blast pushing these facts under the noses of the CO2 is the climate control knob liberals I go back on forth with over at Quora.
Also, the IMO 2020 pollution controls on ships reduced sulfate aerosol pollution, quite substantially. The new regs resulted in “an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols,” and (because ships are a major contributor), a 10% decrease in total global sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. To learn more about it use your favorite search engine to find articles with titles like these:
● Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel
● NASA Study Finds Evidence That Fuel Regulation Reduced Air Pollution from Shipping
● Low-sulfur shipping rules are affecting global warming
It’s not a problem, it’s good news. It shows that the pollution controls are working. It has nothing to do with carbon emissions, and it doesn’t mean you need to scrap your SUV or freeze in the dark to “save the planet.”
The world is getting cleaner & greener, and climates are getting slightly milder. That’s a Good Thing. Scientists call warm climates “climate optimums,” because warm climates are objectively better than cold climates.
We know it got warmer so Anton must be saying it would have been even warmer without Hunga Tonga…doubtful.
Correct.
Very few El Niños cause 0.5 C temp increases.
This increase was about 1 C, so 0.5 C must be due to other causes, such as Hunga Tonga
See graphs in my articles.
Thing is, something caused the El Nino to come on earlier in the year than usual.
And something seems to be stopping the energy released by the El Nino from escaping as quickly as usual.
A minor change in CO2 since the 2016 El Nino cannot possibly do either of these.
Anyone seeking to blame anything humans have done for this rather “different” El Nino event is living in AGW la-la-land.
El Nino is due to geo-thermal effects caused by plate tectonics.
Yes.
Exactly as described in my articles.
That something is increased sliding of tectonic plates, which can happen anytime during a year. See my articles
Time will tell. So they say. I don’t mind the mild warming; it has been good for lots of reasons, all positive in my world.
There is no warming in Australia let alone a mild one.
The Great Barrier Reef certainly seems to be enjoying the current temperatures!
We have had what I would describe as a mild summer here in the south central U.S., with temperatures near or below normal.
How does that happen is a world of “record” global heat?
The global average temperature is irrelevant to my local temperatures. While the global temperatures are through the roof (relatively, they aren’t any higher than in the 1930’s), I’m nice and comfortable living in an area where the temperatues are not through the roof.
Problem is, climate and climate change are being defined in terms of temperature when the reality is they are both the results of averaging an energy system complete with heat sink and thermal engines.
If Earth can produce a heat spike in a short time, a warming trend of +0.13°C per decade could easily be due to natural causes. You’d think people would take that away.
Absolutely – but it’s got to still be a climate crisis right?
I’m still waiting for someone to show me where this global “climate crisis” is.
Or even what it is.!
The IPCC and thousands of associated entities are not “the people”.
Those folks, and their hundred temperature prediction hoaxes, are “$mission-$driven” for job security, and for increasing their command/control over any eventual world government.
They claim to “own the science”, which no one in history has ever done.
They and the WEF, want to be the first in line, be the kingmakers and king breakers.
Trump and his MAGA “despicables” are their enemy, which the Deep State wants to assassinate or put in prison.
If Trump loses, two Communist leftists, and hundreds of their lackeys, will be at the top of the federal government.
They will “tear down that evil wall”
Even traditional Democrats should recoil from that.
Could imply? No, it DOES imply that you need scrap everything you thought you knew (which is not much) and go back to the drawing board.
“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
Climate models are not experiments
That’s true Redge. They are not fool proof either, I think we can all agree however, they are proof of fools
They are good examples of GIGOs.
What a really stupid thing to say.
Neither is a beautiful theory. In fact that is the whole point of what Feynman was saying. Do you understand what science actually is?
Climate models are self-serving political theory, based on proprietary IPCC-owned science. They have nothing to do with experiments
From the top of the extract of the Jonathan Watts article quoted above:
“. . . possibility that global heating may be moving beyond the ability of experts to predict what happens next.”
Assuming “global heating” is intended to be the same thing as “global warming”—in the physical sciences, “heating” is not at all the same as “warming”, especially as regards the phase changes of water—since when have climate “experts” had the ability to predict what comes next, beyond about a week into the future???
What weather forecast do you use? Most of the ones I’ve tried can’t get it right for the afternoon most mornings.
We are blessed with a pretty good guy here in Wyoming, Don Day, who issues forecasts for the entire state every morning. He’s not arrogant, and he knows Mother Nature is a wrong-headed, independent character.
The problem here is that no one understands how climate works under the Western World. Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas, it does not matter if it is in the Stratosphere, the Tropopause or the Troposphere.
If one rejects the notion that injecting 35 billion gallons into the mid stratosphere will have no noticeable effect on warming the planet, it sounds like they are not very bright, especially if they are pounding the table about a rare gas and it’s effect.
Commercial aviation is back up to 95+ billion gallons per year, and has been increasing since the 60’s, currently global aviation is applying a positive 1.25 Deg C forcing. And without the massive particulate load of the Vietnam war, and without the significant warming trend of aviation exhaust in the stratosphere, the 60’s would have been the warmest decade and crop yields and CO2 levels would be lower.
I don’t ponder if it could be, I model it.
Water vapor in the air does not force anything.
Water flowing downstream in a riverbed does.
The concocted phrase “forcing function” has no real meaning other than to make the speaker sound smarter than he is.
We need to use real science language and stop giving indirect credit to the miscreants who are trying to destroy human civilization.
My understanding is that water vapor in the air is the determining factor for whether or not clouds will form (the metric is called relative humidity reaching 100%).
Of course, I could be wrong.
ToldYouSo:
Cloud formation requires moisture nucleation sites, and the warmer the air, the fewer there are.
I’ve never heard that there is a under-abundance of cloud nucleation sites (aka CCN) in Earth’s atmosphere.
Please cite a reference that documents warmer atmospheric air has fewer CCNs than cooler atmospheric air. Otherwise, one might seriously doubt that hurricane storm clouds could form regularly over the warm section of the Atlantic Ocean.
ToldYouSo:
The most recent example is the low-sulfur fuel mandate for all maritime shipping.
Previously, there were trails of clouds following the ships, due to moisture condensing upon the SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) produced by their burning of higher sulfur fuels.
These clouds largely disappeared, and without their cooling effect, temperatures have risen.
I’ll repeat the request: Please cite a reference that documents warmer atmospheric air has fewer CCNs than cooler atmospheric air.
Claiming an example is NOT referencing a scientific paper or other related document.
Besides, your assertion that there once were “trails of clouds following the ships, due to moisture condensing upon the SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) produced by their burning of higher sulfur fuels” is simply not true as documented by weather satellite imagery of the world’s oceans obtained since about the late 1970’s.
There are some images of clouds resulting from marine vessel exhausts, but these are more the exception than the rule.
Each gallon of fuel puts about a billion nucleation sites in the air, THERE IS NO SHORTAGE EVER
Then there is pollen and dust storms. The natural list is long
wilpost:
By their nature, SO2 aerosols are a VERY efficient moisture nucleation site.
The others, much less so.
Banning the burning of fossil fuels, as required by Net-Zero, will reduce their availability, and cause more warming due to fewer clouds..
I have published this analysis before, on WUWT, but it was totally ignored (no votes). However, it DOES provide an explanation for our rising temperatures, so here it is, again, slightly modified:
“Because of Acid Rain and Health concerns, “Clean Air” legislation was passed in the 1970’s in the US and Europe to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in our troposphere.
According to the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), which tracks industrial SO2 aerosol levels, this pollution peaked at 139.4 million tons in 1980, and because of “Clean Air” and “Net-Zero” activities, it had fallen to 73.5 million tons by 2022, a decrease of 66 million tons!
As its level gradually decreased over the intervening years, our atmosphere became less polluted, and the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface decreased, causing warming to naturally occur.
However, this INEVITABLE warming has mistakenly been attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and, because of the wrong attribution, there is NO basis for CO2 to have ANY global climatic effect”.
On Jan 1, 2021, low-sulfur fuel was mandated for all maritime shipping, and this further decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution has to have added to our increasing temperatures.
And, since “Clean Air” and “Net-Zero” efforts are still continuing, and there still is an annual “reservoir” of about 70 million tons of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, temperatures can be expected to continue to climb, as they are further reduced.
We could look at data over the US..
From 1980.. 174ppb to 1998… 89ppb , (a decrease of 14.7 million tons, according to BH), basically halving
UAH USA48 shows no warming.
SO2 dropped from about 79ppb in 2005 to 24ppb in 2015..( a decrease of 8.1 million tons.. BH numbers), so to less than 1/3.
According to both USCRN and UAH USA48 there was no warming.
Data does not support your conjecture.
Bnice2000
.I am speaking of global temperatures, not US temperatures, which are averaged in.
UAH shows no warming from 2001-2015, a long period of SO2 reduction.
bnice2000:
HadCRUT5 shows an increase of 0.336 Deg. C, a significant amount of warming.
“As its level gradually decreased over the intervening years, our atmosphere became less polluted, and the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface decreased, causing warming to naturally occur.”
“decreased” in bold should be “increased”?
Thank you for the correction!
Burl. The US, EU, UK clean air response definitely allowed more sunshine through, but more significantly during the past 15 years China has been retiring their old coal and lignite generation with new ultra super critical plants equipped with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce and capture emissions of NOx, SOx, Particulate, PB and HG.
What explains the similar warming from the 1910’s to the 1940’s? This warming was of the same magnitude as the warming which began around 1980.
No Clean Air Act back then.
What explains the similar warming, of the same magnitude, from the end of the Little Ice Age (1850) to the 1880’s?
No Clean Air Act back then.
So we have three warming periods, one that began around 1850, and one that began around 1910, and one that began around 1980 and all of them warming at the same magnitude.
The Clean Air Act and other modern SO2 reduction efforts don’t explain the warming or the cooling from the end of the Little Ice Age.
The same mechanism caused all three warmig periods. Human reductions of SO2 only began in the last period.
Methinks some people are seeing what they want to see, not what is really there.
And if the above chart were honest, it would show that the 1880’s and the 1930’s and the current temperatures all belong on the same horizontal line on the chart. They were all equally warm at the highpoint.
But of course, we have the dishonest Phil Jones creating this chart so he gets the magnitude of the warming periods right, but he cools the past artificially by adding in bogus sea surface temperatures to make it appear that the highpoints of the past appear to be cooler than the present.
Notice that Phil Jones has both the 1880’s and the 1930’s at the same warm highpoint but both are cooled artificially so they don’t show to be warmer than today.
We know that the 1930’s were the warmest years in the United States, and Phil Jones says the 1880’s were just as warm as the 1930’s.
Bastardizing the temperature record the way these Charlatans have done has sown confusion in the ranks. And that was just what was intended.
It’s Criminal what these Temperature Data Mannipulators have done to not only climate science but to human progress. Their lies are crippling the Western World.
Add in a gradual increase in solar energy over that time span.
History doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme – Twain, I think.
D Sandberg:
Unfortunately, this should cause more cleansing of the atmosphere.and thus add to the warming trend..
China continues to be the biggest particle polluter BY FAR, while burning more than 50% of the world coal.
and the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface decreased, causing warming to naturally occur.
Perhaps you meant increased?
Climate models cannot predict air temperature: here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
Absolutely, the idea is absurd.
:… in which people around the world are volunteering their time.”
Do they not get a paycheck? 🤔
Do they get cookies and a drink?
My first thought when i read that BS
Maybe a pat on the back and a kick in the ass.
IPCC politics doesn’t like the numerous other factors affecting warming other than CO2 because Mother Nature’s sources can’t be stuck with carbon taxes for their wealth redistribution goals.
I have 11 sources that report deep sub surface ocean heating, Including along the “Pacific Ring of Fire” indicating a potential causal connection to El Nino events. Here’s one of them:
The source is contaminated with corrupt UN IPCC political fearmongering. Ignore that and study:
Wyss Yim’s PowerPoint slides that can be downloaded here: https://bit.ly/3YiDmaK
Comment: See slide describing 170,000 sq. km with 2C temperature increase and main conclusions that explain volcanism not human CO2 drive climate warming/change.
A model….
E=Mc^2
F=mA
More models.
Science is models, all the way down.
It’s the models that don’t work, that are being called ‘settled science’ that are the problem…
All models are wrong, some of them are useful.
Not even true either.
All models are truth indeterminate.
We can’t tell if they are right, only that they are not wrong as far as we have gotten.
Those are the ones called ‘scientific’...
Then there are models whose truth content is fully indeterminate. We have no way to determine if they are right or wrong. These are metaphysical.
They may in fact be incredibly useful. Like the model that says that ‘everything that happens is caused but something that preceded it in time‘
Or incredibly useless. Like ‘Nargles exist‘.
The reason everybody falls for all this carefully crafted bullshit is that they have been taught to conflate ‘science’ with ‘truth’ (If it’s science it must be true) whereas the real horror story all scientist shy away from is
If its science its definitely not true.
If it’s science it’s a model that hasn’t been proved wrong yet (but could be) .
If it’s metaphsyics, it’s a model taken to be true as an a priori assumption for the development of a model of reality (CO2 causes temperature rise. So there!)(God exists. So there!)(Matter exists. So there!)(Black Lives matter, So there!)
If it’s BUNK, it’s a model that has been proved wrong. Like ‘climate science’. Phlogiston. The Luminiferous Aether. Lysenkoism.etc.
There is a class of models called simulations. Those have concise input definitions and measurements can be made to verify the outputs, such as in electronics or mechanical FMEA or rocket trajectories.
Those simulations/models are against systems that do not complexities in the same order of magnitude as the earth energy system.
Perhaps there is a nuanced difference between engineering models and science models, but like Laplace Transforms, the math is the same.
All idiots are idiotic though some idiots are useful.
Otherwise the Democrats would never get elected.
Technically those equations aren’t models. They are functional relationships that describe models. Models are a description of a physical system along with the assumptions of the system. Functional relationships then describe the input and output of the physical system.
An example is Newton’s laws of motion. They describe a certain model of a physical system and its assumptions. If you throw in Einstein’s relativity to the model, you end up with different functional relationships than Newton’s.
It is where climate science fails. They can not describe the climate model properly; therefore, they cannot find the proper functional relationship(s). What has occurred is that some mathematicians got hold of the temperature data and convinced everyone that they can statistically analyze it to show that CO2 is the bogeyman. Viola! They have been searching since for a model of the climate that makes CO2 the control knob. It ain’t going to work!
They are mathematical descriptions of models.
Your point is a bit like saying that a long legged long necked herbivore with dark spots is not a giraffe.
Whether climate models are bunk, or merely their mathematical description is, is neither here nor there. Without an accurate description there is no hope of an accurate prediction and without accurate predictions it ain’t science. It’s metaphysics.
Hand wavey “oh, CO2 causes global warming”
Oh, and even with an accurate description, there may still be no hope of accurate prediction.
No one disputes that an exploding hand grenade fully obeys laws of known and tested physics, but you won’t find a single scientist able to predict what pieces will fall where, when it goes bang…..
Climate science sucks, but it doesn’t suck because it’s all models. It sucks because the models are not scientific enough to be useful.
All models are mathematical descriptions of physical realities.
Yes the climate models are bunk. The most difficult to simulate or model or mathematically define is the dynamic and chaotic system.
Hand grenade. It is not impossible to make the prediction, but to do so accurately requires a molecular definition of the grenade, and extremely precise information of the air and land at the moment of detonation. And yes, no single scientist or team of scientists are able to accomplish any kind of accurate, detailed prediction.
No consider the complexity of the hand grenade to the earth energy system, all offered in support of your statements.
Science is an idea, researched and strengthened to a hypothesis, tested, including null hypotheses tests, until it becomes a theory and over time validated and verified until it becomes a law. The law is overturned when knew knowledge is gained and the cycle starts over again.
One can argue that those constructs are models, but that would be purely a semantics game.
Assuming idea/hypotheses/theory/law are legitimately models, those are not the models generally discussed in the climate debates, i.e., not COMPUTER models. Physical experiments are not models. Physical measurements are not models. Observations made in reality are not models.
Is there an observable pattern during those 2 last years (so as to include the current temperatures spike on Earth) which applies also to other Solar system’s planets ?
If they ever invent a climate model that works, I’ll buy it immediately and make a mint on the stock market.
I’ve offered mine for free, not because it’s not worth anything, but because the results look too good to be true, so I’ve made everything public. The core model predicts slight cooling for at least a decade. Unless the current spike persists, it’s only weather, not climate.
Github Spreadsheet
He was talking about a tipping point here. Maybe we have just reached one.
Hm, according to a new study, the net effect is slight cooling. https://phys.org/news/2024-07-disputes-hunga-tonga-volcano-role.html
Well you certainly have.
“He was talking about a tipping point here. Maybe we have just reached one”
You got tipped on your head too often when young. He is talking fantasy cult gibberish.
—-
Do you have any evidence of any human causation for the 2023 El Nino ??
bnice2000:
No, no evidence of human causation for the 2023 El Nino, but many others were caused by human activities.
Rubbish !
bnice2000:
Sorry, NOT rubbish.
(Can’t get graph to load!)
Another try:
Text to the graph is attached.
Another try for the graph:
Success!
FAIL….. Hadcrud 3 is mostly URBAN surface warming.
It does not remotely represent the global temperature
bnice2000:
I am not citing Hadcrut 3.
HadCRUT5 is global land-ocean temperatures, and it closely tracks NASA/GISS, but not quite as extreme, which is why I use it.
We have already seen that there is no correlation between reduced SO2 over the US and temperatures.
Your conjecture is still-born. !
No one has claimed it was caused by humans.
Has Gavin Schmidt had a religious conversion because the article by him is surely a heresy for climate alarmists:
He admits that something other than carbon dioxide must have caused the warming.
This therefore denies that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the sole cause of climate change.
That’s pretty much like a priest saying OK I admit it, God does not exist; it’s all made up.
And what follows from that is the admission that lots of things contribute to climate change.
=====
But then he writes this awful final paragraph with the 100,000 year nonsense:
“Much of the world’s climate is driven by intricate,
long-distance links — known as teleconnections — fuelled
by sea and atmospheric currents. If their behaviour is in
flux or markedly diverging from previous observations,
we need to know about such changes in real time. We need
answers for why 2023 turned out to be the warmest year in
possibly the past 100,000 years. And we need them quickly.”
=====
As far as I’m concerned carbon dioxide is innocent. Net Zero is all a mistake.
100,000 years? Hyperbole at its finest.
“He admits that something other than carbon dioxide must have caused the warming.”
Obviously … as it is a “spike” in the warming.
GHG concentration is responsible for the background slow warming that the likes of ENSO proceed from.
“This therefore denies that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the sole cause of climate change.”
Again obviously not.
Unless you are wedded to ABCD “science”
And are (even more than usual) clutching at delusional straws
Look it really is quite simple.
There is a steady increase in CO2 concentration of 2-3ppm/year.
That in itself doesn’t, cannot, produce a sudden spike in GAT.
What can and does is NV (natural variation, which is evident in any GAT series).
Such is the case in this one.
Acting on top of the steady GHG forced warming.
What he is puzzling aloud over is what NV(s) have come together (+ another anthro one – reduction in aerosols ) to cause it.
Nonsense. The hypothesis says that water amplification must be a positive feedback in order for forced warming to become large enough to measure. The hypothesis requires that a tropical tropospherical hotspot occur, as a “fingerprint” of forced warming.
There is no other hypothesis in mainstream climate science..
Since that tropical tropospherical hotspot condition has never been observed or measured, claiming that steady GHG forced warming is occurring is what is known as clutching at delusional straws.
The fingerprints are not there. And now, according to you, something else previously unknown and unmentioned is acting on top of what you have no evidence to show is operational.
Its a shame that you can’t understand this delusional clutching at straws habit you have…
“GHG concentration is responsible for the background slow warming”
AGW mantra regurgitated BS.
UAH shows NO WARMING for long period of time between El Nino events.
You Keep saying that as though if you say it often enough and loud enough it will be true.
I well know that there is nothing that would convince the die-hard deniers here.
That is why you always win (in your own minds).
Just reduce it all down to a scam, eh?
And bingo ….. whoopee we’ve won!!
Only a seriously scientifically deluded person would conclude that ENs cause a trend, just because they form the peaks in the trend.
ENs are not a source of heat.
They gather heat given ocean water by the Sun and via a complex atmosphere/ocean coupling give up a portion of that heat to the atmosphere.
That Is then radiated away to space.
Then there is the opposite, where LNs cool the atmosphere.
A cycle.
Zero sum.
The atmospheric heat that a EN causes is not magic heat that accumulates and does not radiate away to space.
And your spreading out of waters just makes the oceans cool quicker, not perpetuate the supposed magic of heating the atmosphere from a source that of itself is not a source.
The source is the Sun.
You can’t make something that receives its energy from something else become independent of it.
But hey, keep up with the childish multiple, shouty posts, it’s hilarious.
(See what I did there?)
“With August now here, Schmidt is a fraction less disturbed. He said the situation remains unclear, but the broader global heating trends are starting to move back in the direction of forecasts. “What I am thinking now is we aren’t that far off from expectations. If we maintain this for the next couple of months then we can say what happened in late 2023 was more ‘blippish’ than systematic. But it is still too early to call it,” he said. “I am slightly less worried, but still humbled that we can’t explain it.””
I hope it’s not keeping him up nights. If his primary concern in life is consistency of the real world with the “expectations” charted by climate models he’s doomed.
There was great expectations all round-
“The market is not there:” Evie Networks blames FUD and corporate disinterest as it slashes jobs (thedriven.io)
Obviously they need more computer variables but forget about the F and concentrate on the UD with the climate models.
A couple of months defines a 30 year running average of weather, aka climate? Hmmm….
The humor is undeniable.
But that eruption occurred in January 2022; the ongoing spike in temperatures didn’t start until mid-2023, 18 months later.
The chart below shows UAH_TLT from Jan 2021 with the date of the HT eruption marked. There was a slight spike in temperatures at the time, but nothing out of the ordinary and by Jan 2023, a year after HTE, the UAH anomaly was negative again.
In their August 2023 report, Spencer and Christie of UAH stated that the effect of the HT eruption appeared to be “… minor, perhaps a few hundredths of a degree”.
Sorry, The caption pointing to the red line should read Jan 2022. The eruption started in December 2021 but the climax didn’t come until 15 Jan 2022. See below.
Come on now, you need to look at all the data. Four years ago Spencer and Christie along with everyone else on the planet, would have been under the belief that volcanic effects are only associated with short term cooling. They apparently cannot acknowledge that, they really got blind sided by their assumed knowledge of how the world works.
The HT eruption was a Southern Hemisphere event, it takes at least a year before there is hemispheric mixing of changes in Stratospheric composition, be it aerosols or water vapor.
During the HT eruption the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere were under the influence of the most amount of black carbon ever detected in the Stratosphere, by the enormous Australian Brush fires, when those particulates rained out, the forcing from HT was felt in its entirety.
I believe NASA is being honest with this.
It seems, there is no deception here with this group, but this data is primarily used to study the Quasi Centennial Oscillation in the Stratosphere. I wonder if the other groups within NASA even know about this or communicate with each other.
And I say that because, once you see it, how could you not immediately start integrating it into your knowledge base, unless it’s just the arrogance of admitting you know all that is needed. When an alarmist story comes out about tipping points etc. reached and you put this out there, it just takes the wind out of the sails of most rational people, and they are surprised. But the ones who swallowed the CO2 dogma hook line and sinker, become more entrenched.
I suspect truth seekers are few and far between.
Note that the WV in the NH stratosphere didn’t really increase until early 2023
Early movement was towards the south, affecting the ozone layer in the southern Arctic.
The El Nino actually started after the strat-WV over the tropics had thinned quite a lot.
strat-WV would slow down the loss of the El Nino energy to space over the higher latitudes (N and S), hence prolonging the El Nino effect
strat-WV is still hanging around into August 2024, but appears to be gradually thinning.
I saw other evidence that the initial eruption of HT in 2014 was followed by a warm ocean temperature blob east of NZ, which got trapped by weather patterns.
The 2022 erupt also cause a warming of the oceans to the north and east of NZ by some 2C, which followed the Southern Pacific gyre down to the Antarctic circumpolar current, disrupting sea ice formation.
You seriously think things happen instantaneously in the atmosphere and ocean…. bizarre !!
Certainly there were effects during 2022 on Antarctic sea ice….
Energy associated with El Nino events takes a while to charge up… or weren’t you aware of that..
—–
Now… Do you have any evidence of human causation for the 2023 El Nino.???
Still waiting….
Or are you still just muttering to yourself in your padded cell…
It just seems a bit odd that the water vapour entered the atmosphere in January 2022 but temperatures hardly budged outside of the normal range until the onset of the El Nino in mid-2023.
Eh?
It takes time for molecular concentrations to spread in the stratosphere.
Not everything in the earth energy system occurs at the speed of light.
Some of the energy transfers take weeks, months, and decades.
There is also many instances where effect is not immediately following cause.
Consider that the radiation effects from Chernobyl took time to pass over Europe.
“It just seems a bit odd that the water vapour entered the atmosphere in January 2022 but temperatures hardly budged outside of the normal range until the onset of the El Nino in mid-2023.”
Why would that be odd? Heat sinks and sources don’t change temp instantaneously. It’s totally believable that the water vapor impacted both the timing and the intensity of the following El Nino while having little impact on the atmospheric temp.
A temperature RISE implies an additional heat source has been put in place. Water vapor is *NOT* a heat source. It is, at best, a reflective body as far as heat is concerned. It radiates away what it absorbs or it thermalizes other pieces of the atmosphere. That thermalization takes TIME to spread, just as it takes time for the water vapor to disperse.
You are demonstrating for everyone to see just how poor the understanding of thermodynamics is in climate science.
Tim Gorman:
As shown by the post of LT3, above, the water entered the atmosphere in late Dec. of 2021, not in Jan of 2022..
The onset of the 2023 El Nino began in late Feb of 2023, and was confirmed as an El Nino on June 8, a very rapid rise..
It was caused by the settling out of the moisture from the Hunga Tonga eruption, which flushed out much of the industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the troposphere, cleansing the air enough to increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and causing temperatures to rise to those of an El Nino.
Tim Gorman:
Makes complete sense that a small patch of extra water vapour takes a while to spread out to have a more global influence.
Glad you finally admit the 2023 El Nino has no human causation.
That means you can stop using it, and the 2016 El Nino, to try to support the AGW scam.
bnice 2000:
Ah, but the 2016 El Nino DID have a human causation.
It was caused by a large decrease in Chinese industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, due to a 2014 edict to reduce atmospheric pollution. The images show the decrease in SO2 aerosol Chinese emissions between 2014 and 2016.
Not remotely near the ENSO area….. FAIL !!
bnice2000:
ALL El Ninos are caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
The decrease in the amount of global industrial SO2 aerosol emissions between 2014 and 2016, largely due to the Chinese actions, was 8.8 million tons, enough to cause temperatures to rise enough to cause a very strong El Nino
See: “The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
bnice2000:
Any comments on the article, or have you given up?
“Climate modelling as an enterprise is not set out to be super reactive. It is a slow, long process in which people around the world are volunteering their time.”
Volunteering?
So then what are the hundreds of billions of dollars paying for?
The Biden administration is giving $6.6 billion to a semiconductor project run by the former CEO of Solyndra, the failed solar energy company at the center of an Obama-era scandal over government misspending.
Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC’s Arizona subsidiary, whose president is former Solyndra head Brian Harrison, will receive $6.6 billion to build a factory in Phoenix, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo announced Monday.
Harrison was CEO of Solyndra when it declared bankruptcy in 2011 after receiving over $500 million in loans from the Obama administration.
If you do not truly understand a complex system or problem then you shouldn’t be trying to “model it” period. And what was the purpose of the models other then to make us appear cleverer than we really are?
If weather is random then 30 year climate chunks are also random. While you may see a weather system ‘type’ when looking for patterns just how similar is that ‘type’ to other examples of the same ‘type’?
As always we should be hunting for the differences and not the similarities. It is getting the differences right that makes models work properly not the similarities. Hunga Tonga is the exception that may prove another, connected, rule.
If you do not truly understand a complex system or problem, then modelling is a tool that can help you gain insight.
That is not what IPCC is doing.
Didn’t Schmidt say about 4 years that the models were running too hot? If so, then what he is in effect saying now is that the models are useless
“I am slightly less worried, but still humbled that we can’t explain it.”
When you put it like that, he has a lot to be humble about.
Gavin Schmidt’s reasoning seems to imply that either of three climate events; Hunga Tonga Hunga Taipei volcano, solar heating or recent pollution reduction actions are being considered as causative of recent higher temperatures. How about all three together? I understand that such combined influences may not readily enter the mind of Mr. Schmidt due to his multi-decade focus on one event, carbon dioxide increases, as the singular cause of all changes but he should really try harder. There are lots of “forcings” out there and undoubtedly, all act together.
Yes, what you said. Although in reality, what dumbass Schmidt is really saying is that the consensus has no idea and is grasping at straws. Which is what they always do anyway.