When you look back on your life you can know how you contributed to the continued profits of fossil fuels and animal ag and to US energy dominance and Imperialism in the face of evidence of several planetary tipping points.
Yes, the abnormally high temperatures in the last 10 months are a mystery. El Nino, reduction in dirty fuel and Hunga Tonga (thought to account for about 0.3 degrees of warming) are all in the running. However, just like the temporary 'pause' in warming this increase is also acknowledged to be temporary.
The important point is that both pause and increase are against a backdrop of steadily increasing warming due to human emissions.
Yes it's very cold here in England too. Climate change can't possibly be happening. You're so clever to point this out, though it's extremely hot in the global south winter with the highest recorded temperatures in India and famines in Sudan, almost like something was distrupting the weather system and causing warming not due to the summer sunshine.
What a massive globalist deception! As often with lies, the cover-up will prove even more damning.
The UK Met Office took the lead on the cover-up because, for some weird reason, the Hunga Tonga spike showed up almost immediately in their CET series despite the aerosols which delayed its manifestation in the global temperature series. They stopped putting out their monthly CET updates after March 2022 when they twigged they had a major "climate change" narrative PR disaster on their hands.
The weak El Nino they tried to blame has now been and gone, but the spike refuses to abate. Fast forward six months when strong La Nina conditions could prevail. I look forward to seeing their increasingly desperate attempts to spin their false narrative.
What are the physics of a sudden large spike of w/v at the Hunga Tonga level?
I don't know why folk don't think in terms of residence time. AFAICT there are only two ways to affect the energy content of a system in a radiation balance ( Atmosphere- Ocean - Land ) Either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of energy in the system.
Assuming steady state input ( which may not be accurate) then energy residence time is affected by a change in the materials encountered.
The oceans contain earth's longest residence time from solar input. Solar input residence time into the earth system varies from nano seconds due to albedo refraction, to decades, possibly centuries for some solar input into the oceans up to 800 feet deep.
The oceans contain approximately 1000 times the energy content of the Atmosphere. For instance, in the Southern hemisphere summer the solar input is up to 90 watts per meter greater then the Northern hemisphere summer. That is massive, at least 22 times greater then any possible affect from a CO2 increase of 130 PPM. ( 410 PPM vs 280 PPM pre industrial. )
Yet the Atmosphere cools despite this massive increase in solar radiation as a result of the earth being closer to the Sun. Why? The basic reason is that a large portion of said Southern Hemisphere summer increased insolation, inputs into the oceans below the surface, and SH summer increase falls on far more ocean then the NH summer, and, so that increased input is lost to the Atmosphere for a time. This, plus the increased albedo of the NH ( increased Snow Cover) reduces atmospheric residence time of said input.
Part of the point I am making is that a sudden spike in atmospheric temperature, means very little to the long term energy content of our earth's temperature. Does the earth's total energy content increase or decrease in the Southern Hemisphere summer? No one knows.
Yes, the atmospheric T cools, despite a massive increase in input, yet the ocean energy content increases significantly. In order to know if the earth's total energy ( land atmosphere and oceans) increased or decreased, and for what time period, one would have to know the amount of and residence time of increased solar insolation into the oceans during the SH summer. In order to know how much the oceans heat content increased, one would have to know the residence time of disparate solar W/L into the ocean. and the changes, not just in TSI, but the spectral solar changes which vary more than the TSI.
( We don't know this)
So, atmospheric increases or decreases mean little long term, as our oceans are the greatest reservoir of solar insolation energy. ( 1000 times greater) The Atmosphere is less than .1 percent of earth's energy content!
Thus traditionally the El Nino - LA Nina flux of energy from the oceans has the most rapid increase or decrease of atmospheric temperature. And the atmospheric flux means very little relative to earth's ( Land - Ocean - atmospheric) energy content. In general earth's total energy residence time is far longer for the oceans, far shorter for the Atmosphere, and in-between for the land.
As such, determining if the earth is gaining or losing energy by measuring just atmospheric T, is a bit of a fools errand. Yet here we are.
Now we have the Hunga Tonga input into the Atmosphere, and a very large W/V input into an area of the Atmosphere that traditionally has very little W/V! The increased residence time affect of any GHG exponentially declines as those GHG increase, due to saturation of said LWIR affected. And so a large increase of W/V into an atmospheric layer that is very dry, will have a larger affect then an increase into an already saturated atmospheric level. Additionally this affect is primarily atmospheric only. Also the absorbtion bands of W/V are far broader then CO2.
And so, the increased LWIR affect of Hunga Tonga, along with possible atmospheric circulation jet stream affects, could be cause to a short term (several years) spike in .1 percent of earth's atmospheric energy content, and yet mean little to nothing long term.
We can realistically eliminate CO2, as that LWIR affect is already saturated and each additional CO2 content increase has LESS affect. I agree we can eliminate El Nino, as we have a good history to evaluate that affect, and this spike does not reflect past atmospheric T response to ocean surface T flux.
So we have an atmospheric only response, which can be dramatic, but possible mean little long term.
I encourage thinking in energy residece time from a continues input. After all, even the proposed warming from GHGs is, in essence, and increase of residence time, as increased albedo is reduced residence time.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." ~ Richard Feynman.
There were a couple of very big departures from average in the 1870s/80s. Were they solely due to El Nino, or were there any big volcanic events back then that might have supplemented the effect of El Nino?
It's also worth noting that those events were followed by a biggish decline in temperatures to 1900. The swansong of the positive AMO?
To my layman's eye, the Multivariate ENSO Index going back to 1980 maps well onto the waxing, then plateau, then waning warm phase of the AMO: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
If you can find the earlier series going back to about 1950, it maps neatly onto the 60-70s cold phase of the AMO.
The 1877/78 spike in global temperature and associated global weather disruption seems to be the closest modern analogue to what's happening now. 1876/78 El Nino WAS a major event, as powerful as 2014-16, perhaps more so. But it does make you wonder if that was amplified by a submarine volcano also which occurred around the same time? I can find little evidence in the record for such an event, though it may have gone unnoticed. AMO is definitely mixed up in all this somehow, either as a driver or as a responder, it's hard to fathom.
The biggest El Nino's tend to occur near solar minimum (1879), except when there a major eruption (1983). So I think Hunga Tonga has enhanced the 2023-4 event. It's notable that the El Nino near solar min in 1988 wasn't so big. That might imply that the 1983 volcanically enhanced event depleted the energy in the warm pool, and caused cloudiness in the following years preventing it building back up so much.
My WAG is that the ship fuel regulation hypothesis will be quietly forgotten a few years from now.
When you look back on your life you can know how you contributed to the continued profits of fossil fuels and animal ag and to US energy dominance and Imperialism in the face of evidence of several planetary tipping points.
Yes, the abnormally high temperatures in the last 10 months are a mystery. El Nino, reduction in dirty fuel and Hunga Tonga (thought to account for about 0.3 degrees of warming) are all in the running. However, just like the temporary 'pause' in warming this increase is also acknowledged to be temporary.
The important point is that both pause and increase are against a backdrop of steadily increasing warming due to human emissions.
I had to put the CH on 2 days ago. Freezing here in Nottingham.
10 deg C today in the Yorkshire Dales, at the beginning of June...
Yet the Met Orifice keep promising heat waves...
On holiday here on Arran, we're on single digits. I hear it snowed yesterday in Aviemore.
Yes it's very cold here in England too. Climate change can't possibly be happening. You're so clever to point this out, though it's extremely hot in the global south winter with the highest recorded temperatures in India and famines in Sudan, almost like something was distrupting the weather system and causing warming not due to the summer sunshine.
What a massive globalist deception! As often with lies, the cover-up will prove even more damning.
The UK Met Office took the lead on the cover-up because, for some weird reason, the Hunga Tonga spike showed up almost immediately in their CET series despite the aerosols which delayed its manifestation in the global temperature series. They stopped putting out their monthly CET updates after March 2022 when they twigged they had a major "climate change" narrative PR disaster on their hands.
The weak El Nino they tried to blame has now been and gone, but the spike refuses to abate. Fast forward six months when strong La Nina conditions could prevail. I look forward to seeing their increasingly desperate attempts to spin their false narrative.
The met office are globalists? There has been widespread debate about Hunga Tonga not a cover up.
What are the physics of a sudden large spike of w/v at the Hunga Tonga level?
I don't know why folk don't think in terms of residence time. AFAICT there are only two ways to affect the energy content of a system in a radiation balance ( Atmosphere- Ocean - Land ) Either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of energy in the system.
Assuming steady state input ( which may not be accurate) then energy residence time is affected by a change in the materials encountered.
The oceans contain earth's longest residence time from solar input. Solar input residence time into the earth system varies from nano seconds due to albedo refraction, to decades, possibly centuries for some solar input into the oceans up to 800 feet deep.
The oceans contain approximately 1000 times the energy content of the Atmosphere. For instance, in the Southern hemisphere summer the solar input is up to 90 watts per meter greater then the Northern hemisphere summer. That is massive, at least 22 times greater then any possible affect from a CO2 increase of 130 PPM. ( 410 PPM vs 280 PPM pre industrial. )
Yet the Atmosphere cools despite this massive increase in solar radiation as a result of the earth being closer to the Sun. Why? The basic reason is that a large portion of said Southern Hemisphere summer increased insolation, inputs into the oceans below the surface, and SH summer increase falls on far more ocean then the NH summer, and, so that increased input is lost to the Atmosphere for a time. This, plus the increased albedo of the NH ( increased Snow Cover) reduces atmospheric residence time of said input.
Part of the point I am making is that a sudden spike in atmospheric temperature, means very little to the long term energy content of our earth's temperature. Does the earth's total energy content increase or decrease in the Southern Hemisphere summer? No one knows.
Yes, the atmospheric T cools, despite a massive increase in input, yet the ocean energy content increases significantly. In order to know if the earth's total energy ( land atmosphere and oceans) increased or decreased, and for what time period, one would have to know the amount of and residence time of increased solar insolation into the oceans during the SH summer. In order to know how much the oceans heat content increased, one would have to know the residence time of disparate solar W/L into the ocean. and the changes, not just in TSI, but the spectral solar changes which vary more than the TSI.
( We don't know this)
So, atmospheric increases or decreases mean little long term, as our oceans are the greatest reservoir of solar insolation energy. ( 1000 times greater) The Atmosphere is less than .1 percent of earth's energy content!
Thus traditionally the El Nino - LA Nina flux of energy from the oceans has the most rapid increase or decrease of atmospheric temperature. And the atmospheric flux means very little relative to earth's ( Land - Ocean - atmospheric) energy content. In general earth's total energy residence time is far longer for the oceans, far shorter for the Atmosphere, and in-between for the land.
As such, determining if the earth is gaining or losing energy by measuring just atmospheric T, is a bit of a fools errand. Yet here we are.
Now we have the Hunga Tonga input into the Atmosphere, and a very large W/V input into an area of the Atmosphere that traditionally has very little W/V! The increased residence time affect of any GHG exponentially declines as those GHG increase, due to saturation of said LWIR affected. And so a large increase of W/V into an atmospheric layer that is very dry, will have a larger affect then an increase into an already saturated atmospheric level. Additionally this affect is primarily atmospheric only. Also the absorbtion bands of W/V are far broader then CO2.
And so, the increased LWIR affect of Hunga Tonga, along with possible atmospheric circulation jet stream affects, could be cause to a short term (several years) spike in .1 percent of earth's atmospheric energy content, and yet mean little to nothing long term.
We can realistically eliminate CO2, as that LWIR affect is already saturated and each additional CO2 content increase has LESS affect. I agree we can eliminate El Nino, as we have a good history to evaluate that affect, and this spike does not reflect past atmospheric T response to ocean surface T flux.
So we have an atmospheric only response, which can be dramatic, but possible mean little long term.
I encourage thinking in energy residece time from a continues input. After all, even the proposed warming from GHGs is, in essence, and increase of residence time, as increased albedo is reduced residence time.
All the Best
DA.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." ~ Richard Feynman.
There were a couple of very big departures from average in the 1870s/80s. Were they solely due to El Nino, or were there any big volcanic events back then that might have supplemented the effect of El Nino?
It's also worth noting that those events were followed by a biggish decline in temperatures to 1900. The swansong of the positive AMO?
To my layman's eye, the Multivariate ENSO Index going back to 1980 maps well onto the waxing, then plateau, then waning warm phase of the AMO: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
If you can find the earlier series going back to about 1950, it maps neatly onto the 60-70s cold phase of the AMO.
Found it myself: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/
A preponderance of warming El Ninos coincides with AMO warming and vice versa with cooling La Ninas. It probably all correlates well with global cloud cover, or lack of, as Paul Homewood shows here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/30/has-bob-ward-heard-of-the-amo/.
Found it: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/
A preponderance of warming El Ninos coincides with AMO warming and vice versa with cooling La Ninas. It probably all correlates well with global cloud cover, or lack of, as Paul Homewood shows here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/30/has-bob-ward-heard-of-the-amo/.
The 1877/78 spike in global temperature and associated global weather disruption seems to be the closest modern analogue to what's happening now. 1876/78 El Nino WAS a major event, as powerful as 2014-16, perhaps more so. But it does make you wonder if that was amplified by a submarine volcano also which occurred around the same time? I can find little evidence in the record for such an event, though it may have gone unnoticed. AMO is definitely mixed up in all this somehow, either as a driver or as a responder, it's hard to fathom.
Nice to have Tallbloke commenting here. Have you visited his excellent web site.
I'm grateful for all the great contributions Jaime has made to the Talkshop over the years.
The biggest El Nino's tend to occur near solar minimum (1879), except when there a major eruption (1983). So I think Hunga Tonga has enhanced the 2023-4 event. It's notable that the El Nino near solar min in 1988 wasn't so big. That might imply that the 1983 volcanically enhanced event depleted the energy in the warm pool, and caused cloudiness in the following years preventing it building back up so much.
My WAG is that the ship fuel regulation hypothesis will be quietly forgotten a few years from now.