Roy Spencer's graphic is very good, clearly showing the effects of ENSO on temperatures. What is not clear is that the 1992 temperature shows a cooling, but was in fact the year of a strong El Nino. The eruption of mount Pinatubo caused considerable cooling, much stronger than it appears on the graph because the 2 factors in part cancelled each other out. I therefore understand the theory that Hunga Tonga could have also had an impact, and is responsible for part of the warming. However, I cannot find any processes that would explain how it was achieved. I presume that your theory is based on the fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and has thus led to extra warming. But have you considered how greenhouse gases behave in the stratosphere, and the conditions there in terms of pressure and temperature? I would be interested to compare our logic, you can find my take on the subject here:
The extra annotations on Roy Spencer's graph are my own; I just pointed out some El Ninos, not all. Increases of stratospheric water vapour - even moderate increases - can have a significant effect on the troposphere below, resulting in warming at the surface. How significant is a matter of some debate but Solomon et al, 2010 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41173770_Contributions_of_Stratospheric_Water_Vapor_to_Decadal_Changes_in_the_Rate_of_Global_Warming) indicated that the warming (and cooling) due to decadal variations in stratospheric water vapour was significant enough to offset and enhance anthropogenic climate change - by cooling the stratosphere and warming the troposphere. It's important to note that Hunga Tonga resulted in a sudden unprecedented in increase of stratospheric water of 10%. which induced a radiative cooling of as much as 4K in the mid stratosphere. This would have resulted in positive radiative forcing at the surface. Also, dynamical changes in the stratosphere, induced by the injected water vapour, would also have affected global circulation patterns which themselves might be the cause of additional regional warming and extreme weather at the surface. The point is, such a huge injection of water vapour high into the stratosphere has never been observed before and even the experts don't know for sure what the climatic effects of such an event will be. In that respect, it's remarkable that many of those same experts have pronounced confidently that HTHH could not have been responsible for the remarkable warming which we saw happen in 2023, continuing through 2024 and only now subsiding, even though it is a fact that most of the water vapour injected by HTHH in Jan 2022 remained in the stratosphere for 2-3 years afterwards.
Thanks for finding the time to reply. The 10% figure suggests a lot of water vapour, as does the cooling of 4K you quote. If you had read my take on the issue, you will realise that the 10% when distributed throughout the stratosphere becomes a very small amount. The 4K you mention is also from the time after the eruption when the emissions were confined and once distributed led to a more wider cooling of circa 1K.
The paper you referenced is an interesting read, but does not confirm their original assumption that the cause is from the stratosphere, most other papers will suggest that the cause and effect is reversed, for example the effect of an El Nino on water vapour entry into the stratosphere. Their last paragraph needs reading - they confirm the correlation, but not the cause. It also gives their calculated effect on surface temperatures as 0.04K per decade. That is nowhere near the difference we have seen in the recent high global surface temperatures.
Having read a wide range of papers on the subject I have the impression that many do not take into account the difference in GHG effect between the lower troposphere and the stratosphere. This paper is worth a read, it supports the idea that the GHG effect decreases with altitude.
Rather than having the opinion that there is some sort of conspiracy, it could simply be that most of the initial comments were based on assumptions that further research and better knowledge of the situation has led to the change in understanding. Perhaps a case of crying 'wolf' too often?
The real villian, if there was to be one, in all this is "ceteris paribis".
As an idea "ceteris paribus" CO2 is the main driver of climate is interesting if of course you ignore all other processes in the atmosphere. Many of which are uncharacterised and poorly if even understood.
Another idea "ceteris paribus" is that man's emissions of CO2 contribute to this but we don't actually understand why (see previous point)
Yet another idea "ceteris paribus" is that all the intrinsic uncertainties/errors in source temperature measurements can be averaged out even though the measurement devices were not designed for such precision nor were they characterised, calibrated and maintained such to achieve such precision needed to test the hypothesis.
But "ceteris paribus" is the butter to smooth all those wrinkles out.
Nice annotations on the UAH temperature graph. You could have gone further and annotated all the saw-tooth spikes through the 1980s, 1990s and beyond as natural El Ninos, gradually ratcheting higher due to the reduced global cloud cover over that period. Even if you believe the UN PCC’s climate pseudo-science, it only predicts global warming due to atmospheric CO2 to be ~0.2°C per decade so the UAH graph shows indiscernible evidence of alleged man-made global warming since the series started in 1979.
To quote President Trump who is thankfully now calling the shots, “climate change is a hoax”.
It’s maybe a bit early to say that the AMO has entered its cooling phase. Getting hold of a decent AMO graph is difficult, I suspect because the establishment wants to hide it from the general public. (Try searching UN IPCC Summary Reports for Policymakers and you will find zero reference to it.)
Roy Spencer's graphic is very good, clearly showing the effects of ENSO on temperatures. What is not clear is that the 1992 temperature shows a cooling, but was in fact the year of a strong El Nino. The eruption of mount Pinatubo caused considerable cooling, much stronger than it appears on the graph because the 2 factors in part cancelled each other out. I therefore understand the theory that Hunga Tonga could have also had an impact, and is responsible for part of the warming. However, I cannot find any processes that would explain how it was achieved. I presume that your theory is based on the fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and has thus led to extra warming. But have you considered how greenhouse gases behave in the stratosphere, and the conditions there in terms of pressure and temperature? I would be interested to compare our logic, you can find my take on the subject here:
https://www.man-versus-nature.net/2212048_hunga-tonga
The extra annotations on Roy Spencer's graph are my own; I just pointed out some El Ninos, not all. Increases of stratospheric water vapour - even moderate increases - can have a significant effect on the troposphere below, resulting in warming at the surface. How significant is a matter of some debate but Solomon et al, 2010 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41173770_Contributions_of_Stratospheric_Water_Vapor_to_Decadal_Changes_in_the_Rate_of_Global_Warming) indicated that the warming (and cooling) due to decadal variations in stratospheric water vapour was significant enough to offset and enhance anthropogenic climate change - by cooling the stratosphere and warming the troposphere. It's important to note that Hunga Tonga resulted in a sudden unprecedented in increase of stratospheric water of 10%. which induced a radiative cooling of as much as 4K in the mid stratosphere. This would have resulted in positive radiative forcing at the surface. Also, dynamical changes in the stratosphere, induced by the injected water vapour, would also have affected global circulation patterns which themselves might be the cause of additional regional warming and extreme weather at the surface. The point is, such a huge injection of water vapour high into the stratosphere has never been observed before and even the experts don't know for sure what the climatic effects of such an event will be. In that respect, it's remarkable that many of those same experts have pronounced confidently that HTHH could not have been responsible for the remarkable warming which we saw happen in 2023, continuing through 2024 and only now subsiding, even though it is a fact that most of the water vapour injected by HTHH in Jan 2022 remained in the stratosphere for 2-3 years afterwards.
Thanks for finding the time to reply. The 10% figure suggests a lot of water vapour, as does the cooling of 4K you quote. If you had read my take on the issue, you will realise that the 10% when distributed throughout the stratosphere becomes a very small amount. The 4K you mention is also from the time after the eruption when the emissions were confined and once distributed led to a more wider cooling of circa 1K.
The paper you referenced is an interesting read, but does not confirm their original assumption that the cause is from the stratosphere, most other papers will suggest that the cause and effect is reversed, for example the effect of an El Nino on water vapour entry into the stratosphere. Their last paragraph needs reading - they confirm the correlation, but not the cause. It also gives their calculated effect on surface temperatures as 0.04K per decade. That is nowhere near the difference we have seen in the recent high global surface temperatures.
Having read a wide range of papers on the subject I have the impression that many do not take into account the difference in GHG effect between the lower troposphere and the stratosphere. This paper is worth a read, it supports the idea that the GHG effect decreases with altitude.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Stratospheric-cooling/stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf
Rather than having the opinion that there is some sort of conspiracy, it could simply be that most of the initial comments were based on assumptions that further research and better knowledge of the situation has led to the change in understanding. Perhaps a case of crying 'wolf' too often?
The real villian, if there was to be one, in all this is "ceteris paribis".
As an idea "ceteris paribus" CO2 is the main driver of climate is interesting if of course you ignore all other processes in the atmosphere. Many of which are uncharacterised and poorly if even understood.
Another idea "ceteris paribus" is that man's emissions of CO2 contribute to this but we don't actually understand why (see previous point)
Yet another idea "ceteris paribus" is that all the intrinsic uncertainties/errors in source temperature measurements can be averaged out even though the measurement devices were not designed for such precision nor were they characterised, calibrated and maintained such to achieve such precision needed to test the hypothesis.
But "ceteris paribus" is the butter to smooth all those wrinkles out.
Then it's tea leaf reading time.
Ceteris paribus
The Ice Man cometh!
Said the Mexican to the Venezuelan!
I actually think they’re basically already doing that!
You may be right.
Nice annotations on the UAH temperature graph. You could have gone further and annotated all the saw-tooth spikes through the 1980s, 1990s and beyond as natural El Ninos, gradually ratcheting higher due to the reduced global cloud cover over that period. Even if you believe the UN PCC’s climate pseudo-science, it only predicts global warming due to atmospheric CO2 to be ~0.2°C per decade so the UAH graph shows indiscernible evidence of alleged man-made global warming since the series started in 1979.
To quote President Trump who is thankfully now calling the shots, “climate change is a hoax”.
The AMO entered its negative phase 7 - 10 years ago and will increasingly make its presence felt, bottoming out around 2035.
It’s maybe a bit early to say that the AMO has entered its cooling phase. Getting hold of a decent AMO graph is difficult, I suspect because the establishment wants to hide it from the general public. (Try searching UN IPCC Summary Reports for Policymakers and you will find zero reference to it.)
In 2020 Professor Fritz Vahrenholt predicted that a negative Atlantic oscillation was ahead of us and the expected second weak solar cycle in succession would reduce anthropogenic warming in the next 15-30 years. He cited a publication by Judith Curry who saw a pause in the temperature rise until 2050 as the most likely scenario: https://notrickszone.com/2020/07/05/no-need-to-panic-leading-scientists-see-little-global-warming-in-the-works-due-to-natural-variability/.
Don't think so David. AMO index spiked at an all time high in 2023, coincident with the extraordinary warming in the North Atlantic.