It depends; in some cases you can submit a formal comment on a paper, but that process is pretty painful and slow. In this case there are so many more papers in the pipeline on this topic that its probably not worth the effort; rather, some sort of community review effort synthesizing multiple different assessments in the next year or two might be more useful here.
I agree with Zeke on this. When the science is moving fast, a lot of the papers that get published will be wrong. In the mid-1980s, for example, after the ozone hole was discovered, there were lots of papers about what caused it, 2/3rds of which were wrong. Eventually, we agreed it was chlorine from CFCs, but no one ever went back and wrote comments on the wrong papers. It's just understood they're wrong.
As the piece notes, its hard to get an estimate > 0.1C in 2023 from low-sulfur marine fuels. My best estimate from this paper is 0.05C (0.04C to 0.06C).
The two leading explanations for the extraordinary jump in GMST in 2023 both now look very unlikely: El Nino and ship fuel emissions. That leaves a few possibilities but the HTHH elephant in the room is still being studiously avoided by most, after having been 'debunked' unconvincingly several times. It remains the most likely explanation for the sudden warmth.
The flurry of scientific papers seeking to explain the anomalous 2023 global warming is becoming reminiscent of those hundreds of papers seeking to explain the 1998-2015 Pause. In that case, the Pause was conveniently erased from the historical record - problem solved! I can't see the same happening with 2023 warming though.
There is no best analysis or definitive analysis in my opinion, but here is a list of peer reviewed scientific literature which points firmly to the conclusion that HTHH (or stratospheric wv in general) has indeed contributed significantly to global warming. In the absence of a more plausible explanation (El Nino, ship emissions and "uncharted AGW territory" are not plausible), then further research into the unprecedented injection of wv into the stratosphere (and mesosphere) by HTHH and its possible significant contribution to warming in 2023, plus knock-on effects upon regional and global circulation should be conducted.
No, because if you read through those papers, many do not give an actual quantitative estimate (barring your own of course, which sums the net aerosol cooling and wv radiative warming). But Solomon et al, 2010, for example, suggests that a relatively modest decadal increase in stratospheric wv enhanced global warming by as much as 30% during the 1990s. Jenkins et al assesses the probability that the annual mean GMST will exceed 1.5C in the 5 years following the eruption and finds that it is not insignificant. Given that pre-HTHH GMST was approximately 1.2C above pre-industrial, this implies a temporary surface warming of 0.3C.
And also, we above the 49th are aware that becuase the Aric is warming 3-4x the rate of mid-latitudes, shipping emission are expected to increase due to the increasing marine traffic for more months/yr.
A relevant question is what is the net trade off between increased rates of warming by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions over the oceans (due to limiting the sulfur content of marine fuels) and human health/environmental impacts?
It's certainly good to take into account this factor however small it may be for the atmosphere and planet. It appears to be a tiny drop in the bucket when one looks at the water vapor blanket that is created each and every winter in critical locations along the Arctic circle regions. My research group can provide an environmental primer( 10 page PDF graphs, maps, content) on the huge problem water vapor is imposing on the planet but more importantly imposing in the most sensitive regions on EARTH to any human impacts.
If you have an interest email me bcountry@psouth.net and I'll send PDF. Currently there is a mad rush on the planet to keep building large dams and some in the most inhospitable regions..way of limits of what this planet and these places will bear.
If we continue to ignore the impact of these mega dams, no matter what we do we will never get ahead of the catastrophic climates being predicted sooner ..and sooner than science will acknowledge.
I'm curious, at what does one take the step of responding with a counterfactual peer-reviewed paper?
It depends; in some cases you can submit a formal comment on a paper, but that process is pretty painful and slow. In this case there are so many more papers in the pipeline on this topic that its probably not worth the effort; rather, some sort of community review effort synthesizing multiple different assessments in the next year or two might be more useful here.
I agree with Zeke on this. When the science is moving fast, a lot of the papers that get published will be wrong. In the mid-1980s, for example, after the ozone hole was discovered, there were lots of papers about what caused it, 2/3rds of which were wrong. Eventually, we agreed it was chlorine from CFCs, but no one ever went back and wrote comments on the wrong papers. It's just understood they're wrong.
Given the current prolonged spike in global temperatures, what proportion do you think the low-sulphur marine fuels account for?
Compared to the prior (and shorter) super el nino spike of 2016, I think there are a numerous of combined factors...
1. The strong el nino
2. The low sulphur marine fuels
3. The general increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
4. The current maximum of the solar cycle
5. The increased stratospheric water vapor from the Hunga volcano.
I still suspect the volcano could be the most significant of these, but I'm open to other views.
As the piece notes, its hard to get an estimate > 0.1C in 2023 from low-sulfur marine fuels. My best estimate from this paper is 0.05C (0.04C to 0.06C).
There is a lot more work ongoing for all of these. RealClimate just launched a page to track studies as they come in: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/
The two leading explanations for the extraordinary jump in GMST in 2023 both now look very unlikely: El Nino and ship fuel emissions. That leaves a few possibilities but the HTHH elephant in the room is still being studiously avoided by most, after having been 'debunked' unconvincingly several times. It remains the most likely explanation for the sudden warmth.
The flurry of scientific papers seeking to explain the anomalous 2023 global warming is becoming reminiscent of those hundreds of papers seeking to explain the 1998-2015 Pause. In that case, the Pause was conveniently erased from the historical record - problem solved! I can't see the same happening with 2023 warming though.
Could you point me to the best analysis suggesting that the volcano is driving the warming?
There is no best analysis or definitive analysis in my opinion, but here is a list of peer reviewed scientific literature which points firmly to the conclusion that HTHH (or stratospheric wv in general) has indeed contributed significantly to global warming. In the absence of a more plausible explanation (El Nino, ship emissions and "uncharted AGW territory" are not plausible), then further research into the unprecedented injection of wv into the stratosphere (and mesosphere) by HTHH and its possible significant contribution to warming in 2023, plus knock-on effects upon regional and global circulation should be conducted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00618-z
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1182488
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00652-x
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU23/EGU23-12992.html
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL104634
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3231-3
Can you let me know how much, according to those papers, the eruption warmed the planet?
No, because if you read through those papers, many do not give an actual quantitative estimate (barring your own of course, which sums the net aerosol cooling and wv radiative warming). But Solomon et al, 2010, for example, suggests that a relatively modest decadal increase in stratospheric wv enhanced global warming by as much as 30% during the 1990s. Jenkins et al assesses the probability that the annual mean GMST will exceed 1.5C in the 5 years following the eruption and finds that it is not insignificant. Given that pre-HTHH GMST was approximately 1.2C above pre-industrial, this implies a temporary surface warming of 0.3C.
And also, we above the 49th are aware that becuase the Aric is warming 3-4x the rate of mid-latitudes, shipping emission are expected to increase due to the increasing marine traffic for more months/yr.
Maybe a stupid question:
Fewer clouds over the seas
=> more evaporation from the oceans
=> more water vapor that is transported to other regions
=> more greenhouse effect, especially in clear sky conditions
=> more warming
What magnitude could this contribution be?
Andrew, I enjoyed your essay in the NYT today. Nice job.
Thanks! I’ll have a post out on this on Monday.
A relevant question is what is the net trade off between increased rates of warming by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions over the oceans (due to limiting the sulfur content of marine fuels) and human health/environmental impacts?
Zeke, thank you and like many readers. I rely upon your choices of data and models to clarify oceanic- atmospherics physio-chemical analyses.
It's certainly good to take into account this factor however small it may be for the atmosphere and planet. It appears to be a tiny drop in the bucket when one looks at the water vapor blanket that is created each and every winter in critical locations along the Arctic circle regions. My research group can provide an environmental primer( 10 page PDF graphs, maps, content) on the huge problem water vapor is imposing on the planet but more importantly imposing in the most sensitive regions on EARTH to any human impacts.
If you have an interest email me bcountry@psouth.net and I'll send PDF. Currently there is a mad rush on the planet to keep building large dams and some in the most inhospitable regions..way of limits of what this planet and these places will bear.
If we continue to ignore the impact of these mega dams, no matter what we do we will never get ahead of the catastrophic climates being predicted sooner ..and sooner than science will acknowledge.