Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian journalist living in London, has just written in an article "Viva the almost perfectly useless COP":
"How did everybody fail to factor the probability of a big El Nino into their estimates of the speed of warming? Well, lots of people knew it was due around now, but nobody had the job of watching for it and adjusting the climate predictions accordingly.
How did nobody foresee that the cleanup of pollution in Chinese cities and the International Maritime Organisation’s 2020 decision to cut the sulphur dioxide content in the fuel emissions of 60,000 merchant ships from 3.5% to only 0.5% would lead to cloudless skies and a big jump in sunlight reaching the surface?
It’s the practical equivalent to a 0.5°C jump in average global temperature in just three years, but nobody saw it coming because nobody was tasked to look for that kind of unintended side effect."
I was a but surprised as Dwyer is usually reliable; I intend writing to the Otago Daily Times where I read it, but the article will appear worldwide.
You make a couple statements that seem somewhat contradictory.
"So if 2023 ends up being a record-breaking year, it won’t be due to the El Nino."
and
"This may mean that El Nino is having a bigger impact this year than it would on average."
For me it comes to down to looking for a suspect that can cause this kind of rapid increase and the only one that seems capable of such a change is ENSO.
Zeke OpEd has 0.1°C aerosol forcing. James Hansen estimate is much larger it is 0.3/0.4°C. If 0.4 is correct, that'd explain a lot of this year's weather.
The new Mika Rantanen and Ari Laaksonen paper argues that the IMO 2020 regulations and Hunga Tonga could have plausibly contributed about .1 degrees to the September record—does that align with this summary? "Based on literature, we estimate that the reduction of sulphur emissions from shipping may have increased the temperature difference between September 2020 and 2023 by 0.05–0.075 °C"—that seems like a more sudden increase than .1 degrees over the past ten years. They also had an estimate for the volcanic eruptions that were way higher than I would have expected (0.02–0.07, nearly as high as the aerosol effects!). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00582-9
Unfortunately common sense has to do with what we are both saying. Why is the Arctic heating 4x faster than the rest of the planet? Is there no difference between stagnant fresh water and constantly moving salt water? in the 1950's with the extensive introduction of many, many large hydroelectric dams and their imprisoned sea-sized rivers in the subarctic/arctic there's no historical prescidence for this happening any time in recent, 1000's of years history, there .
These impacts completely encircle the subarctic regions, and force rivers to flow all winter long, and trap them stagnant all summer in floodlands over permafrost. again something that has never in recent geologic history ever occurred here. And you seem to be completely discounting any of these effects? Why does scientists keep moving the goal posts toward disaster, moving up more serious effects coming sooner? Common sense right? Scientists look at after effects and they say it's positive feedbacks loops now causing this issue. What initially started the feedbacks? of course we can point at the obvious, but just maybe something else not so obvious has been accelerating this. But maybe common sense prevents us from considering these other things affecting a larger area than previously considered? I'd hope that we can keep talking. Check out: arcticbluedeserts.com
This book and study chronicles the work of Canadian Oceanographer Hans Neu head of the Bedford institute for 23 years, early 1960's to the 1980's. I'd hope to continue a dialogue with you.
I'd be happy to mail you a copy and we can take this discussion off-line if you want or not
Youre telling us that Global warming exists as a separate entity like an emissions of Co2 or Methane , separate from human impacts.? .....RUBBISH, Thanks for sharing more misinformation .
You give almost no reasons for why it is not due to global warming, and the one you give is erroneous. You are assuming a linear growth in temperature - 0.2 degrees per decade. No facts to back this up. I am not a scientist, but have read many papers, including that by James Hansen et al., that cast doubt on such a simple figure. It is nonsense to come up with a simple linear growth figure like this, see that 2023 is way higher than this, and conclude, oh, it can’t be global warming, then!
Andrew, always good work however you might consider answering the questions coming at you with:
Nobody is monitoring or has ever really monitored the amount of water vapor that humans are emittting into the atmosphere. also
Alan Buis of NASA’S Jet Propulsion Laboratory as described in his Feb 8, 2022 article “Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Supercharges Earth’s Greenhouse Effect.” This is corroborated in an on-line publication from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group which states: “The total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is very large. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million BTU’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere.”
Please keep in mind that for nearly 70 years, within the Arctic regions, rates of evaporation and water vapor emissions have been enormous due to the creation of these mega dams that imprison the major rivers, of the northern latitudes keeping them stagnating and being irradiated for months, leading to high rates of evaporation( WV) than releasing massive volumes of water, 10-15 x the normal yearly discharges in a 5-6 month period only in winter, and discharging from dams at a velocity much greater than normal river flow rate. The entire Arctic /subarctic is encircled by huge seas-size reservoir dams from Siberia to Labrador emitting huge amounts of Water Vapor into the atmosphere.
The most fresh water on this planet originates in the northern latitudes...subarctic
The smallest ocean on the planet with the most impact on our planet is the Arctic ocean. Once a closed system, BUT now rapidly Melting permafrost under these reservoirs are adding lots more fresh water to the system. Fresh water that is saturated with methane and carbon. the great increases of fresh water entering this little ocean is changing the dynamics, salinity and the currents. There is more much more to say but we will leave it at this. Let me know Andrew if you'd like one of our books or for that matter anyone out there. We need to get this information out. There's lots going on behind our back and NOT in our backyards.
About 7-8 years since the last el Nino - even if the oscillation is around 3-5 years it doesn't always swing strongly enough to be an el Nino - minus some aerosols, plus a bit of extra volcanic water vapor. And perhaps some other ocean oscillation and internal variables that are transient are lining up with warming. If nothing else we are likely to see studies to work out what has been going on, that better quantify the energy flows and further reduce the uncertainties. If there is some missing elements or poor quantification I expect it will be found.
Of course climate science already makes it abundantly clear that committing to drastic emissions reductions is urgent.
I just don't see how we can make any determination without looking at the actual evidence presented on scene. Oh look! There is a murder weapon under a box. Hmmm how do we check it? Do we have fingerprints on the box? why yes! we do! We observed a rapid rise in earth energy imbalance over the past 16 months! We also noticed a 3-year successive rise in sea surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere at around 40-45 degree latitude during the spring and summer months!
While not conclusive, there is a strong indication that reduction in shipping aerosols are at least partly to blame and that some kind of aerosol-cloud interaction within unstable adiabats in these regions is happening that has yet to be understood and incorporated into the models.
Hello, are things like the methane released from permafrosts taken into account as part of the gradual increase of global warming? Also there was the large and sudden release of methane when some pipelines of NS1 and NS2 were blown up.
If the recent warming has been absorbed in the oceans and El NIno is now moving all this heat around, would that account for the increase?
Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian journalist living in London, has just written in an article "Viva the almost perfectly useless COP":
"How did everybody fail to factor the probability of a big El Nino into their estimates of the speed of warming? Well, lots of people knew it was due around now, but nobody had the job of watching for it and adjusting the climate predictions accordingly.
How did nobody foresee that the cleanup of pollution in Chinese cities and the International Maritime Organisation’s 2020 decision to cut the sulphur dioxide content in the fuel emissions of 60,000 merchant ships from 3.5% to only 0.5% would lead to cloudless skies and a big jump in sunlight reaching the surface?
It’s the practical equivalent to a 0.5°C jump in average global temperature in just three years, but nobody saw it coming because nobody was tasked to look for that kind of unintended side effect."
I was a but surprised as Dwyer is usually reliable; I intend writing to the Otago Daily Times where I read it, but the article will appear worldwide.
You make a couple statements that seem somewhat contradictory.
"So if 2023 ends up being a record-breaking year, it won’t be due to the El Nino."
and
"This may mean that El Nino is having a bigger impact this year than it would on average."
For me it comes to down to looking for a suspect that can cause this kind of rapid increase and the only one that seems capable of such a change is ENSO.
When I look at the plot of average temperatures in Zeke's post from 23.10.23 at carbonbrief.org, https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-global-temperatures-throughout-mid-2023-shatter-records/ , 2023 looks to me a lot like the ENSO transition years of 1997 and 2015, only bigger.
I will point you to another interesting analysis that was referenced at andthentheresphysics.com by Dan Neuman, https://dmn613.wordpress.com/2023/11/20/more-details-on-sep-oct/ . It is pretty impressive for a retired engineer, https://mstdn.ca/@dan613/109529967802520094 .
I guess I think the jury is still out on ENSO.
Zeke OpEd has 0.1°C aerosol forcing. James Hansen estimate is much larger it is 0.3/0.4°C. If 0.4 is correct, that'd explain a lot of this year's weather.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Miracle.2023.12.07.pdf
*whispers* the pause in surface air temperature wasn't real but was largely a reflection of incomplete sampling of the warming Arctic.
Does “global warming” in this case include nonlinear jumps from things like saturation of previous carbon sinks (like the oceans)?
The new Mika Rantanen and Ari Laaksonen paper argues that the IMO 2020 regulations and Hunga Tonga could have plausibly contributed about .1 degrees to the September record—does that align with this summary? "Based on literature, we estimate that the reduction of sulphur emissions from shipping may have increased the temperature difference between September 2020 and 2023 by 0.05–0.075 °C"—that seems like a more sudden increase than .1 degrees over the past ten years. They also had an estimate for the volcanic eruptions that were way higher than I would have expected (0.02–0.07, nearly as high as the aerosol effects!). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00582-9
Pease remove us from your substack
Unfortunately common sense has to do with what we are both saying. Why is the Arctic heating 4x faster than the rest of the planet? Is there no difference between stagnant fresh water and constantly moving salt water? in the 1950's with the extensive introduction of many, many large hydroelectric dams and their imprisoned sea-sized rivers in the subarctic/arctic there's no historical prescidence for this happening any time in recent, 1000's of years history, there .
These impacts completely encircle the subarctic regions, and force rivers to flow all winter long, and trap them stagnant all summer in floodlands over permafrost. again something that has never in recent geologic history ever occurred here. And you seem to be completely discounting any of these effects? Why does scientists keep moving the goal posts toward disaster, moving up more serious effects coming sooner? Common sense right? Scientists look at after effects and they say it's positive feedbacks loops now causing this issue. What initially started the feedbacks? of course we can point at the obvious, but just maybe something else not so obvious has been accelerating this. But maybe common sense prevents us from considering these other things affecting a larger area than previously considered? I'd hope that we can keep talking. Check out: arcticbluedeserts.com
This book and study chronicles the work of Canadian Oceanographer Hans Neu head of the Bedford institute for 23 years, early 1960's to the 1980's. I'd hope to continue a dialogue with you.
I'd be happy to mail you a copy and we can take this discussion off-line if you want or not
Youre telling us that Global warming exists as a separate entity like an emissions of Co2 or Methane , separate from human impacts.? .....RUBBISH, Thanks for sharing more misinformation .
Tell you assumptions to NASA !
You give almost no reasons for why it is not due to global warming, and the one you give is erroneous. You are assuming a linear growth in temperature - 0.2 degrees per decade. No facts to back this up. I am not a scientist, but have read many papers, including that by James Hansen et al., that cast doubt on such a simple figure. It is nonsense to come up with a simple linear growth figure like this, see that 2023 is way higher than this, and conclude, oh, it can’t be global warming, then!
Andrew, always good work however you might consider answering the questions coming at you with:
Nobody is monitoring or has ever really monitored the amount of water vapor that humans are emittting into the atmosphere. also
Alan Buis of NASA’S Jet Propulsion Laboratory as described in his Feb 8, 2022 article “Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Supercharges Earth’s Greenhouse Effect.” This is corroborated in an on-line publication from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group which states: “The total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is very large. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million BTU’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere.”
Please keep in mind that for nearly 70 years, within the Arctic regions, rates of evaporation and water vapor emissions have been enormous due to the creation of these mega dams that imprison the major rivers, of the northern latitudes keeping them stagnating and being irradiated for months, leading to high rates of evaporation( WV) than releasing massive volumes of water, 10-15 x the normal yearly discharges in a 5-6 month period only in winter, and discharging from dams at a velocity much greater than normal river flow rate. The entire Arctic /subarctic is encircled by huge seas-size reservoir dams from Siberia to Labrador emitting huge amounts of Water Vapor into the atmosphere.
The most fresh water on this planet originates in the northern latitudes...subarctic
The smallest ocean on the planet with the most impact on our planet is the Arctic ocean. Once a closed system, BUT now rapidly Melting permafrost under these reservoirs are adding lots more fresh water to the system. Fresh water that is saturated with methane and carbon. the great increases of fresh water entering this little ocean is changing the dynamics, salinity and the currents. There is more much more to say but we will leave it at this. Let me know Andrew if you'd like one of our books or for that matter anyone out there. We need to get this information out. There's lots going on behind our back and NOT in our backyards.
About 7-8 years since the last el Nino - even if the oscillation is around 3-5 years it doesn't always swing strongly enough to be an el Nino - minus some aerosols, plus a bit of extra volcanic water vapor. And perhaps some other ocean oscillation and internal variables that are transient are lining up with warming. If nothing else we are likely to see studies to work out what has been going on, that better quantify the energy flows and further reduce the uncertainties. If there is some missing elements or poor quantification I expect it will be found.
Of course climate science already makes it abundantly clear that committing to drastic emissions reductions is urgent.
I just don't see how we can make any determination without looking at the actual evidence presented on scene. Oh look! There is a murder weapon under a box. Hmmm how do we check it? Do we have fingerprints on the box? why yes! we do! We observed a rapid rise in earth energy imbalance over the past 16 months! We also noticed a 3-year successive rise in sea surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere at around 40-45 degree latitude during the spring and summer months!
While not conclusive, there is a strong indication that reduction in shipping aerosols are at least partly to blame and that some kind of aerosol-cloud interaction within unstable adiabats in these regions is happening that has yet to be understood and incorporated into the models.
This paper may provide some additional insights. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/5743/2022/
More water vapor?
https://www.tuwien.at/en/tu-wien/news/news-articles/news/wasserkrisen-durch-klimawandel-gefaehrlicher-als-bisher-gedacht
Less of clouds?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
Hello, are things like the methane released from permafrosts taken into account as part of the gradual increase of global warming? Also there was the large and sudden release of methane when some pipelines of NS1 and NS2 were blown up.
If the recent warming has been absorbed in the oceans and El NIno is now moving all this heat around, would that account for the increase?
Thank you.
CH4?
Cheers & thanks.