Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts

[Nithavela]

Thanks for the good news!

 

[Halbhh]

see the link below;



Here is what I know;

please see this link, it is one of many but hard to find.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

water vapour varies in the atmosphere from about 2.5 to 5.5%, this gas has a GWP index factor of 300, this number is now almost impossible to find on the internet, you might have to go to a library to confirm, Personally I did confirm.

CO2 on the other hand has a value of 1, water vapour is 300 times more effective in trapping heat then CO2.

some graphs (data) exists that you have never seen in the news before such as;
View attachment 346891
you can find more of these on the internet, co2 is a contributor to global warming but a minor one only,

the gases in our fridges and ac units have a GWP's in the range of 35,000, imagine industrialization in Asia, China, India, since a few years ago, most now have ac's and fridges, i speculate here and did not research this but it might be a factor to consider seriously. it is not CO2 I am certain. I am not the only one to denounce that CO2 is NOT the main factor, thousands of climate scientists think the same, that is is something else than CO2 ( 0.04%) with the lowest GWP of 1!

Blessings.

Since warming of the surface of earth (land, air, water), no matter what cause or combinations of causes, will then lead to that warmer air above the surface always then holding more water than cooler air would hold (and when a given air mass with a lot of water vapor cools, it rains, since the air can no longer hold as much water at a cooler temperature) -- this means any graph that graphs the surface temperature against the amount of water vapor in the air MUST correlate perfectly.

No matter what causes warming, the total water in the air must follow the temperature perfectly.

Just as your graph shows.

Because Earth has open standing -- water, oceans, lakes.

But regarding the GWP of water vapor, the wiki reports: "Water vapour does contribute to anthropogenic global warming, but as the GWP is defined, it is negligible for H2O: an estimate gives a 100-year GWP between -0.001 and 0.0005.[25]"

Water vapor helps retain heat in the atmosphere also, so why is the GWP so low?

As I think of it in analogy: it's anagolous to when someone turns the handle on a motorcycle for more gas to the engine -- as you turn the handle, the engine increases its power output. But the cause of the greater engine power in the analogy isn't really the engine or even the gasoline in the tank, but in our analogy, the overall causation here is from the turn on the handle to put more gas into the engine, analogy wise. In parallel, while water vapor is sorta like the gas in the tank -- it flows into the engine more in response.... so, the water vapor is like a response, even though it also participates in retaining heat.

But this will be something you'll like: more about what water does, how even though it's not the driver, it's still participating:

Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect - NASA Science

Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in

science.nasa.gov

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A mountainous country loses its last glacier​

The demise of La Corona, downgraded to an ice field after shrinking from more than 1,100 acres to less than five, makes this South American nation the only one in the Andes range without a glacier — but it’s unlikely to be the last. Scientists, who long predicted the end of La Corona, say warming temperatures will render the entire Northern Andes, which snakes through Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador, glacier-free by 2050.

[Venezuela's three glaciers] presided over Sierra Nevada national park in northwestern Venezuela, visible from Mérida. But as climate change caused temperatures to rise, scientists say, La Concha (The Conch) disappeared in 1990, and La Columna (The Column) followed in 2017.

And now La Corona (The Beer).

I blame their unbridled socialist policies.

/s

 

[expos4ever]

It could be that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years and continues on the same course.

It could be this, of course. But, as I understand things, the overwhelming majority of appropriately qualified experts disagree.

 

[Halbhh]

It could be this, of course. But, as I understand things, the overwhelming majority of appropriately qualified experts disagree.

And far more important -- the actual temperature chart itself:

@expos4ever -- if you are like me, data is much more convincing than merely 'experts' -- it's not just theory, but reality as it is -- that only when we have emitted a lot of extra CO2 as accelerating in the 1980s, 90s, and since (China, India) have we then gotten this big upswing in response:

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[AV1611VET]

This global warming has been literally talked to death.

How many people are in their graves now, who believed global warming was going to threaten their comfort zones?

Svante Arrhenius, who first sounded this alarm, died in 1927.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Svante Arrhenius, who first sounded this alarm, died in 1927.

Arrhenius did not sound any alarms. He established fairly clearly the fact that human activity was of a magnitude large enough to have global implications on climate.

Possibly because he was in Sweden (and mostly alive during the period that we set as the baseline global temperature), he was fairly sanguine about the outcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

Arrhenius did not sound any alarms. He established fairly clearly the fact that human activity was of a magnitude large enough to have global implications on climate.

Possibly because he was in Sweden (and mostly alive during the period that we set as the baseline global temperature), he was fairly sanguine about the outcome.

You were there?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You were there?

Human beings leave behind records in the form of marks on paper and other media that can be perused later to give insights about what thoughts these people were having at the time the record was made.

 

[Ophiolite]

You were there?

Of the various generic objections to unpalatable findings of science I have always found this one the saddest, for it reveals an unconscionable level of self-deception and indulgence in deliberately choosing ignorance over knowledge. Pathos personified.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of the various generic objections to unpalatable findings of science I have always found this one the saddest, for it reveals an unconscionable level of self-deception and indulgence in deliberately choosing ignorance over knowledge. Pathos personified.

And I always make note of the faith employed by those who weren't there, yet believe in the documentation that is put forth by those who were.

Even if said person died in 1927.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And I always make note of the faith employed by those who weren't there, yet believe in the documentation that is put forth by those who were.

Hilarious.

 

[eclipsenow]

And I always make note of the faith employed by those who weren't there, yet believe in the documentation that is put forth by those who were.

Even if said person died in 1927.

Dude - this is hard to watch!
These days you're in my ignore bucket - but when I saw Essential Saltes reply - I had to click.
Oh man I wish I hadn't!

Do you NOT see the incredible irony of this situation?

Essential Saltes is an atheist because he does not believe in the documentation of 2000 years ago, recording some weird sounding miracles in an alien sounding culture.

But you're the guy with the "Bible says it, that settles it!" taunt - parading around the fact that you DO have 'faith employed' - turned right up to 11 - in the ancient, strange sounding documents of the bible. But you won't accept some relatively easy science documents from more recent years - because it doesn't sit with your politics.

Because - you're the guy with THAT signature taunting everyone in a science forum.

You haven't really got a handle on all this 'knowledge' stuff, have you?
(Why oh why did I click?)

 

[jacorian]

Land and sea temperatures have warmed much more than models forecast in the last year, and as of these articles various new factors being considered appear not enough to account for that spike. Relatively speaking it's quite large.

---------------
Nature
9 March 2024

Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory​

Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened.
...
So, what might have caused this heat spike? Atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels have continued to rise, but the extra load since 2022 can account for further warming of only about 0.02 °C. Other theories put forward by climate scientists include fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, which had both cooling effects from aerosols and warming ones from stratospheric water vapour, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum. But these factors explain, at most, a few hundredths of a degree in warming (Schoeberl, M. R. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104634; 2023). Even after taking all plausible explanations into account, the divergence between expected and observed annual mean temperatures in 2023 remains about 0.2 °C — roughly the gap between the previous and current annual record.

There is one more factor that could be playing a part. In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. ...

Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory

Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

www.nature.com

-----------

Also, related is more information about another factor that could turn the wrong way, increasing warming. Normally the Earth absorbs about 1/2 of emitted CO2 each year, but that might change in a bad way:


"That one-half figure is an approximation. It varies from year to year depending on weather conditions and other environmental factors, resulting in the jagged lines you see in the chart above. For example, in a warm and dry year with many wildfires, the land may absorb less carbon dioxide than usual.

As the Earth warms further, climate scientists expect the land and the ocean to absorb a smaller share of carbon dioxide emissions, causing a larger share to end up in the air, said Doug McNeall, who studies these effects at Britain’s Met Office.

Xin Lan, the lead scientist responsible for NOAA’s global carbon dioxide measurements, referred to the natural absorption as a “carbon discount.”

“We pay attention to it because we don't know at which point that this discount is gone,” she said.

In addition to carbon dioxide, the levels of other potent greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are also on the rise, which further contribute to warming."

Carbon Dioxide Levels Have Passed a New Milestone

There’s 50 percent more carbon dioxide in the air than before the Industrial Revolution.

www.nytimes.com

As someone with a masters degree in this stuff, there are natural explanations of the heat anomalies. Let me first illustrate that the polar jetstream has been disrupted & appears as just bits & pieces rather than a smooth flowing jet. This jet's absence over the NH then permits southwestwardly flowing area to circulate to higher latitudes. If that air derives strictly from land then one gets continental tropical air (hot & dry as in Phoenix) or maritime tropical air (hot & muggy as in Gulf of Mexico). These air masses can remain in place until pushed out of position by a strong front. ENSO has been quite active these last 10 years or so & this permits havoc between the ocean surface & nearby land. We also have the North Atlantic oscillation present. The subtropical high pressure areas known as the Hadley Cells have migrated some 200 miles further northward & thus they are closer to continents. This cell, which furnishes the climate known as the desert biome at 30 N/S, is what spins around the Bermuda High which does not visit every year but furnishes the east coast with hot & sultry air spinning clockwise around the Florida Panhandle & up the coast. This was present in 2022, but not 2023. I have to check online to see if it is active. The area of disturbance in upper atmosphere is present in the ozonosphere. The ozonosphere, where ozone is contained, is normally warmer for its altitude. The reason is that ozone absorbs UV rays from atop & IR from below. So this slender patch is warmer (-40C). A warmer medium allows IR to transfer out to space. The current stratosphere is in too cold a state to do this. To promote more warmth here, the ozone needs to regenerate back to a decent amount. Ozone is made in the troposphere at low latitudes but in the stratosphere at polar latitudes. The presence of CO2 simply cannot account for the steadiness of warm periods or the lurking of hot air into places not usually visited.

 

[Halbhh]

As someone with a masters degree in this stuff, there are natural explanations of the heat anomalies. Let me first illustrate that the polar jetstream has been disrupted & appears as just bits & pieces rather than a smooth flowing jet. This jet's absence over the NH then permits southwestwardly flowing area to circulate to higher latitudes. If that air derives strictly from land then one gets continental tropical air (hot & dry as in Phoenix) or maritime tropical air (hot & muggy as in Gulf of Mexico). These air masses can remain in place until pushed out of position by a strong front. ENSO has been quite active these last 10 years or so & this permits havoc between the ocean surface & nearby land. We also have the North Atlantic oscillation present. The subtropical high pressure areas known as the Hadley Cells have migrated some 200 miles further northward & thus they are closer to continents. This cell, which furnishes the climate known as the desert biome at 30 N/S, is what spins around the Bermuda High which does not visit every year but furnishes the east coast with hot & sultry air spinning clockwise around the Florida Panhandle & up the coast. This was present in 2022, but not 2023. I have to check online to see if it is active. The area of disturbance in upper atmosphere is present in the ozonosphere. The ozonosphere, where ozone is contained, is normally warmer for its altitude. The reason is that ozone absorbs UV rays from atop & IR from below. So this slender patch is warmer (-40C). A warmer medium allows IR to transfer out to space. The current stratosphere is in too cold a state to do this. To promote more warmth here, the ozone needs to regenerate back to a decent amount. Ozone is made in the troposphere at low latitudes but in the stratosphere at polar latitudes. The presence of CO2 simply cannot account for the steadiness of warm periods or the lurking of hot air into places not usually visited.

Interesting details.

I was thinking a couple of things, first that it's interesting weather-forecasting-wise to look at detailed reasons for heat waves in regions (as you in included, reasons a high can become stationary longer, building an area heat wave, etc.) -- but of course the bigger interest is about anything we can see about the global surface temperature (the global anomaly), but I don't yet see how long that can last; let me say why/ask about it --

Since basically the overall radiation from a body (like heat caused IR radiation from the Earth's surface as a whole) would seem to become more efficient when there is a hot spot, concentrating the heat, since black body radiation is proportional to temperature to the 4th power. (not just squared or such) P ~ a T^4

Ergo, the thought then is unless the global ozone increases significantly, concentrating ozone even in a key latitude range (of maximum solar input) might not matter much since it seems first any concentrating of ozone of course causes another area to have a reduction (and thus become a more efficient radiator) but more importantly, 2nd, wouldn't' a bigger factor be that eventually, in not overly long a time (under a year) wouldn't we see a significant increase in IR from the other latitudes due to heat being eventually moved from the hotter area to the other areas where it will increase the IR radiation very strongly (due to the 4th power of temperature proportionality) in that lower ozone concentration blanket in the other area. Put another way, how long can the lower atmosphere heat be held under the higher ozone area? Ergo, the global anomaly can only last as long (however long) as the heat doesn't move to the other latitudes. But we have seen large increases in heat in polar and subpolar areas, I know....
See?

So, it would seem we'd see the major regional heat waves (breaking records, etc.), but then pretty soon (only months) later the global heat anomaly would get removed by the increased IR radiation in other latitudes.

That's what I began wondering immediately. So, are you instead suggesting or saying there is a increase in overall global ozone? (and of course one wonders whether models include that or simply assume a fixed global ozone level)

 

[The Barbarian]

On the news last night, the weather guy said that there might not be a heat advisory one day next week.

Last few years, I put in a high-efficiency HVAC system, redid all the windows, put more insulation in the attic, and insulated the garage door. It's better, but not if things continue as they appear to be heading.

 

[The Barbarian]

Svante Arrhenius, who first sounded this alarm, died in 1927.

He correctly predicted what we are seeing now, based only on absorbtion data.

 

[AV1611VET]

This global warming has been literally talked to death.

How many people are in their graves now, who believed global warming was going to threaten their comfort zones?

Svante Arrhenius, who first sounded this alarm, died in 1927.

He correctly predicted what we are seeing now, based only on absorbtion data.

And he went to his grave believing global warming was going to threaten our comfort zones, didn't he?

 

[The Barbarian]

And he went to his grave believing global warming was going to threaten our comfort zones, didn't he?

I have no evidence to show what do you have?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no evidence to show what do you have?

Arrhenius was the first to use the principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in the atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth's increasing surface temperature. His work played an important role in the emergence of modern climate science.

SOURCE