This is something that has been on the back burner since meteorologists started saying there could be a huge El Nino this year, but, suddenly over the last 24 hours there are a ton of news organizations running with this, so, obviously, someone or organization is pushing this and the “independent” news media
A strong El Nino may be imminent. Climate change will make its effects worse
The El Nino weather pattern is forming, and is expected to cause extreme weather around the world this year, the WMO said on Tuesday. Scientists say climate change will make ?its impact especially severe.
The World Meteorological Organization said there is an 80% chance that an El Nino event develops between June and August, and a 90% ?chance it will last until at least November. The statement is the clearest signal yet of the likelihood.
The El Nino phenomenon naturally occurs every two to seven years, when weakening trade winds result in warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. The result tends to be higher global temperatures, and disrupted rainfall – meaning drought in some regions, heavy rains in others. It also affects hurricane formation.
Two things make this year’s forecast particularly worrying.
The first is the ?chance that this year’s El Nino – and its impact – will be stronger than typical.
The WMO said there was still uncertainty, and some models predict a “strong” El Nino while others ?do not. WMO forecasts suggest a strong El Nino is possible, defined by sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific of at least 1.5 ?degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
Are these the same models that predict rain and we get none? The models that failed to anticipate the massive dry spot running from north of Raleigh all the way to Wilmington during the last snow event, while the amateurs predicted it? The models that predict a foot of snow and we get a trace? The models that prognosticate massive sea rise and temperatures by 2050/2100 which make zero sense in reality?
The second cause for concern is climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions have increased the planet’s average temperature by around 1.3C since pre-industrial times.
That higher baseline supercharges the effects ?of El Nino – enabling higher temperature spikes, more intense droughts, heatwaves, rains, and the resulting disasters, including bushfires, floods and crop failures.
“When we get an El Nino, because of the underlying climate change … ?these things become more intensified and they’re more impactful,” said Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change at the University of Leeds.
Where does Professor Teach believe from where the added heat from an El Nino originates?
The massive 1998 El Nino was the starting point of the imaginary “Great Pause”, yet the mean global surface temperature has surpassed the 1998 El Nino consistently. In fact, the 2016 El Nino peak was 0.4°C greater than the “once in a century” 1998 version. No doubt the 2026 peak will exceed them all.
Why do the peak values continue to increase? Where does all that extra heat released from the Pacific come from?
You are not denying that the Earth is warming, are you?
Rimjob starts off the day with the same old tired rhetorical questions.
Puppy killa
That is not a rhetorical question
You need to begin using words correctly
We do in fact expect an answer.
Do you believe the Earth is warming?
Followed by, why do you think it is warming at 25 times the rate that ended the last Ice Age?
I think it is being caused by the rapid increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels
Sorry, Johnny-it’s not warming at 25 times the rate of the last ice age. And if it was, do tell us what that rate has allegedly done that would not have happened at a slower rate. You constantly get hung up on the rate, where it’s the alleged effects of the rate that would matter. And as shown last week, D-O events allegedly changed the temps 5-10C in mere decades
Who is Johnny?
Anyway. You are correct. Current warming is NOT 25 times more rapid than when Earth came out of the last ice age.
The Last Ice Age: As the Earth emerged from the last glacial period, global temperatures rose about 5°C, but this shift took around 5,000 years. This translates to a natural warming rate of about 0.0015 C to 0.002 C per decade.
Today: Modern global warming has been occurring at a rate of roughly 0.15 C to 0.20 C per decade—and even faster in recent decades.
0.2/ 0.002 = 100 times more rapid. But you’re right again. What difference does it make? One COULD argue that fron now if it takes 5000 years to warm 5 C humanity has more time to prepare compared to having just 50 years. Nothing alleged about that.
“These are the reasons why commercial greenhouses pump CO? to 1,000–1,500 ppm deliberately. It ensures that crop yields jump by 20–70% depending on the crop. If 1000 ppm is good for tomatoes, why is 420 ppm an ’emergency’ for the planet?
The science says 600–1,000 ppm of CO? plus 1–2°C extra warming hits the sweet spot for all terrestrial and marine life, including human civilisation. We should not be waging war on a trace gas that makes the planet greener.
Higher CO? is a net benefit to life on Earth.”
https://x.com/peterdclack/status/2061035642273112263?s=46“
Mr Lewis wants CO2 at 600-1000 ppm to benefit green plants!!
Cognitive Function: Research shows that when CO2 hits 1,000 ppm, occupants can experience a drop in strategic thinking, information usage, and decision-making performance compared to lower levels.
Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at 1000 ppm would cause an eventual long-term global warming of approximately 4.5°C to 6°C (8.1°F to 10.8°F) above pre-industrial levels.
Once we reach 1000 ppm it will take at least a century to reach 8.1°F to 10.8°F and melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Most scientists do NOT choose twitter (X) to present their data and hypotheses.
BTW, Mr Clackk even denies that the Earth is warming!!
read more about Mr Clack’s “science” below…
https://www.newswise.com/articles/tying-past-mass-extinctions-with-low-atmospheric-co2-is-false
jesus Teach you are really losing it. weather forecasts are predictions. Models are projections and normally show a range of outcomes.
In 1990 the 1st IPCC Assessment predicted as most likely a temp increase of 1.4C So far it is at 1.3C
at least you finally stopped with that “Climate change due to CO2 is only a theory” after enlightening you to the fact in science a theory is THE best explanation for observed data and observations. However, science is always willing to accept new theories if predicated. Science is not dogma.
The single biggest factor is climate change belief is age. Prime example is the chief of the climate chenge deniers “Dementia Donny”
Johnny-it’s not necessarily the best explanation, especially because no one has come up with a simple experiment showing that adding CO2 will make an object warmer from its own emissions. Why do you think that is? Trillions spent but not enough?And the other theories, as you’ve been shown seemingly hundreds of times, are just as valid
Who’s Johnny?
Allegedly, you do not understand that CO2 (and NO2, CH4, H2O) absorb infrared radiation?
With no greenhouse gases at all, the solar energy absorbed by the land and water is emitted as infrared radiation with a direct route to deep space. Without an atmosphere, Earth’s temperature would fluctuate wildly between extreme highs and lows, similar to the Moon. Direct sunlight would drive daytime highs up to 110 C/ 230 F, while nighttime temps in the dark would plummet to -150 C/-238 F.
For years, you have “argued” that there just isn’t enough evidence for you to accept the greenhouse principle, but will not describe the evidence that will persuade you.
What about two allegedly identical glass bottles, one allegedly filled with CO2, one with no CO2, alledgedly containing sensitive and precise thermometers, each alledgedly receiving the exact same amounts of “sunlight” wavelengths of light (measured at the center of the vessel). IF the CO2 containing vessel was the warmer one, how would you explain it?
But if you think you have an experiment to verify the hypothesis, you better be calling the cult big wigs that haven’t been able to do it for over 30 years instead of me
Johnny-who’s denying that the climate changes? Funny-all you guys have are unsupported mantras..
Who is Johnny?
Yes, yes, you finally admit that the Earth is warming. You, Teach, Tony WUWT etc denied it was warming for too long. Now you deny that CO2 can be the cause.
Nice try-never said it wasn’t warming, but rather how much and the cause. But you already knew that.
“Deny CO2 could be the cause”. This is a classic example of hearing what you want to hear. I’ve never said it Couldn’t be the cause, but I’ve always said it hasn’t been Verified to be the cause
How would YOU test this?
Because that would just be an example of the specific heat capacity of gasses. Different gasses heat and cool at different rates. That’s not measuring back radiation warming another object
Are you really claiming that infrared radiation can’t warm objects? Or that infrared wavelengths does not interact with CO2 and H2O?
No. But as numerous papers have claimed, the effect of clouds and aerosols letting in more SW radiation from the sun completely outweighs any CO2 effect.
Jimmi lewis. What is your best possible explanation for the temps rapidly increasing. We have had slightly deceasing solar irradiance reliably measured since 1970.
Temps are increasing at a rate 15 times that as happened during the end of the last Ice Age. Then temps went up 6 C. in about 10000 yeagenerally clouds COOL the planet. The planet is warming.
Any ideas on the causes of the cloud pattern and aerosol changes?
Here’s what AI says:
Shifting Wind Systems: Global warming pushes atmospheric circulation patterns poleward. This decreases cloudiness in the mid-latitudes and the tropics, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface, which in turn accelerates planetary warming.
Thinner, Shrinking Clouds: Warmer sea surface temperatures and altered humidity break up low-level marine clouds (like stratocumulus clouds). Because these clouds act as Earth’s natural “sunscreen” by reflecting sunlight, their reduction traps more heat in a positive feedback loop.
Higher Cloud Tops: As the atmosphere warms and holds more moisture, cloud tops are stretching higher into the atmosphere. Higher, thinner ice clouds (like cirrus clouds) trap outgoing heat rather than reflecting sunlight, further raising temperatures.
What is your take? I recall Dr Roy Spencer claiming years ago that changes in galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could be responsible for reduced cloud reflectivity and hence more solar shortwave radiation from reaching the surface.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
GCRs are positive-charged particles (90% single protons, i.e., hydrogen nuclei) originating from explosive events like supernova explosions within the Milky Way. Moving through space at nearly the speed of light, they constantly bombard Earth. Our magnetosphere and atmosphere deflect and absorb most cosmic particles permitting life on Earth! Cosmic rays are a threat to extraterrestrial travel.
“How would you test this”. That burden would be on the ones making the CO2 claim
We could look for supporting data like temp increases.
Is the temp going up?
Most would agree that it is. Why is it going up? Orbital change? Increase in solar radiance? Increase in greenhouse gasses?
Why is it going up? Johnny, shall I list those numerous papers that have been posted here dozens of times, again?
LOL. “Run away! Run away!”
You have NO ideas regarding what the evidence you demand would look like?
Funny-sure I do. It would show an object to warm a greater amount with more CO2 than a lesser amount of CO2. Classic-“You have no idea what the evidence would demand..” Your talking in circles-You obviously should be forwarding that statement to your cult leaders, not me. I’ll say it again-the burden is on those who claim it’s CO2
You mean like the temperature probe in the bottle with CO2?
Jimmi
Science does not seek “proof” it seems evidence to support theories which are always open to rebuttals
Jimmi
Science does not seek “proof” it seems evidence to support theories which are always open to rebuttals