Skip to content

Hunga Tonga & Its Role In Rising Global Temperatures

August 17, 2023
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Ian Cunningham

Amidst all of the hysteria about the rise in global temperatures this year and claims of hottest months, there has been remarkably little discussion of the role played by the eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano last year:

 

 

 image

The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere.

Millán analyzed data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on NASA’s Aura satellite, which measures atmospheric gases, including water vapor and ozone. After the Tonga volcano erupted, the MLS team started seeing water vapor readings that were off the charts. “We had to carefully inspect all the measurements in the plume to make sure they were trustworthy,” said Millán.

Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions – the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile – sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes. But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.

This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.

The sheer amount of water injected into the stratosphere was likely only possible because the underwater volcano’s caldera – a basin-shaped depression usually formed after magma erupts or drains from a shallow chamber beneath the volcano – was at just the right depth in the ocean: about 490 feet (150 meters) down. Any shallower, and there wouldn’t have been enough seawater superheated by the erupting magma to account for the stratospheric water vapor values Millán and his colleagues saw. Any deeper, and the immense pressures in the ocean’s depths could have muted the eruption.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

By any account, this eruption was off the charts when compared with any other eruption since we began studying these things.

According to the Millan paper, the radiative forcing from this plume of water vapour was about two thirds of the CO2 growth between 1996 and 2005.

Water vapour is of course the primary GHG, and there can be no question that the eruption has increased global temperatures, and will continue to do for some years to come, as the plume is expected to only slowly dissipate.

Questions have been raised as to why we are only seeing the effect a year after the eruption. There are two very good reasons for this:

1) La Nina last year helped to offset any temperature rise from Hunga Tonga.

2) For the months following the eruption, the cooling effect of aerosols tended to offset the warming effect of the water vapour. Gradually however these aerosols have since dropped out of the atmosphere, and now there is nothing to offset the water vapour effect. Remember that global temperatures fell by about 0.5C following Pinatubo.

The aerosol effect of Hunga Tonga would not have been as great as Pinatubo’s, but it is still likely to have been significant. By definition then, the water vapour effect must be equally significant.

It is perfectly likely that the rise in temperatures this year can all be explained by a combination of Hunga Tonga and El Nino.

What I find remarkable about this, if unsurprising, is how there has been virtually no public discussion of this, as far as I can see anyway. Instead climate scientists seem to want to brush it under the carpet, and blame rising temperatures on “climate change”.

28 Comments
  1. Jack Broughton permalink
    August 17, 2023 10:56 am

    I wonder how the great Grand Circulation Models respond to this massive change that they, so surely and accurately, predicted. I suspect that the answer is that they have not got a clue as this is beyond their physics!
    This is natures experiment and must inform the real science, if it can escape from the hype of CO2.

  2. Mike Jackson permalink
    August 17, 2023 11:25 am

    I’ve done my best! Since first reading about this event I have made sure that any comments of mine on the subject have referenced Hunga-Tonga and the likely effect of that plus a (possibly) strong El Niño on atmospheric temperatures over the next 2-3 years.
    But, as somebody once said, information cannot connect with a closed mind!

  3. David Calder permalink
    August 17, 2023 12:01 pm

    Why does anyone think that additional CO2 beyond the present 400ppm level will have ANY effect on atmospheric temperatures? I have yet to see William Happer’s explanation that the CO2 level is now saturated refuted rather than he be attacked personally by the nutters when ever this comes up. The fact that water vapour is THE most significant climate / warming gas (at any level of CO2) makes this vast increase THE most important topic for discussion. Of course the climate cult will not engage as the whole scam will then be OBVIOUSLY exposed in terms even our brainwashed youth and de-ranged sandalistas might understand… Standby for more ‘wild fires’. The cult is very dangerous right now

    • Broadlands permalink
      August 17, 2023 12:55 pm

      One reason is the fact that in the geological past (e.g. Late Eocene) atmospheric CO2 was more than double what it now is and the climate was warmer…but still mild. The pH of the oceans was less alkaline but the carbonate plankton diversified. No “acidification”. Plant life on land was lush. Evidence such as this tends to falsify climate models that predict climate armageddon with a doubling of CO2.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      August 17, 2023 1:21 pm

      Try this for a theory.
      The core ingredient of western civilisation is fossil fuel in some form of other — be it coal, oil or gas. All the benefits of our civilisation have their origins in what we have been able to ‘create’ from these. (Examples and details as long as your arm!)
      If you want to undermine civilisation (or as I described it some years ago ‘unpick the industrial revolution’) then you need to demonise fossil fuels and the one thing they all have common is that in use they emit CO2. Join the dots.
      What threw this plan out of kilter was the rise of nuclear for electricity generation but (fortunately for the climastrologists) we were already suspicious of this for reasons we all know about.
      The planet is not at risk from another two or three degrees of warming and it is not at risk from another 200 or 300 ppm of CO2 and nobody has yet come close to provide scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that it is.

    • Bloke down the pub permalink
      August 17, 2023 2:05 pm

      If IR absoption is already saturated in the CO2 wavelengths so that extra emissions make very little difference to temps, why is this not also true of the H2O wavelengths?

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        August 17, 2023 5:04 pm

        If the claim that the additional 10% of H2O added to the atmosphere by Hunga-Tonga will likely increase temps by ~2°C for a couple of years is a correct interpretation then obviously under normal circumstances those wavelengths are not saturated.
        Maybe it’s only where these wavelengths overlap. You’d need to ask an expert; this is well above my pay-grade!

      • August 17, 2023 9:06 pm

        Note that Hunga sent ‘water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere’ not the troposphere. It seems there are no equivalent events to compare to, hence some uncertainty as to present or future effects.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        August 17, 2023 9:25 pm

        See the Eschenbach Mysteries post linked below. That’s one of the reasons why estimates of the effects may be overblown.

      • PAUL WELDON permalink
        August 17, 2023 10:19 pm

        Most of the wavelengths in which water vapour absorbs outgoing I/R radiation are saturated the same as those for CO2, as you suggest.
        But this applies to the top of the atmosphere.
        I would assume that this is almost the case if the measurements were taken at the lower stratosphere, but probably just a little less.
        So yes, there could be some warming but not very much.
        It must also be the case that water vapour below the stratosphere will also intercept most of the downward I/R radiation form the interception by water vapour and act, so to speak, as a greenhouse gas in reverse. So any warming of the surface from water vapour in the stratosphere is going to be minimal.
        What never gets a mention is that the more greenhouse gases in the troposphere, the closer the reactions to the Earth’s surface and hence warming of the surface and cooling of the upper troposphere, which is what is happening.

  4. 2hmp permalink
    August 17, 2023 12:03 pm

    If an event conflicts with the current climate stance then it is foolish for alarmists to announce or discuss it. If the effects of this rise in water vapour last for long there should time for reasoned responses to be heard. Or is that wishful thinking.

  5. Tonyb permalink
    August 17, 2023 12:06 pm

    I understand the importance of water vapour which after all is the key Greenhouse gas, but surely its effect is pretty transitory? Would it hang around long enough to make such a large and long lasting impact as is being suggested?

    • August 17, 2023 12:44 pm

      The issue is that it has reached the stratosphere, which is most unusual, because of the force of the eruption.

      In the troposphere it would normally dissipate as you say.

      • Hugh Sharman permalink
        August 17, 2023 1:42 pm

        Paul, Thanks so much! What a lot of things you do happen to know!
        Out of curiosity, I Googled you and “Notalotapeopleknowthat”. The first item (chosen by Google?) on Google was the link at https://www.desmog.com/paul-homewood/ where “Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, describes you as “Homewood having no professional qualifications or training in meteorology or climate”.

        What a pompous and ignorant fellow he is, to be sure!

      • August 17, 2023 4:23 pm

        Thanks Paul. This is one to follow. Lets hope we get some science papers written about it although by the time that happens the initial ‘facts’ are unlikely to be overturned by the ‘real’ facts.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        August 17, 2023 8:26 pm

        Concerning Google, last night Chrome was blocking clintel.org on Windows 10, today it’s working OK.
        As to Bob Ward…

      • August 17, 2023 10:20 pm

        Bob Ward just lost another climate complaint, this time to the Daily Mail…
        https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=17684-23

        Re. this post, Judith Curry has a longer post on 2023 temps here…

        State of the climate – summer 2023

        Skip to ‘Conclusions’ if the short version is enough.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      August 17, 2023 1:36 pm

      Hi Tony, at low altitude, water vapour has a “residency”period measured in a few days (average about nine) and is termed a condensing greenhouse gas….it rains! However, at high altitude its residency period is much longer and at very high altitudes can even run into years (see Wang et al. 2009). This statospheric additional water vapour can have an effect for a long time to come.
      This higher altitude feature is also an issue with any potential fugitive hydrogen emissions. H2 rises very quickly and can reach the stratosphere where it reacts with Ozone to both deplete the ozone layer and form high altitude water vapour.

    • August 17, 2023 3:48 pm

      My sketchy understanding of the Greenhouse Effect is that extra warming at the surface is due to low altitude gases, the extra IR radiation comes from low altitudes. Maybe stratospheric water vapour has indirect effects at the surface.

    • John Anderson permalink
      August 18, 2023 8:17 pm

      There was 50 million tons of WV released into the atmosphere during the eruption and it takes a long time to equalise. https://www.space.com/tonga-eruption-water-vapor-warm-earth#:~:text=Recently%2C%20researchers%20calculated%20that%20the,of%20ash%20and%20volcanic%20gases.

  6. Gerry, England permalink
    August 17, 2023 1:17 pm

    There is a very good post on WUWT which discusses this as a factor in the temperature but does suggest it is not the main cause but further data will become availble over the next couple of months. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/15/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/

    What is interesting in the analysis is the role the enforced reduction of the sulphur content of bunker fuel used by shipping has had in reducing low level clouds and reducing their role in reflecting solar energy. So a measure to reduce global warming seems to be actually increasing it. Not unlike the pleas to reduce flying which would reduce condensation trails and as we saw during the unexpected experiment post 11 September when the planes stopped the temperature rose.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      August 17, 2023 8:22 pm

      I also found this post to be a useful antidote to being too ready to jump to conclusions:

      Hunga-Tonga Mysteries

      • PAUL WELDON permalink
        August 17, 2023 10:26 pm

        I read that too, and found it quite convincing. If there is any effect at the surface, it must be by a process that gives warming at the surface, not in the stratosphere or upper troposphere. Any ideas? More UV reaching the surface? Fewer aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect incoming radiation?

  7. cookers52 permalink
    August 17, 2023 2:54 pm

    Berkeley do discuss this in all their latest explanations of record temperatures, both sea and land.
    They give 4 causes for anomalous warming.
    EL NINO
    AGW
    Ship aerosol decline
    Tonga volcano
    They are not certain how much effect the extra H2O in stratosphere will have. Bit could be significant.
    Of course they have to support the narrative, until the narrative changes.
    One clue yo how important this maybe is that Michael Mann takes every opportunity to rubbish the volcano effect, of course providing no evidence.

  8. Mark Hodgson permalink
    August 17, 2023 8:45 pm

    Paul,

    At Cliscep we have, led by the redoubtable Jaime Jessop, been discussing this here:

    Just Stop Volcanoes

  9. liardetg permalink
    August 18, 2023 8:46 am

    I thought Willis Eschenbach over on WUWT had debunked this?

  10. theturquoiseowl permalink
    August 18, 2023 5:35 pm

    Several known historical eruptions occurred in 1912, 1937, 1988, 2009, 2014–15 and 2021–22. Similar temp blips after 2009 and 2015.

    • August 18, 2023 11:02 pm

      None of those injected a huge amount of water throughout the stratosphere. We will learn a lot from it.

Comments are closed.