Hunga Tonga Volcano is “Most Likely” Cause of Recent Warm Temperatures
By Paul Homewood
Chris Morrison covers the latest on Judith Curry’s blog:
The climate events of 2022-24 have been “truly extraordinary”, notes Dr. Javier Vinós writing in Dr. Judith Curry’s online blog. The rare convergence of a number of events “that may not be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of years” represents a “unique learning opportunity” for climatologists. Interestingly, Dr. Vinós downplays the roll of the current El Niño. He says that the January 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcanic eruption, that boosted upper atmospheric water vapour by a remarkable 10%, is the most likely cause of the recent warming, which in turn led to an unprecedented three sudden stratospheric warming events. As the excess water leaves the atmosphere, observes Vinós, it will induce a cooling effect at the surface potentially lowering temperatures for the next three to four years.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Erupting volcanoes dictate earth’s weather – who knew ?
especially when they blow 1/2 a windamere into the stratosphere increasing global water vapour by 5%.
The figure given is that the water vapour in the stratosphere increased by 10%. The reason for the large increase is that there is close to zero water vapour in the stratosphere.
The amount of water intruding into the stratosphere is given as 150 million tons. That sounds a lot but is insignificant as far as the total atmosphere is concerned. The atmosphere as a whole is estimated to contain some 60,000 cubic kilometres. Each cubic kilometre by weight is 1 billion tons so the 150 million tons is minute compared to the total amount of global water vapour.
I’ve often thought that the mix of an El Nino and Hunga Tonga was the cause of our wetter weather (not climate, as BBC keep saying). My scatological brain couldn’t help but see …..
We learn from alarmists with their new SI (Somewhat Indicating) scale:
‘possible – could – possibly could – maybe – might – likely – very likely – most likely – almost certainly – certainly – most certainly – quite definitely – and models say’. (Sorry)
Not sure you are using scatalogical correctly there!
Bit of a shitty remark!
Whoops (or Whoopsies)!! And I thought I was scatty-brained… :(
The IPCC calculate that doubling the current level of CO2 gives a 1 degree rise in atmospheric temperature (Happer & Wijngaarden calculate 0.7 degees C) and then predict that increasing water vapour and cloud distribution amplifies the GHG effect and produces their estimate of 3 degrees of warming. Not that there has been any substantial increase in the water vapour content (humidity) in the higher altitudes where the GHG effect is important…..
However, does this Hunga Tonga event, which has increased the water vapour in the upper atmosphere by 10%, provide any information as to whether this water vapour/cloud amplification really exists and if so, by how much does it amplify the warming?
The UAH satellite temperature data does appear to show a substantial temperature increase which is now dropping as this additional water falls back down to earth?
Who knew that water vapour carries latent heat!! Just about everyone who thinks.
Based on the IPCC/NASA model/concept of the GHE I would expect there would be an up tick in temps if the extra water vapour within the positive part of the GHE from the eruption pushed up the effective emission height of the greenhouse effect.
Blows me away that they are not using this event to prove their own model but on the other hand I don’t think most climate scientists and other scientists even know their own model.
The Soden/Held model only shows another 70 meters added on top of around 7 kilometers of the GHE if CO2 doubles and that includes water vapour feedback which we all know is just another theory on top of others.
Of course above the effective emission height GHG’s cool to space in the convective/radiative greenhouse model used by NASA/IPCC and more is supposed to shift radiation away quicker as they do over most of the Antarctica from the surface up.
Lots of papers will come from this event, I would look to those who can empirically measure the opacity of the GHE.
Who is this Graeme Hook who talks so much sense?
any idea on the time scale for the water retuning to Earth?
Yes, it returned this morning as 4 inches of snow here in North Wales, Met office forecast sleet!
I can see the white heat of ‘global boiling’ on Snowdonia from Hoyhead.
I don’t see any evidence in the yearly graph that shows a swing in one year tending to be repeated the next. However, the usual swings are not much above the noise (they are noise). So, on the basis this is a rather large swing, about 4x normal, I would guestimate about 1-4years, probably bunching toward the 1year.
“water vapour has warming properties and is considered the most potent ‘greenhouse’ gas“
Only by those who know what they are talking about and don’t have some totally spurious axe to grind!
Unfortunately we are going to end up learning this lesson the hard way as the climastrologists insist the decline in temperature between now and (say) 2030 is a figment of our imagination.
Unfortunately we are going to end up learning this lesson the hard way as the climastrologists insist the decline in temperature between now and (say) 2030 is a figment of our imagination.
No!! They will insist it’s all due to their war on Carbon!!
Well, the choice is theirs. They can either claim the credit or dig up enough dubious figures or computer models to say it ain’t so.
My money’s on the latter which has been their modus operandi for the last 30 years.
The ‘correlation’ victory!
Not the causation victory.
Where do they dig up these data denier fossils from??
From Ron Clutz
https://rclutz.com/
Yes, the influx is clearly shown. However, the graph I find deceptive: we have a rise of 0.25gms per square meter over a column 60kms. deep.
With the level of water vapour now 2gms. per square meter in a 60km column it shows just how little water vapour there is at this level of the atmosphere.
And this is supposed to have warmed the Earth’s surface? I do not think so!
Stop pointing out the elephants in the room – Hunga Tonga, El Niño, interglacial etc – by the way, there’s strong evidence La Niña has started, get ready for a global cooling, especially if tied with the next glacial and GSM
Can’t see evidence the El Nino has finished yet, let alone a La Nina has started. Another month or do before we are neutral seems to the guess.
My wife said Javier Vinos is grasping at straws, still trying to be relevant.
No, the HTHH eruption did not cause the recent warm temperatures, this is just more of Vinos’ fantasy ideations and storytelling passed off as science.
There were millions of Olympic-sized swimming pools of water vapor evaporated off the ocean into the troposphere as atmospheric rivers in the last year+ since HTHH, due to solar forcing, dwarfing the estimated 68K swimming pools of WV sent into the stratosphere by HTHH. One must have a sense of proportion here. Which matters more, the troposphere or stratosphere WV?
Did those atmospheric rivers warm cause the ocean warming? It is obvious that the UAWVC lags SST, this is confirmed in the literature, and is obvious in Ron Clutz’s graphic. So why should UAWC lead SST after HTHH?
Secondly, the attempted linkage of planetary waves to HTHH more than a year later just doesn’t fly. The UAWVC concentration nearest the Arctic was almost as dense at the same time of year last year as this season’s SSWs, so did it cause those early 2023 SSWs too?
Look at the 10hPA temperature variability from last year. It was as negative an anomaly on Jan. 1 as it was positive on Feb. 1 and later in Feb., so did the HTHH WV cause both variations? Also, there were just as large of 10 hPA temperature anomalies in the previous years before the HTHH WV, so how can Javier tell the difference in HTHH WV forcing from former precedent? He can’t.
Why did it warm up so much in 2023? Because of high solar irradiance.
I have on record from 2018, 2022, and 2023 on my science meeting posters my predictions for solar-forced warming for solar cycle #25, particularly the tropical step-up from La Niña to El Niño in synch with the solar cycle. The sun has already delivered 17 more watts per meter^2 at this point of solar cycle 25 than the previous cycle, and 2023 NASA CERES TSI was the top year average and duration above my decadal sun-ocean warming threshold since 2000, and according to my empirically-based science, is responsible for ocean warming.
Hunga Tonga Volcano is “Most Likely” Cause of Recent Warm Temperatures
M’kay. Note that “likely” is not a fact. Note that ‘recent warm temperatures’ is speculation. I appreciate Dr. Javier Vinós‘ efforts, but he is full of it.
“The climate events of 2022-24 have been “truly extraordinary.”
There is no damn such thing as a ‘climate event.’ It’s not extraordinary, it’s stupid.
Solar maximum of the current cycle is also in play.
This comment by the author is worth noting:
‘ That Hunga Tonga caused a large part of 2023 warming is a hypothesis, with some evidence supporting it and no evidence contradicting it. That’s how science is done. It is different from religion where you just accept what you are told.’
Nothing wrong with making the hypothesis, but the author needs to take note of what he writes. What evidence supports the hypothesis? And there is no evidence contradicting it? Hard to believe.
The first sign of the hypothesis being plausible would be a warming of the stratosphere, but in fact it has not.
By what process does the effect of a miniscule amount of extra water vapour result in a rise in Earth’s surface temperature? At this altitude the greenhouse effect is in reverse: any extra heat likely to be produced would have to find its way through all the greenhouse gases in the troposphere, so most of any energy actually released would be reflected back into space.
As is so often mentioned, correlation does not prove cause.
You say:
“The first sign of the hypothesis being plausible would be a warming of the stratosphere, but in fact it has not.”
The stratosphere COOLS in response to the injection of water vapour, as pointed out correctly by Javier Vinos.
“Unlike the lower troposphere, where the greenhouse effect is relatively saturated, the stratosphere, well above the Earth’s average emission altitude (about 6 km), experiences a much more pronounced effect from the addition of water vapor. Also, the increased stratospheric water vapor content enhances infrared emissions from the stratosphere, thereby cooling it significantly.”
The surface, by contrast, warms. The water vapour injected into the stratosphere might be insignificant in terms of the total water vapour content of the troposphere, but very different dynamics are in play in the stratosphere and the water vapour excursion recorded due to HTHH was huge and UNPRECEDENTED in the observation record. There is plenty of scientific literature which strongly suggests that even a modest moistening of the stratosphere contributes significantly to global warming.
“There is plenty of scientific literature which strongly suggests that even a modest moistening of the stratosphere contributes significantly to global warming.”
I doubt those studies if they exist. Clearly, the UAWVC normally lags SST, suggesting global warming, higher SST, causes a moister stratosphere. You have it empirically backwards.
What is not “huge and UNPRECEDENTED” is the willingness of people to latch onto such easily refuted ideas.
You doubt studies before you have even verified that they exist?
Please verify that the studies do exist, then read them, then present your scientifically valid doubts as regards to their conclusions.
You misunderstood. I doubted the linkage exists in the manner in which you stated it, not that I doubted there were studies!
Precedent: the stratospheric WV lags SST; HTHH is the outlier.
Normal: A moister stratosphere results from warmer SST.
That means “global warming”, ie a warmer ocean, normally drives stratospheric WV, the opposite of what you stated.
I don’t care what those studies say if they don’t see this.
The fact that a long term moistening trend in UAWVC may be due to surface and lower troposphere warming really is not relevant in the case of an explosive event like HTHH which injected a huge and unprecedented amount of wv directly into the stratosphere, reaching as high as the mesosphere. Simple radiative physics predicts that this large increase in water vapour will have an instantaneous radiative effect resulting in stratospheric cooling, combined with warming at the surface. But it’s likely a lot more complex than that even because the water vapour injection causes significant changes in global circulation as well as stratospheric ozone. In the observational record, such a huge and instantaneous injection of water vapour has not happened before so there is no past observational evidence to compare it with. All we have is a known long term slight moistening of the stratosphere caused by processes unrelated to volcanism.
I am open to logical explanations for why my understanding of the processes as a result of HTHH are wrong, but I still do not understand how extra water vapour in the stratosphere is going to lead to a warming of the Earth’s surface.
If one takes a look at the graphic Ron Clutz posted, you will see how absurd the comment the amount of water vapour entering the stratosphere is ‘huge’. The graphic shows a total amount of 2 grams of water vapour in a 1 square metre column at 20-80 km altitude. That is 2 grams per 60,000 cubic meters. Now explain to me how that extremely low level is able to generate such energy as to make a change.
The author also vaguely attributes the effect to water vapour being a greenhouse gas. So what process is involved, is there sufficient I/R radiation at this altitude as most wavebands I assume would be saturated. Where does the I/R radiation originate? And how is this energy supposed to find its way to the Earth’s surface with all those GHGs in between which will give back-radiation but to space?
Now convince me….
It’s not my job to convince you, it’s your job to familiarise yourself with the extant scientific literature. Here are a few pointers for you:
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
Apart form the well known effect of depleted ozone cooling the stratosphere, it would also appear that CO2 is also responsible:
Stratospheric cooling: The concerning flip side of global warming | UCLA
The report does not give the actual process involved, but it insinuates my own thoughts: the greenhouse effect is more concentrated near the surface as GHGs increase. So it would appear that the stratosphere does not cause the warming of the Earth’s surface but the other way around.
to bob weber…
“I doubt those studies if they exist.”
Did you actually even attempt to look for them? Why “if they exist”? Is that an assumption of Jaime lying?
“What is not “huge and UNPRECEDENTED” is the willingness of people to latch onto such easily refuted ideas.”
But you successfully did NOT refute anything at all. You only successfully displayed your ignorance and unwillingness to debate politely.
Why have you opted to post on here?
Ray, gaslight much? Can’t you read and comprehend?
I didn’t doubt that those studies exist. You misunderstood.
Studies also say that solar irradiance didn’t cause the ocean warming (climate change), but as well, I found and show the counter evidence, w/o needing to reference any studies.
I successfully refuted the bad idea that a moister stratosphere causes global warming with my counter evidence. It doesn’t.
No study in the world will change this interpretation. What Javier wrote is not a real science study but a set of falsifiable assertions.
You have opted to remain ignorant and unwilling to consider the counter evidence I provided while apparantly expecting me to support the others’ strawman arguments uncritically.
If think you should be policing me because I found and show my counter evidence, then all I can say is you’re too soft for this stuff.
Go on, just out-polite me, that will make you the winner, right!?
You most definitely did NOT successfully refute the idea that a moister stratosphere causes warming at the surface; you only provided evidence that moderate long term and short term stratospheric moistening is a feedback of surface warming. I provided you with a whole list of scientific studies showing that surface warming can be caused by an increase in stratospheric water vapour. You have not falsified those scientific studies. The data and the science in fact falsifies your unevidenced assertion that an increase (especially an unprecedentedly large and sudden increase) in stratospheric water vapour cannot cause warming at the surface.
Hello bob,
“Ray, gaslight much? Can’t you read and comprehend?”
Gosh you really are an unpleasant piece of work aren’t you.
Also quite clearly not worth trying to engage with. An insgnificance.
That’s okay by me , in fact, keep up the good work – you are single-handedly turning people off your version of scientific debate. As I often sign off to your ilk…….Sieg Heil!
“…. you are single-handedly turning people off your version of scientific debate”
I really feel sorry for you and anyone who feels like that.
You appear to expect skeptics be in lockstep on these bad ideas.
I promise you I will be keeping up the good work!
If it’s so unpleasant for you I suggest you do something else.
You ask “Where does the I/R radiation originate? ” Surely that’s pretty basic isn’t it?
“When the Earth emits radiation, it has nowhere to go but up, but greenhouse gases can emit radiation in all directions. Some radiation escapes to outer space, some is reabsorbed by other greenhouse gases, and some is directed back down to the Earth. “
Incoming shortwave solar radiation heats the surface – (warming).
Some shortwave radiation is reflected by clouds back into space (cooling).
The surface conducts that energy into the atmosphere (transfer). A small amount longwave radiated into the atmosphere?
Convection (& advection) moves the vast majority that heat around the atmosphere, and to the top (transfer). IR (longwave) radiation within the atmosphere is a bit-player.
Longwave IR radiation transfers that heat to space (cooling).
IR directed back to the surface CANNOT make the surface any warmer, but the question indeed is, where does the IR energy in the atmosphere originate? Is it the surface radiating as well as conducting. Note: as IR reactive gases are a small % of the atmosphere, conduction must surely be the dominant transfer mechanism from the surface.
Thanks for your comment Ray. It would be my answer too, but also including I/R radiation emitted by clouds and the rest of the atmosphere.
If this is indeed the case, what about the I/R bands in which water vapour acts as a GHG? Surely as we go further up in the atmosphere, the bands become saturated, and the GHG effect becomes less. Hence the argument that is also used against the effect of CO2, that its increase has little effect because its absorption bands are already saturated? Hence I see little GHG effect in the stratosphere and the hypothesis falls flat.
Your quote is also interesting, regarding the statement that some of the emitted radiation is reabsorbed by GHGs. This may be true, but the emitted radiation is not selective and will react with any neighbouring molecule to emit energy. Hence most of the difference between temperatures on Venus and Mars, where CO2 makes up around 95% of the atmosphere. The difference is actually mostly from the concentration of gases in their atmospheres, on Venus around 100 times our own, on Mars much less than our own.
With reference to this point, it also goes that the GH effect on our own planet actually decreases with altitude as the atmosphere becomes less dense. Surely this should be taken into consideration when forming the Hunga Tonga theory?
To Ilma630:
You write ‘IR directed back to the surface CANNOT make the surface any warmer’
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is often misinterpreted: it states that heat will always go from the cold to the warmer body.
What is misunderstood is that this refers to the balance of transmissions which will flow in both directions. The colder body will also be emitting I/R. The effect is that the surface will cool less quickly if there is more back radiation. If you ever have the opportunity, take an I/R gun and point it to the sky under different atmospheric conditions. With low cloud the back radiation will give a reading not too far below the surface temperature, on clear and still nights with low relative humidity mine goes down to the minimum recording limit, at -60C.
The back radiation is not warming the surface, but slowing the heat loss from the surface and thus gives the appearance of a warming effect.
Surely the point is that water vapour (and any other g/gas molecules) radiate I/R in ALL directions including upwards out to space. That upwards radiated i/r is being met by increased stratospheric water vapour which in turn re radiates in ALL directions including back downwards. The overall loss to space is thus reduced and more is retained.
This may be the basis of the GHG effect, but does not consider the progression of reactions, nor the amount of extra water vapour or effect of the low density of the atmosphere at this altitude.
If you look at my rough calculation of the change in water vapour in the stratosphere due to the eruption, it really is miniscule. A change of 0.2 gms. per square metre for a column 60 kilometres thick?
Energy is emitted and reabsorbed by neighbouring molecules. So with less molecules to collide with the effect is going to be decreased.
Any GHG only reacts with certain I/R wavelengths and at this altitude most of them are already near to saturation. Again, less GHG effect.
Any back radiation from the stratosphere needs to pass through the GHGs in the troposphere. The GHG effect in reverse.
Without taking the above 4 points into consideration, we can suggest that the eruption has had an effect. But take these points into consideration, and the case falls flat.
To Jaime Jessop.
Thanks for posting the references, they make interesting reading. My request was for you to explain the processes involved which you have not given.
A quick glance at the different papers only gives a vague clue as to the processes involved.
Each paper gives a different angle and there appears to be 2 processes involved. The obvious one is the extra back radiation caused by the extra water vapour – but given as being very low. The references are often only to the back radiation from the stratosphere, and the assumption is that these carry to the Earth surface, which I doubt. Computer models are used to calculate this, and there is mention that they are not designed for this exact purpose, so we must assume that assumptions have been made.
The second process is more interesting, and one that I had suspected. Namely that water vapour has the effect of reducing short wave incoming radiation. This does not conflict with my understanding of the processes of the climate system, but raises the question of the established understanding that an increase in water vapour in the troposphere due to the rise in temperature will increase the effect on surface temperatures from rising CO2 levels. Naturally, both processes are involved, with a huge variety of possible feedbacks.
The other point I found was that there is a correlation between changing stratospheric water vapour levels and surface temperatures. The stratospheric change was assumed to be the cause rather than the effect, There is nothing given , however, to show why this is assumed to be the cause rather than the other way around. Something to look into later.