Reduced Sulphur Content In Shipping Fuel Has Caused Most Of Recent Ocean Warming
By Paul Homewood
h/t Tallbloke
This was always the main suspect, but you won’t see this on the BBC:
Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols. In 2020, fuel regulations abruptly reduced the emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping by about 80% and created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact. Here we estimate the regulation leads to a radiative forcing of
Wm−2 averaged over the global ocean. The amount of radiative forcing could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980 with strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity. The warming effect is consistent with the recent observed strong warming in 2023 and expected to make the 2020 s anomalously warm. The forcing is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020. The radiative forcing also has strong hemispheric contrast, which has important implications for precipitation pattern changes. Our result suggests marine cloud brightening may be a viable geoengineering method in temporarily cooling the climate that has its unique challenges due to inherent spatiotemporal heterogeneity.
.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
We can ignore the exact calculations here.
But it has long been recognised that the 1970s cooldown was in part due to industrial aerosols, which thanks to clean air acts have reduced considerably since then. This reduction has undoubtedly contributed to warming in recent decades.
So why the surprise when the same thing happens at sea?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Simply go to the Met office time series here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Select England, Wales, Scotland or UK, select “sunshine” and “annual” and guess what you will see….. “sunshine” hours have consistently increased since the mid 80s. If you want correlation with any, even modest, temperature increase there you have it.
Odd isn’t it how “climate scientists” can see all manner of other correlations but not this one. Weird eh?
UK hours of sunshine & mean temps correlate 100%
Last 10 years both 5% over 40yr averages
Last 5 years both 10% over 100 year averages
[ Using pre 2020 data where possible, as the UK Met office manipulated all temp & sun hours data in jan 2020, cooling pre 1990 more than 1990-2020, and reducing the variation in sun hours by 13% ]
Pre 2020 data metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets_5km/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt
2020 onwards
metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt
How did May 1911 cool by 0.3c ….109 years retrospectively ?
The UK met office cannot be trusted.
They will never acknowledge that the sun controls temperature.
UK sun hours are up 18% on the 1960’s average.
It’s not you, or CO2 it’s the Sun.
Temp has nothing to do with CO2, never has, never will.
Notable that until the late 1980s stubble was burnt in the fields. As soon as good weather came the burning started and the skies turned to brown windsor soup across europe for weeks on end. Then it was banned and the farmers had to plough the stubble in. It really was a horrible pollution that covered all Europe. I was a pilot and flew over this dirty air and hated landing down through it leaving the blue sky above for the brown sky below. How many other countries still darken their skies in summer?
Colour me skeptical. More pseudo-intellectual B.S. based on models. Three years since the introduction of the low sulphur shipping mandate is insufficient time to detect any changes in temperatures. How much did temperatures change when high sulphur coal and oil power generators were fitted with desox plant and replaced with low sulphur gas.
Yes, I reject their whole damn premise:
It is the deification of Man.
Whatever that means, but it sounds costly. Or – just let ships burn even more sulphurous fuel than they used to.
wait a minute. So it has been universally recognized that 1970s cooling was human caused?
I am shocked. I thought it was all the sun? Natural variability?
This ‘report’ states, inter alia, “….. is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake…”.
What does this mean in English ? Who knows our “planetary heat UPTAKE” ??
More flim flam.
I aways love it when the computer muddlers claim that (whatever weather thingy) is “consistent” with their fraudulent prognostications.
Of course, they are invariably and equally “consistent” with the traditional explanation, stretching over thousands of years and over every culture recorded.
“Consistent” with the activities of those naughty witches and warlocks.
About equally provable scientifically. But not nowadays rewarded with big chunks of “Grant” money stolen from the plebs.
It does not matter what causes warming and cooling in the long term, water is abundant in all of its states, liquid water, water vapor and ice, and even a fourth phase of water that is documented by:
THE FOURTH PHASE OF WATER BEYOND SOLID, LIQUID, AND VAPOR GERALD H. POLLACK
Pollack, Gerald. The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor (p. vi). Ebner and Sons. Kindle Edition.
Water is abundant and water changes states, if you heat water in the tropics it results in evaporation and water vapor rising and emitting IR out as it changes to water and/or ice which precipitates down with cooling by IR out a function of temperature to the fourth power and as a function of the volumes of water that did evaporate.
If you send warm water to polar regions, enough to thaw the polar sea ice and remove ice shelves, you increase the evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice that spreads and cools the land and oceans. Every time the temperature that sea ice thaws is exceeded in ocean currents that flow into polar regions, that promotes IR out that produces ice that is sequestered on land until more ice causes cooling. Push this harder and it self-corrects and pushes back harder. This is very clearly proven by history and ice core records and other records that go way back.
When sequestered ice on land is enough, or as usually has happened, more than enough, ice is pushed into turbulent warm salt water currents from the tropics and that chills the water to below freezing, sea ice is formed and the ice machines are turned off until they are needed again.
You can warm or cool climate, with any means, and this powerful self-correction will keep it inside bounds there dictated by the properties of water changing states.
Water is abundant and it changes states in temperature ranges that are useful for climate self-regulating, CO2 is not abundant, and it changes state in temperature ranges that are useful for us to keep things really cold, but not in temperature ranges that are useful for regulating climate.
Polar Sea Ice cannot achieve significant thickness due to radiation out, energy out, from the surface to space because ice does not conduct energy, or very little energy. Polar Sea Ice grows and depletes due to conditions underneath. When warm tropical currents flow under sea ice the ice is thawed and thinned. When warm tropical salt-water currents are chilled to below freezing by ice shelves and land ice pushed into the turbulent salt-water currents, the water is chilled to below freezing and that promotes the growth of sea ice. If you want to thaw ice, expose it to warm enough water, if you want to freeze something use turbulent salt-water and ice.
Warm or sub-freezing salt-water have much greater, orders of magnitude, more influence in the thawing or freezing of ice than other factors in nature, sea ice forms and thaws on the underside, that depends on the water temperatures underneath, not the atmosphere temperatures above the well-insulated sea ice sheets.
[[Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change.]]
How long can scientists keep going down the blind alley of the so-called greenhouse effect when I’ve long been conclusively refuting it and exposing it as a sleazy fraud based on energy double-counting, not only violating Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), but the ironclad First Law (energy conservation)? Answer: They’ve all got their snouts in the gigantic pig trough of the Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC octopus, which seems to scare and trick the West into dismantling their archenemy Big Oil to allow them to erect a Marxist utopia with a Green label. History proves it will just turn into another living hell jackboot police state, this one so big there will no place to escape to.
Forget the cushy warm feelings about global Marxism being the solution to the world’s problem. This is the real world, where physics trumps politics.
For the greenhouse effect to work, atmospheric greenhouse gases would have to have their own source of energy to add to real solar energy at Earth’s surface and raise temperatures higher than the Sun alone, but their source of energy is surface cooling infrared energy that was recycled from solar energy, requiring you to not notice that the greenhouse gas molecules would have to absorb and reemit that energy and return it to the surface BEFORE IT EVEN LEFT.
Once you see this circus swindle, you can’t unsee it. Imagine the wasted billions in research funding.
The news is slowly spreading, and it’s now down to making everybody see it to stop the U.N. IPCC’s gravy train before it goes over the cliff with everybody on board.
Marxists always want to burn down capitalism to erect their fairy tale Marxist utopia on the ashes, thus they will push any hoax on non-Marxists if it turns them into useful idiots who will work to destroy their children’s future thinking they’re saving it.
Here’s the killer disproof the greenhouse effect laid out step by step in a way that answers all objections and can be understood by a general audience. Get with it or your grandchildren will likely hate you.
https://www.quora.com/What-could-potentially-disprove-an-entire-field-of-science-such-as-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
Think how much ocean there is, how much atmos there is and then compare to how much shipping there is. I will start of as extremely skeptical.
P.S. the oceans most likely warm the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Regarding how “naughty” CO2 is as a potential gweenhouth gath, look here at a comparison of the electromagnetic radiation absorption characteristics of CO2 and Water vapour and behold!
Atmospheric Transmission-en – Absorption band – Wikipedia
What do you see? The same thing even Blind Freddie can see, that the absorption signature of CO2 is completely swamped in the InfraRed by the absorption signature of……WATER VAPOUR! Also there is a LOT more Water Vapour in the atmosphere than CO2…..so…….
Now, all the weasel “scientists” pushing the CO2 temperature control knob lie KNOW THIS. If they claim not to then they admit to being incompetent and unsuitable for their overpaid jobs so which is it guys?
Given this widely known information I wonder why the IPCC avoid any mention of Water Vapour except when forced and in the vaguest of terms and shutting down discussion as quickly as possible.
Seems this simple FACT is another nail in their science free narrative about CO2.
So, run Nut Zero past me one more time and why it is being inflicted on THE WEST ONLY?
This is part of a fake alarm started by a certain Professor James Hansen (yes him) a few months ago. The purpose is to scream, “More warming coming! Therefore, more action on Net Zero needed at once!” There is a different fake alarm just started: British Ghosts are in decline! An expert in the paranormal tells us that increasingly they are “passing over” to the next astral plane, and we must worry about this. The ghost scare (ot spoof) seems eminently sensible, compared to the idea that a few puffs of sulphur dioxide smoke from ships have been cooling down 1.4 billion cubic kilometres of water for the last generation. For what it is worth, “Carbon Brief” calculates that the net effect of eliminating sulphur from shipfuel will be to raise global temperatures by 0.05 C by 2050. Forsooth!
A critical number is missing here! What order of magnitude is it?
+0.2 +/-0.11
New paper re Hunga Tonga eruption: Long-term climate impacts of large stratospheric water vapor perturbation
This study neglects the aerosol effect and examines the consequences of large stratospheric water vapor anomalies and reveals that surface temperatures across large regions of the world increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas experience cooling close to 1°C. Additionally, the research suggests a potential connection between the eruption and sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which warrants further investigation.
https://t.co/qADQBbN2hz
I heard of a scheme to emit large amounts of sulphur to cause cooling, almost certainly obtained from the sulphur removed from fuels at great cost. That more or less sums up the Nut Zero scam … removing sulphur from fossil fuel and then emitting it to “save the planet” (i.e. make money)
Anthropogenic aerosol cooling and anthropogenic GHG warming are just two sides of the same rotten coin, which totally ignores natural variability in favour of an overwhelming and dominant anthropogenic influence upon global climate and mean global surface temperature. I’m claiming BS on this one. You only have to look at the graph of expected warming post IMO2020 to see that it’s BS. It completely fails to reflect actual global temperature variations from that point onwards. First, global temperature dips sharply (presumably due to La Nina), then it rises very rapidly and suddenly beginning early 2023. The basis of their claim that it was IMO2020 wot dunnit is that the “2023 record warmth is within the ranges of our expected trajectory”! So they found ONE datapoint that fits their computer modelled theory and so pronounced their theory to be ‘fact’! 2023 was not a sudden reduction in aerosols, it was not a sudden unexpected acceleration of GHG warming, it was not a “weird El Nino”. the MOST LIKELY candidate remains the Hunga Tonga explosion, which everyone ignores. Even the authors of the most recent paper which claims that it will influence global WEATHER for years to come (see Judy Curry) claim without evidence that it could not have caused the sudden warming in 2023.