| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. 16:52 - Aug 13 with 1151 views | NthQldITFC |
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
I can't remember if the big divergence which happened in about March 2023 (?) was conclusively attributed to the removal/reduction of sulphates in shipping exhausts or not, but we're seeing big records being set again now.
I guess El Nino is kicking in south of the Equator.
That's a huge amount of extra energy available to the atmosphere from the surface of the oceans, so it's not surprising we're seeing 'extreme' weather events becoming normal now.
What have we done? |  |
| |  |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 17:22 - Aug 13 with 1005 views | bsw72 |
As predicted it is a Super El Nino event which is certainly spiking towards 2015 levels , as other sea temps are slightly lower than recent prior years. Quite extraordinary. |  | | |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 18:32 - Aug 13 with 814 views | CoachRob |
The image above shows the difference between the mixed layer depths when impacted by weak or strong winds. The mixed layer is shallower when the winds are weak and you can work out the thermo part.
Aerosols had some small impact, but it was localised.
Very strong El Nino will cause catastrophic impacts for many communities and sadly we are doing very little to provide any resilience to its impacts.
Did a bit of work on the Benguela nino and it's impact on fisheries recently. |  | | |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 18:36 - Aug 13 with 798 views | DarkBrandon |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 17:22 - Aug 13 by bsw72 |
As predicted it is a Super El Nino event which is certainly spiking towards 2015 levels , as other sea temps are slightly lower than recent prior years. Quite extraordinary. |
The scary thing is that El Nino’s result in even hotter weather the year after. So 2027 is likely to be even hotter than 2026 |  | | |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 18:51 - Aug 13 with 756 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 18:32 - Aug 13 by CoachRob |
The image above shows the difference between the mixed layer depths when impacted by weak or strong winds. The mixed layer is shallower when the winds are weak and you can work out the thermo part.
Aerosols had some small impact, but it was localised.
Very strong El Nino will cause catastrophic impacts for many communities and sadly we are doing very little to provide any resilience to its impacts.
Did a bit of work on the Benguela nino and it's impact on fisheries recently. |
Too many ‘aerosols’ is a big part of the problem. Especially the wealthiest 1% who contribute 26x the average towards global heat extremes. |  |
| |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 19:21 - Aug 13 with 674 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 18:32 - Aug 13 by CoachRob |
The image above shows the difference between the mixed layer depths when impacted by weak or strong winds. The mixed layer is shallower when the winds are weak and you can work out the thermo part.
Aerosols had some small impact, but it was localised.
Very strong El Nino will cause catastrophic impacts for many communities and sadly we are doing very little to provide any resilience to its impacts.
Did a bit of work on the Benguela nino and it's impact on fisheries recently. |
So would you say that the 2023(?) jump and the maintenance of something like a 0.2C-0.4C track since then, above the top of the earlier band would be more like a feedback response to global wind pattern changes caused by 'baked in' climate level problems we've created rather than a one-off response to a particular direct contemporary trigger?
Graphically, it looks very significant; I can't see how it's anything other than a really significant and dangerous state change or a measurement problem (which I presume has been well checked out). | |
| |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 06:25 - Aug 14 with 346 views | CoachRob |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 19:21 - Aug 13 by NthQldITFC |
So would you say that the 2023(?) jump and the maintenance of something like a 0.2C-0.4C track since then, above the top of the earlier band would be more like a feedback response to global wind pattern changes caused by 'baked in' climate level problems we've created rather than a one-off response to a particular direct contemporary trigger?
Graphically, it looks very significant; I can't see how it's anything other than a really significant and dangerous state change or a measurement problem (which I presume has been well checked out). |
Not sure I entirely understand your question, but there is a feedback process driven by "global stilling" that causes increased stratification of the upper layers of the ocean. It isn't a one-off, it is very concerning and will continue unless we stop GHG emissions very quickly. | | | |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 06:51 - Aug 14 with 317 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hadn't looked at this for a while - not good. on 06:25 - Aug 14 by CoachRob |
Not sure I entirely understand your question, but there is a feedback process driven by "global stilling" that causes increased stratification of the upper layers of the ocean. It isn't a one-off, it is very concerning and will continue unless we stop GHG emissions very quickly. |
Yeah, that's what I meant, but put very clumsily - that it was a system feedback rather than just a step change driven directly by a single policy change (the removal of sulphate aerosols from shipping exhausts).
I'd never heard the term global stilling before. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
