Global temperatures to remain above average despite return of La Niña, says UN
Posted by Portalrules123@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Posted by Portalrules123@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Portalrules123@reddit (OP)
SS: Related to climate collapse as ENSO in general and whether there is a La Niña or an El Niño is starting to matter less and less against the background rate of unchecked emissions and warming. This likely doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone on r/collapse, but I figured I should post it just in case. Despite having a “triple dip” La Niña from 2020-2023, these years were part of the trend of the last ten years being the warmest ten years on record. It looks like we will either stay at ENSO-neutral conditions or go back to a La Niña near the end of this year, and yet the UN forecasts that global temperatures will stay near record highs. When an El Niño eventually does come again, it’ll likely accelerate warming but acceleration would likely occur regardless even if an El Niño wasn’t present. Expect this year to be relatively cool compared to pretty much every year following it.
TuneGlum7903@reddit
Acceleration of warming WILL occur regardless of the El Nino/La Nina cycle.
You are right about that because this acceleration is being driven by changes in the ALBEDO.
112 - Albedo, La Nina, El Nino, and EEI
In 2014 the ALBEDO (planetary reflectivity) started significantly"dimming".
Fig. 1. Earth’s albedo (reflectivity, in percent), seasonality removed. From Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity 2025
This "dimming" was observed by Goode as part of the "Earthshine Project" to measure and track the albedo AND by the NASA CERES satellites. This is an "indisputable" FACT.
007 – Heat doesn't "just happen". Where it’s coming from, and why that matters to all of us. Part Two. The Earth's Albedo has dimmed since the 90's. In the clinical language of science, this is an "unexpected feedback".
008 – Heat doesn't "just happen". Where it’s coming from, and why that matters to all of us. Part Three. Additional notes on Albedo Diminishment. I’m actually being “conservative” when I tell you that things are bad.
009 - Heat doesn't "just happen". Where it’s coming from, and why that matters to all of us. Part Four. We know from the Earthshine Project, and the NASA CERES observations, that the Earth's Albedo has dimmed. The question is, "why"?
This "dimming" has increased the raw amount of ENERGY going into the Climate System by a factor of roughly 4X.
In 2004 the ENERGY from the Sun reaching the Earth was about +0.4W/m2.
In 2024 this ENERGY flow had INCREASED to +1.7W/m2 (per James Hansen, Berkeley Earth puts it around +1.5W/m2, it depends on how you interpret the CERES data. NOAA puts it around +1.4W/m2).
Both GISS/NOAA and Hansen estimate this FORCING is about equal to adding +135ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
That's how much additional HEAT has been going into the Climate System the last 11 years.
90% of that HEAT/ENERGY has been going into the Oceans.
The SPEED at which the oceans are warming is without ANY geological precedent. Not even the Chicxulub Impact Event (Dino Killer) warmed the oceans this much, this fast.
We are LITERALLY "short circuiting" the Oceans in a "human timeframe".
TuneGlum7903@reddit
This has CONSEQUENCES.
Earth’s Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent Decades — First published: 10 May 2025 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024AV001636
Figure 1 : Annual global mean energy imbalance observed from space during 2001–2024. The imbalance is derived from the CERES-EBAF Edition 4.2.1 data set (Loeb et al., 2018). The blue line shows the linear trend over the 2001–2024 period when full annual means are available. Gray shading shows years affected by major El Niño events.
The "dimming" of the ALBEDO is "half" of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) equation. It's the INPUT side. The amount of ENERGY the Earth loses each year to space is the OUTPUT side.
FYI- CO2 warms the planet by reducing the amount of ENERGY that the Earth radiates away. It "traps" ENERGY in the Climate System. That's why increasing the CO2 level increases the global temperature.
Important to Understand - The CO2 level has NOTHING to do with the ALBEDO dimming, at least not directly. The increasing CO2 level traps more energy in the Climate System after it reaches the Earth. The ALBEDO level controls "how much" ENERGY gets into the Climate System in the first place.
Even if we got to Net-Zero it would have ZERO effect on the ALBEDO level.
What this graph is showing is the difference between the ENERGY coming in and the ENERGY going out.
In 2004 it was about +0.35W/m2.
In 2024 it was about +1.35W/m2.
That's the answer to WHY the SPEED of global warming has greatly ACCELERATED these last 11 years.
Now, here's the important question that hasn't been answered yet.
"How much of an increase in the Rate of Warming (RoW) will this translate into?"
Slow_Parfait5341@reddit
So just to be clear, we don't understand why earth's albedo has lowered? I thought it has to do with the melting of polar ice.
TuneGlum7903@reddit
Here's a graph from Hansen's paper that makes it clear.
He states:
Most of the +1.7 W/m^(2) increase of energy absorbed by Earth must be due to climate feedbacks. Using our estimate of aerosol forcing, \~1.2 W/m^(2) of increased absorption is climate feedback (Fig. 2), while, if IPCC’s estimate of the aerosol forcing were correct, feedbacks would be >1.5 W/m^(2).
In either case, the huge increase of absorbed energy must be provided by some combination of the two climate feedbacks that significantly alter Earth’s albedo:
(1) change of the surface albedo, which is due mainly to change of sea ice area, and (2) change of clouds.
The sea ice change is readily identified in satellite data and the resulting regional change of Earth’s albedo is accurately measured, amounting to[5] 0.15 W/m^(2) in the period 2000-2024, averaged over Earth’s surface. Thus, the one remaining feedback that affects Earth’s albedo – the cloud feedback – is very large.
What Hansen is saying is that the effect of melting sea ice is accurately measured via satellite and it is NOT the driving force behind the dimming of the albedo.
This is about CLOUDS.
There has been a significant decline in planetary cloudiness since 2014.
73 - You REALLY need to think about CLOUDS. Clouds in the present-day climate system cover approximately two-thirds of the globe. We may have REALLY fucked up. (05/11/24)
In it I discuss this article from 2019.
Extreme CO2 levels could trigger clouds ‘tipping point’ and 8C of global warming.
-CarbonBrief, Zeke Hausfather, February 2019
The article leads to this paper.
Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming.
-Nature Geoscience, February 2019.
The abstract alone is terrifying.
Abstract
“Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight.”
So, in this paper they identify a "tipping point" of 1200ppmCO2 as a place where planetary cloud cover suddenly and rapidly diminishes.
TuneGlum7903@reddit
So, we may have "tipped" the cloud diminishment feedback and started a rapid run up of +8°C due to less planetary cloudiness.
That's what's REALLY got Mainstream Climate Science shitting its pants right now.
This isn't about sea ice, it's about clouds.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
That will be very easy to tell if/when it happens. No need for thermometers or anything fancy. If the atmosphere has so much CO2 that low level clouds scatter we'll see that any time we look up in the subtropics / mid-latitude regions.
Though I personally doubt that it can be set off at such a (relatively) low CO2 concentration. As I reckon it wouldn't align with paleoclimate data if ~8°C had to be attributed to just a lack of reflective clouds in these low(er) CO2 periods. The model that predicted it specifically ties it to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
BEERsandBURGERs@reddit
I like your posts and I dislike your posts. I like to be informed but I fucking hate the numbers.
Next month I'll be having my yearly reunion with my friends, half of them seem not to worry about ANY climate change, the other half are like; 'Perhaps it's more fun to have a 'climate change talk' another time, not this weekend'?
I'm afraid in 15-20 years time, we'll be looking at each other, some looking bewildered, and I'll be like; 'Fuck you guys, I love you all but I've have been trying, for over 4 decades, and you never wanted to talk about it. So, fine, let's not talk about it. It's over, too late. Let's just have fun and open this nice bottle of single malt.
C4rva@reddit
I can’t help but laugh at the mainstream versus alarmist discussions.
It’s like firefighters arguing about if the 12 foot or 15 foot flames are going to collapse the roof first while debating if we should maybe think about not putting gasoline on the fire.
TuneGlum7903@reddit
I liked your analogy it's pithy but to the point.
Sadly, this isn't a laughing matter. Who "won" the argument in Climate Science in the 80's is how we have wound up where we are today.
Climate Science has "real world" political implications. The MAGAt Project 2025 group UNDERSTANDS this completely. Our national energy policy since the 80's was built on the foundation that "Climate Science" said it was "safe-ish" to burn fossil fuels for possibly another 100 years.
Hansen's testimony in the 80's wasn't to "convince" the Senators that increasing CO2 levels would cause "global warming". In the 80's EVERYONE but fringe "nut jobs" understood that fact. What Hansen was warning them about was "blindly accepting" the warming estimates of one faction in Climate Science as being "established fact".
In 1979 the Moderate Faction in Climate Science estimated "climate sensitivity" to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to be +1.8°C up to +3°C of warming.
We still think in terms of +3°C as being the "worst case" for warming. All of our "reputable models" are structured to produce results in line with the +3°C "top end" warming for 560ppmCO2.
In 1979 the Alarmist Faction in Climate Science also estimated 2XCO2 warming. They came up with a forecast of +4.5°C up to +6°C.
We SHOULD have discussed this a LOT more as a society.
Ree_on_ice@reddit
We should've discussed a lot more too, like how capitalism's infinite growth model, and the population's attempt at infinite growth was in no way, shape or form sustainable.
But we didn't.
Because in the end, we're kind of a lazy species that just goes with the flow, whatever that may be or whomever's manufacturing that flow.
To me, it's apparent that we were never going to make this. All that's left now is a population collapse, and hopefully we won't blow half the nukes, fry the ozone layer and kill almost everything.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
This ain't a baseball going through someone's window. This is an actual crime against humanity and the complicity to say they were just going with the flow won't be shared by those who were lied to about their future.
It will be a very dark decade soon, one where life is valued far less than control and vengeance.
Terrible_Horror@reddit
The gasoline companies have bought over all the decision makes, so we dont need no water let the mofo burn.
breatheb4thevoid@reddit
China doesn't care. India has never been more prosperous. The US must have oil and gas as their final economic aegis.
Your children get to suffer because they're not my children and I could naively care less about anyone else.
Terrible_Horror@reddit
The next El Niño will be a sizzler.
Vegetable_Baby4885@reddit
It’s gonna be the tipping point
Vegetable_Baby4885@reddit
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought El Niño was always followed by La Niña. That’s the order I think. So I didn’t know it could go backwards.
PintLasher@reddit
La ninas since abrupt sea temperature increase: 2 La ninas that don't bring temperatures down as much as "expected" 2
Can we replace the guys that we are getting our expectations from yet?
LessonStudio@reddit
Here's a fun factoid. china has drastically dropped, and continues to drop their Sulphur Dioxide(SO2) emissions, as has almost all of the world's blue ocean shipping.
SO2 is a fairly short lived "anti" greenhouse gas. It reflects the sun's energy back into space. It is also the cause of things like acid rain.
This is not only contributing to the recent warming, but depending on where these emissions take place, they can have far more profound effects.
It is generally understood that eastern US industrial emissions of SO2 floating over the Atlantic drastically reduced water evaporation, which drastically altered (mostly lowering) seasonal rainfall in eastern africa. This was reduced in the 80s which is when these near endless drought cycles stopped in eastern africa. This seems to be a very good thing.
But, with china dropping their emissions, I suspect rainfall patterns in North America are in for some pretty big changes. As a guess, we could look at rainfall patterns of the 1800's and early 1900s to see if there is a hint of what a low SO2 emitting china looks like for weather.
Fickle_Meet@reddit
Fascinating!
karabeckian@reddit
Hoo boy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_the_United_States#19th_Century
TuneGlum7903@reddit
That's a REALLY interesting point. Thank you!
Far_Out_6and_2@reddit
We are in neutral right now just sayin
Cultural-Answer-321@reddit
Gee, what a surprise.
gmuslera@reddit
Too many words to say "new baseline"
Agitated-Tourist9845@reddit
There are no more baselines. It’s just a line going up, steeper every year.
MrD3a7h@reddit
It's a baseline. The problem is that the baseline is an geometric equation.
monkey_sodomy@reddit
My datum is a concave up curve baby.
NyriasNeo@reddit
wait long enough, that will become average.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
Oh it will be higher than the average? In other surprising news, the sky also going to be blue. Thanks UN for the groundbreaking information!
Snark aside, why is this news? I don't think anyone expected below average temperatures from a brief dip into La Nina. Even compared to the 1990-2020 average, that would be a big ask.
TuneGlum7903@reddit
Oh but you would be wrong. There was a big spate of articles and interviews with mainstream climate science figures last year where they literally said that they expected a significant "cool down" from the 23/24 peak.
What they were hoping for was a replay of the 2015/2016 temperature spike.
After 2016 there was significant planetary cooling. So much so, that temperatures didn't spike ABOVE 2016 levels until 2023.
This was similar to the 97/98 El Nino pattern.
In 98' the El Nino bled so much HEAT out of the oceans that temperatures didn't spike above that peak for over 10 years.
That's what mainstream climate science has been praying would happen this time as well.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
Well a cooldown wouldn't necessarily drive us below average, would it? That is still above even the 1990-2020 average, let alone anything further in the past.
Even if we had a full year of La Nina (which I believe some people expected), it would at best take us back to 2016 levels. But that was still a very hot year, all things considered.
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Portalrules123:
SS: Related to climate collapse as ENSO in general and whether there is a La Niña or an El Niño is starting to matter less and less against the background rate of unchecked emissions and warming. This likely doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone on r/collapse, but I figured I should post it just in case. Despite having a “triple dip” La Niña from 2020-2023, these years were part of the trend of the last ten years being the warmest ten years on record. It looks like we will either stay at ENSO-neutral conditions or go back to a La Niña near the end of this year, and yet the UN forecasts that global temperatures will stay near record highs. When an El Niño eventually does come again, it’ll likely accelerate warming but acceleration would likely occur regardless even if an El Niño wasn’t present. Expect this year to be relatively cool compared to pretty much every year following it.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1n6p8nj/global_temperatures_to_remain_above_average/nc1n6ad/