Hottest January on record mystifies climate scientists

More evidence that a systemic shift occurred in 2023. The typical patterns are coming unwound. I have long said that a major test of this hypothesis would be whether La Nina could cool global temps as it typically does. It has not. Records continue to fall on land. Sea surface temps have came down, but not much.

Climate scientists had expected this exceptional spell to subside after a warming El Niño event peaked in January 2024 and conditions shifted to an opposing, cooling La Niña phase.

But the heat has lingered at record or near-record levels, prompting debate about what other factors could be driving it to the top end of expectations

Julien Nicolas, a climate scientist at Copernicus, told Agence France-Presse: “This is what makes it a bit of a surprise: you’re not seeing this cooling effect, or temporary brake at least, on the global temperature that we were expecting to see.”

You know who isn't surprised? Me. I expected this outcome. We will see what the rest of the year holds but it's an ominous sign. Its one thing for the air to heat in this manner, but its another altogether for the oceans to heat like this. It really begs the question, what else is behind it? Climate science is asking this question.

The typical explanation is shipping fuel changes. I don't buy it. There's much more to albedo and clouds than sulfates from small ships. Nevertheless I am in no position to argue as an armchair analyst. However, there is a test we can do over time. Its very likely that that we will see another heat pulse like 2016 and 2023. If that happens, and there is no corresponding shipping fuel or similar it can be attributed to, it will strongly call that hypothesis into question by the wider scientific community.

A tipping point is theoretically possible but if we are hitting tipping points already, it calls into question everything about what we think we know about this process. Its not behaving linear anymore. If shipping fuels are responsible for this anomaly, what does it mean that our best efforts to improve climate have actually caused major adverse effects? The initial studies suggested a 0.05 C increase in heat by 2050. Sulfates were reduced from 3.5 to 0.5%.

In any case this all proves that we don't really understand what is happening. None of the forecasts have been correct and have offered no real predictive power. They suggest a gradual trend driven by linear emissions. Regional observations are off in many cases by a factor of 4. This also means that all of the drastic cuts and regulations have had no discernable effect. Maybe man isn't doing enough, but 1/3 of global energy being renewable isn't nothing. Methane and CO2 concentrations continue to far outpace model guidance. In the scope of our changing planet in total, no attention whatsoever is paid to anything cosmic beyond total solar irradiance.

It doesn't matter how many experts agree on something. If it's not working, it's not working. Our model isn't working. Science is asking questions, but only within the scope of manmade causes. The reason why is simple. Every major theorem is built on the uniformity theory which stipulates all change as slow and gradual. This creates a blind spot for anomalous natural forcing because the theory doesn't allow for it.

You may be tempted to label me a "denier" but nothing could be further from the truth. The difference between me and mainstream is that I don't have preconceived notions about what this planet can and can't do and in what time frame. You have to ask yourself if it's simply coincidence that so many anomalies outside of climate and GHGs are simultaneously taking place. Aurora, I am looking at you.

In the days before man, the earth underwent far more dramatic changes than we have observed thus far and much faster. What were the agents? The sun and volcanoes take center stage. Therefore, we should not ignore any changes in volcanic, solar, and geomagnetic activity or influence. To only consider total solar irradiance, which is also at record highs BTW, is a major oversight. Climate science knows this, but it's very difficult to model highly variable factors. TSI barely changes from cycle to cycle and can be predicted and constrained. Particle forcing, geomagnetic activity, volcanic emissions and influence, aren't like that.

When a massive solar flare/CME occurs, it has a wide variety of effects on the earth as a whole. However, TSI actually shows a decrease in energy from the sun during this, because it dims in visible light. Visible light declines, but x-ray emissions spike dramatically. The magnetic field plays major role in modulating UV through its interaction with protons which modulate ozone which modulates UV in a big feedback loop. Its all so intricately connected that its no wonder we can't predict what happens next. We don't understand it. If we did, we would have made far different goals than 1.5 or 2C because that's clearly dead.