In recent days, climate skeptics have found support for their skepticism about the so-called climate crisis. A recent study, “Peak global warming in 2023 is driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation” (Raghuraman et al., 2024) attributes the significant temperature peak in 2023 to natural causes, specifically the El Niño-Southern Oscillation ( ENSO) rather than human factors. This seems like good news for those of us who have long been critical of the mainstream climate narrative. However, it is important to remember that skepticism is more than just accepting findings that are consistent with our beliefs. True skepticism requires a critical attitude toward all claims, including those that appear to support our position.
Before we dive into why, let’s break down the study’s results and the reaction it sparked among climate skeptics.
Research: What is it really saying?
abstract
From 2022 to 2023, the global average surface temperature increased rapidly by 0.29 ± 0.04 K. However, why such a massive global warming spike occurred is unclear, and the rapid pace of global warming in 2023 has raised concerns that it may be externally driven. Here we show that climate models subject only to internal variability can produce such peaks, but this is uncommon (p = 1.6% ± 0.1%). However, when El Niño events in simulations are preceded by longer La Niña events, as happened in nature in 1976-1977 and 2022-2023, such spikes become more common (p = 10.3% ± 0.4%). Furthermore, we found that almost all simulated spikes (p= 88.5 % ± 0.3 %) is related to the phenomenon of the Holy Child that occurred that year. Our results therefore highlight the importance of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation in driving the occurrence of global warming peaks, such as the one in 2023, without invoking anthropogenic forcing, such as changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas or aerosol concentrations, as explain.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/11275/2024/
The study conducted by Raghuraman et al. (2024) provide an in-depth study of the sharp increase in global surface temperatures of 0.29°C observed between 2022 and 2023. Rate driven, specifically the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. They argue that this peak is consistent with previous similar natural warming events, such as the one that occurred in 1976 to 1977, and that there is no need to cite human factors such as reductions in greenhouse gases or aerosols to explain the phenomenon.
The key point here is to study the use of climate modelShowing such a large warming spike is rare, but possible through internal climate change alone. In unforced climate model simulations, peak warming of this magnitude occurred only 1.6% of the time. However, when an El Niño event is preceded by a La Niña that lasts longer, the probability of a peak jumps to 10.3%. Nearly all of the peaks in the model (88.5%) occur during El Niño events, highlighting the strong connection between this natural climate cycle and short-term global temperature changes.
Interestingly, the authors also provide a breakdown of the odds to support their point. They show that individual factors such as La Niña or El Niño alone can increase the likelihood of a peak to about 6%, but that the combination of long-term La Niña and El Niño increases the likelihood significantly. This highlights the power of natural variability in producing sharp peaks of year-to-year warming, which is often underestimated in the climate debate.
In addition to examining 2023, the study also looked at historical warming peaks, pointing to similar events, such as the 1976-1977 peak, which coincided with similar La Niña-El Niño transitions. Despite this similarity, the study acknowledges that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions from just two historical examples, which is why they relied on multi-century climate simulations spanning thousands of years to capture broader changes.
The authors conclude that the 2023 peak can be explained by internal variability alone, with ENSO playing a dominant role. This challenges alarmist views that immediately point to human-caused climate drivers.
This detailed probabilistic analysis adds nuance to the discussion, but it also highlights the reliance on climate models, which brings us back to a key question for skeptics: given the known limitations of these models, what should we How much trust should be given to these models? While this study appears to support the skeptics' view, the basic tool remains the same—models that are incapable of making long-term predictions. Therefore, while this study may provide SomeIn the context of 2023, it should not be considered clear evidence without a rigorous assessment of the assumptions and limitations of the models involved.
Any questions? The dangers of merit-based research
It can be tempting to do this research and do your research. After all, it gives climate skeptics a chance to point to peer-reviewed studies that align with our views. But this raises a troubling question: Should we believe a study just because it seems to confirm our beliefs? The short answer is no.
Over the years, many skeptics have expressed well-founded criticism of climate models (the tools used in this study). These models are notorious for overestimating future warming, and their predictions often differ significantly from observed temperatures. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has had to acknowledge this difference. So if we reject climate models when they predict runaway warming, should we accept them when they tell us something we like?
This is the core of true skepticism. We cannot pick and choose when to use our critical thinking. The reality is that this study relies on the same type of climate models that many of us have questioned for years. These models can be adjusted to simulate internal changes better than in the past, but they are still subject to the same uncertainties and assumptions that have always plagued them.
The role of climate models: Uncertainty remains
A major problem with climate models is that they are only as good as our data and understanding of the climate system. For example, the models used in this study may do a good job of simulating ENSO cycles, but they still struggle with long-term predictions and complex feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and ocean circulation patterns, that are critical to understanding climate dynamics. . decades or centuries. That’s why many skeptics argue that climate models should not be used to justify sweeping policy decisions like the Green New Deal or net-zero initiatives.
In this case, the study's authors acknowledge the uncertainties inherent in their model-based approach. They note that while models can reproduce warming peaks similar to 2023, these events are relatively rare in simulations. Furthermore, simulations indicate that while ENSO is the main driver of the peak, other internal variability factors may also play a role. This leaves room for skepticism and should temper any overly enthusiastic interpretation of the study.
Don’t forget the long-term failure of models
Another important aspect of skepticism is context. Even if this study accurately captures the dynamics of a warming peak in 2023, it doesn't change the fact that climate models have an overall poor record at long-term predictions. For example, as early as the 2000s, many models predicted that global temperatures would rise steadily, but from about 1998 to 2013, we experienced what is known as a “hiatus,” in which the rate of warming slowed significantly. Climate alarmists downplay the discrepancy between model predictions and real-world observations, but it's a clear indication that models are far from perfect.
In this case, the authors of the 2023 study may have tweaked their models to better simulate short-term changes, but that doesn't mean the same models will perform well when predicting warming trends over the next few decades. . Given that these models have consistently exceeded actual temperature rises in the past, it is reasonable to be cautious about their predictions.
Natural variation and artificial forcing
One of the main takeaways from this study is a reminder that natural variability (such as ENSO, volcanic activity and solar cycles) play a crucial role in driving short-term climate fluctuations. While climate alarmists like to highlight the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they often downplay the importance of these natural forces, especially when they contradict claims of catastrophic warming. By highlighting ENSO's role in the 2023 peak, this study can effectively counter the oversimplified claim that all warming is caused by human activities.
However, it is also important not to fall into the trap of assuming that natural variation is the only factor at play. The climate system is undoubtedly complex, and while studies like this one suggest natural forces are behind the 2023 peak, they don't completely rule out the role of some human factors. The challenge is to distinguish between the two and determine their relative impact on different time scales.
The trap of confirmation bias
The most valuable lesson this study offers is a reminder of the dangers of confirmation bias. Just as climate alarmists often exploit research that confirms their doomsday predictions, skeptics can be guilty of the same behavior when presented with research that supports their views. But real skepticism is about maintaining critical thinking, regardless of whether the findings are consistent with our preconceptions.
If we are to remain intellectually honest, we must apply the same level of scrutiny to this research as to any study that claims catastrophic warming is imminent. This means recognizing the limitations of the climate models used, questioning the assumptions behind the simulations, and acknowledging the uncertainty in the results. It also means accepting the possibility that both natural variability and human factors may affect global temperatures in ways that are difficult to untangle.
Conclusion: Be skeptical, even if you’re tempted not to
In summary, while the 2023 peak global warming study provides interesting explanations for recent temperature increases, it should not be taken as clear evidence that natural forces alone are responsible for all climate change. Rather, it reminds us of the complexity of the climate system and the limits of our current models and understanding.
As skeptics, we should resist the temptation to accept research just because it seems to support our view. Instead, we should be cautious, critically evaluate findings, and recognize that the uncertainties and limitations that exist when criticizing alarmist models apply here as well. Skepticism is not about going against the grain; It is the application of consistent, rigorous standards of inquiry to all claims, regardless of which side of the debate they fall on.
This study reinforces an important fact: natural variability plays an important role in the climate system, and we should be wary of any claims that human influence is the sole driver of climate change. But ultimately, the models used in this study are still just models. As history shows, they often get it wrong. So let’s continue to demand better evidence and avoid jumping to conclusions, even when the data seems to be on our side.
Relevant
