There has been a lot in the press about the recent spike in global temperatures, and claims have followed about how this has caused the oceans to warm and the corals to bleach.
There has been a spike in global temperatures as measured by the satellites since 1979, and there remains much regional and seasonal variability in this data. Furthermore, the same satellite data very clearly shows that the warmth is coming from the oceans, not from the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The Australian Bureau Meteorology, among others, could easily issue a press release clarifying this. Of course, they don’t – because the Bureau’s leadership have an agenda, that this misinformation supports.
My friend Bill Kininmonth is a former Bureau employee – for more than a decade he headed Australia’s National Climate Centre and was a Bureau delegate to the Second World Climate Conference that culminated in the first IPCC report.
Kininmonth hasn’t stopped thinking. He wrote a book some years ago, and I have borrowed its title (Climate Change: A Natural Hazard) for this blog post, inspired by his note to me just this morning. It reads:
Hello Jennifer,
Just to provide more evidence in support of your recent post.
The charts for the sea surface skin temperature for the zonal band Lat 10S to Lat 10N as measured by satellites.
I have read media coverage of claimed ‘global’ coral bleaching that is being attributed to anthropogenic global warming. From the graphs it can be seen that neither the recent temperatures nor the temperature anomalies are the highest of the recent 45 years. The recent temperature spikes are, however, associated with a major El Nino event, which is rapidly decaying.
Your comment on the effect of spring tides is also of interest to me. I have long thought that part of the impact of El Nino, especially for the Great Barrier Reef, is that during these events sea levels across the equatorial Pacific Ocean change.
During the 1997-98 El Nino event sea level over the Western Pacific Ocean dropped about 35cm with an equivalent rise over the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Such a drop in sea level over the Great Barrier Reef would be expected to reduce the flow of cooling water over the reef and giving a greater response to solar heating of the shallow reef water. Lower spring tides would be expected to accentuate the heating of water over the shallow reefs.
On your point about SST (surface sea temperatures) being warmer than air temperature, this is confirmed in the chart of ocean skin temperatures versus air temperatures (see feature image).
The IPCC scientists do not seem to recognise that the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere radiate more energy than they absorb from the surface below.
Radiation processes are tending to cool the atmosphere at a rate of about 2C/day. This radiation cooling generates convective instability, allowing near-surface air to rise buoyantly in convective clouds. The radiation energy lost by the atmosphere is replaced by heat and latent energy flowing from the surface. As you comment, the atmosphere cannot warm the ocean!
Regards, Bill
****************************
It is important to understand the data, to think about it. It is also useful to test claims that it is possible to know the state of the corals from 150 metres altitude. I’ve been fortunate to have this opportunity, to live near the Great Barrier Reef, and to have friends with boats and even drones.
It is the case that our institutions have become expert at promoting misinformation, and the mainstream media duly repeat it to the masses. Thank you for taking the time to read this note, and please consider subscribing for my weekly e-news, which is how Bill knew about my ‘recent post’, CLICK HERE.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is refreshing to see Bill Kininmonth’s science note where he references facts about temperatures and their relationship between ocean and atmosphere, unlike the utter rubbish spewed out by so-called IPCC climate experts. Fortunately the majority of people see the incessant climate change mantra as an expensive scam to be avoided at all costs.
Hi Jennifer, another very interesting post. Bill Kinninmonth has provided indisputable evidence in support of your claim that the ocean warms the atmosphere. And it seems the El Nino effect really does contribute to lower tides, resulting in warmer water flow over the shallow reefs. On another note, I have never been ” supported” by the fossil fuel industries, as Mr Bill Woodward appears to suggest. I have worked for CSIRO in soil sciences, in medical science, and in government policy areas. I have had a lifelong interest in chemical, physical and biological sciences. I hope this satisfies Mr Woodward.
Thanks Bill and Jennifer
I often think sea temperature change might be influenced by the thousands of undersea volcanic vents.
Bill Kininmonth remains an EL Nino/BoM ‘diehard’.
Where is the ‘major El Nino event’ which is rapidly decaying?
It never arrived Bill.
Let’s see what happens when a major Dry Cycle/Drought event instigates over 50 degrees East Longitude,(circa Madagascar) in early August 2024 – and moves East to West around the planet at 15 degrees of Longitude per 30 Day/Night Interval Month, for the next 2 x 360 Day/Night Interval Years.
Africa, Europe and the Americas will be very much affected – Australia and Asia, less so.
These Solar-induced, Orbital Dry Cycle echelons, are a result of the destruction of water vapour in the upper atmosphere, from the sequential bombardment of charged Solar Particles, thus causing temperature rises under the path of the Dry Cycles, due to the reduction in water vapour Albedo. After the Dry Cycle passes, the Wet/Normal default state is re-established.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFFDXyhe5b0ZfLCiFt23W4PbubQaQfQo/view?usp=sharing
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/new-misguided-interpretations-of-the-greenhouse-effect-from-william-kininmonth/
*****
Barry,
Bill has provided some very relevant data, given what is currently being reported on the news. If you don’t agree with his interpretation, and/or think there are better data sources why not provide them.
Posting a link to a Michael Mann-sponsored website is as useful as me posting the following link to the recent defamation trial featuring Mann and his fraudulent hockey stick, https://climatechangeontrial.com
Cheers, Jennifer
Actual published science shows that the increase in global temps is because of the increase in GHGs.
14 Global Warming Studies of Attribution show humans emissions are to blame:
2002 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2000JD000028
2004 – https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/17/19/3721/30264/Combinations-of-Natural-and-Anthropogenic-Forcings
2007 – https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/20/3/504/31756/The-Detection-and-Attribution-of-Climate-Change
2008 – https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_le08200o.pdf
2010 – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.2337
2011 – https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327
2011 – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
2012 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050226
2012 – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8
2013 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50239
2016 – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6
2017 – https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/590/
2018 – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-018-8041-6
2021 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
Pretending the science doesn’t exist is disingenuous.
*******
Brendan, Bill has provided three charts and explained in plain English how this information does not support the consensus position on catastrophic global warming and what is currently being reported in the popular press.
Rather than simply posting a list of links, it would be useful if you explained how they are relevant to the current discussion.
Cheers, Jennifer
As far as I know, Bill Kininmonth is the most reliable Australian source of meteorological thinking on this topic.
He writes (above): “… the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere radiate more energy than they absorb from the surface below.”
To account for this, Bill notes (above): “The radiation energy lost by the atmosphere is replaced by heat and latent energy flowing from the surface.”
He also writes (above): “On your point about SST (surface sea temperatures) being warmer than air temperature, this is confirmed in the chart of ocean skin temperatures versus air temperatures (see feature image).”
The processes are different in the polar winters. The air there is so dry that radiation from the cold condensed matter (ice and water) can more easily penetrate the less opaque atmosphere, so that, by radiating directly to outer space, the surface can become colder than the air above it, and can be heated by the atmosphere. This effect is not as great as the tropical heating of the atmosphere by the surface, and the consequent atmospheric radiative cooling that Bill describes.
Just on this background, it remains logically conceivable that the sun might supply enough energy, to the surface and atmosphere, to counter the radiative cooling of the atmosphere, so as to gradually warm both surface and atmosphere in parallel. The man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming scamsters (the IPCC and those who agree with it) say that it does. They say that added carbon dioxide tips the balance into dangerous long term global warming.
How can we be confident that they are mistaken?
They give their game away by relying on fallacious reasoning as follows.
They calculate, quite correctly, by radiative transfer analysis, a virtual heating of around 1.2°C, through increased infrared opacity the atmosphere caused by added carbon dioxide. Such heating, however, is indeed only virtual, because its potential effect is quickly countered by atmospheric dynamics. Being merely virtual, it cannot itself be actually measured; it remains purely a calculation, ingredient into further calculations. Added carbon dioxide absorbs, into the atmosphere, additional radiant heat from the surface. That affects the dynamics of the earth’s energy transport process. It causes the tropical sea evaporation to speed up, adding to the usual cooling of the surface by evaporation of the tropical sea. Thus, the actual heating is less than the 1.2°C calculated virtual heating. This is negative feedback. It dominates the dynamics.
The scamsters, however, correctly further argue that, as a consequence of such increased seawater evaporation, the opacity of the troposphere is increased beyond the increase directly caused by added carbon dioxide. Based on this, they play what they regard as their trump card. They ignore the negative feedback that I have noted above, and propose that such increased atmospheric opacity acts as “positive feedback that amplifies” the 1.2°C virtual heating, threefold, to perhaps 3.6°C. This trump card is just a calculation, not an observable fact. Without it, the true believing scamsters have no substantial argument for dangerous man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming.
(The scamsters have recently become partly aware that threefold “amplification” is implausible, so they now talk also of lesser degrees, such as to 2°C.)
It is true that the added opacity decreases the degree of negative feedback. That is taken into account in the proper calculation of the negative feedback. It does not invert the negative feedback into positive feedback as is fallaciously postulated in the scamsters’ proposal of “amplification through positive feedback through the radiative effect of water vapour in the troposphere”. The feedback remains negative and counters the virtual 1.2°C. Man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming will be less, perhaps much less, than 1.2°C. Amongst the poorly understood background of natural effects, that is practically undetectable.
The scamsters want us to forget that real amplification requires an external source of additional power, such as a battery for a real electronic amplifier. Sunlight continuously injects power to the earth’s energy transport process. For additional power, cloud reflection would need to decrease. That is implausible in the face of increased atmospheric water vapour.
The scamsters limit their proposed “amplification through positive feedback through the radiative effect of water vapour in the troposphere” to round about threefold. They want us to forget that pure positive feedback causes unlimited or infinite increase in signal power output. For limitation to threefold “amplification”, some non-linearity is necessary, in the form of an added form of negative feedback that will confine the effect. The scamsters do not tell us about such an added form of negative feedback; that would spoil their trick.
If there were genuine positive feedback through the radiative effect of water vapour that could amplify perturbations, the earth’s energy transport process would be dramatically unstable. For example, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai undersea volcanic eruption of January 2022, by injecting substantial amounts of water into the troposphere, would have had a dramatic persisting global warming effect. As it is, there has been notable effect of injection of water into the stratosphere, but there has been no notable global warming effect of water vapour injection into the troposphere. The earth’s energy transport process is stable against such a perturbation. No amplification was detected.
Christopher Game, if Kininmonth is “most reliable Australian source of meteorological thinking”, we would be able to peruse a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the topic, as well as the citations. I couldn’t find anything, perhaps you can direct me?
Taylor et al.
There is an opportunity here to discuss some data, to consider alternative interpretations. You may have data that provides a different perspective.
There is an opportunity here now, for those who are interested in puzzle solving, to test their ideas.
You may have an alternative hypothesis that better supports the available evidence.
If you have something to add, then comment.
If you want to appeal to the authority of numbers of publications or something else, then find another blog. Go read Readfearn in The Guardian. Go argue with Michael Mann on Twitter. It is not as though there aren’t so many forums where everything except the relevant is discussed.
Posting links without explanation, and playing the man rather than considering his evidence, is NOT science and I will not continue to let through this time wasting and distracting nastiness.
I am going to sea/will be off line in less than 24 hours and will be closing comments then for some time.
So, now is your chance (Thursday evening through Friday AEST), to show you have a capacity to defend the current consensus position on human-caused global warming or even a capacity to build on it, or something else.
Cheers, Jennifer
Christopher,
You show the limitations of the generalisations that both Bill and I make, from the perspective of thermodynamics and with respect to the polar regions. Thank you.
I accept that under some circumstances the atmosphere can warm the oceans. Thank you for explaining the situation during polar winters.
You then go on to provide some interesting and relevant rebuttal of the current paradigm with a particular focus on feedbacks. Thank you.
I am actually more interested in what drives climate change, than what is wrong with the current paradigm. I already know the current paradigm to be a failure.
So much thanks for your insights, and wisdom.
Cheers, Jennifer
Brenny and Tay go the argumentum ad populum way and demand Bill produce his PR papers. PR is flawed:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/10/over_500_scientific_papers_to_be_withdrawn_by_publisher.html
This is especially the case for AGW PR where concerted efforts are made to keep sceptic papers from being published as the CRU scandal showed. This has been the hallmark of alarmism: phony predictions, flawed modelling and censorship of genuine science which has shown it is a fantasy.
Now since brenny has gone to all that effort to compile a list of propaganda, sorry papers, I ask him again to pick out one of those many papers which explains how the oceans are heated only by human emissions of CO2.
Perhaps a literature review is what you are looking for…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585315/
Dear Taylor Reeve,
I clicked across to your link and saw that it is not a literature review of anything relevant to this origin blog post by me, quoting Bill Kininmonth.
Christopher Game, in a comment above he throws a bone out:
“They calculate, quite correctly, by radiative transfer analysis, a virtual heating of around 1.2°C, through increased infrared opacity the atmosphere caused by added carbon dioxide. Such heating, however, is indeed only virtual, because its potential effect is quickly countered by atmospheric dynamics.”
The link you provide is about the ‘climate emergency’, and amassing information to support this premise.
It does not consider, for example, how it can be that the satellite data for global temperatures including Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite data, it shows:
1. globally averaged the Earth is the hottest it has ever been since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979
2. the extra heat appears to have come from the equatorial Pacific Ocean, beginning in April 2023
3. while the Pacific Ocean appears to be the source of this heat, the equatorial latitudes considered over all, and see Bill’s first and second charts that are fascinating, do not show a recent spike in warming. Rather they appear to show warming consistent with what is known as an El Niño.
So, where is the warmth from the equatorial Pacific going?
Has this warmth that has passed from the oceans to the atmosphere been transferred to the higher latitudes by atmospheric process from which, because of the increased infrared opacity (to quote Christopher) it has not been able to escape to space.
Thus the spike in overall temperatures. To be sure the current spike is real and I provide this link to justify my claim of an overall spike, https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/
Dear Don Gaddes,
In a comment above, you suggest that the notion of El Niño is entirely contrived.
But I would assume that you consider changes in lunar declination to be real, with a possible effect on global atmospheric circulation?
So, can this extreme declination/Major Lunar standstill affect the direction of wind flow, so perhaps there is more opportunity for the warmth from the equatorial Pacific to reach higher latitudes, and particularly in the northern hemisphere?
Cheers, Jennifer
responding to Jennifer https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/05/climate-change-a-natural-hazard-a-note-from-bill-kininmonth/#comment-743903
Jennifer, you are a positive and creative investigator. I am just a carping critic. I am not able to do more than just try to nail the scamsters. Cheers, Christopher
responding to Taylor Reeve https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/05/climate-change-a-natural-hazard-a-note-from-bill-kininmonth/#comment-743900
Taylor Reeve, Jennifer cites Bill’s book ‘Climate Change: A Natural Hazard’, ISBN 0 906522 26 9, published by Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood, Essex, UK, 2004. It gives reliable explanations of much of the earth’s energy transport process. Bill isn’t a prolific publisher, but he is reliable. When I wrote my above post, I was thinking narrowly of meteorologists. The venerable Garth Paltridge is perhaps more to be thought of as an atmospheric physicist. He is reliable like Bill. With C.M.R. Platt, Garth co-authored a useful book ‘Radiative Processes in Meteorology and Climatology’, ISBN 0 444 41 444 4, published by Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976, if you are interested in the nitty gritty of atmospheric physics.
I wouldn’t say that being reliable makes a person a prolific publisher, or author of peer reviewed papers. It is regrettable that, nowadays, peer reviewing is more of a filter for conformity with the scamsters’ group think.
The main ideas of the man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming doctrine/scam were published in the Charney Report in 1979, and the IPCC hasn’t really moved forward since then. They just keep repeating the mantra. The continued driver behind this is the WEF, with the aim of destroying our nation and culture, as preparation for a new world order utopia with Klaus Schwab in charge. The scheme works a treat for them. I guess that eventually, people will wake up to it.
Christopher,
You care about the detail, and understand the relevant physics. Of course, you can do much more than ‘nail the scamsters’ that you have already done.
As you know there is a real push at the moment, from Greg Wrightstone pushing out John Clauser, to claim that the clouds ‘control the climate’.
Of course this is as nonsense as claiming carbon dioxide controls the climate. Well not quite, I exaggerate. Clouds definitely have the capacity to stabilise, but not to control. They are an important feedback.
So what ‘controls’ the climate?
That Clauser, and others get this so wrong (see ‘Climate: The Movie’) has at least forced me to think more deeply and not be so shy.
I am beginning to break things into their component parts and for sure thinking in terms of ‘positive’ (a word you use above) versus ‘negative’ energy could be useful. For example, ‘positive’ energy produced by solar insolation, and ‘negative’ energy produced by heat sinks.
Would you agree that negative energy usually has a longer average length of life than the positive? I am thinking of the sinking of cold air and also cold water to the bottom of the oceans.
While the atmosphere is the major sink for positive ocean energy.
If you agree. Then the question follows: why over the last year, has the ocean been releasing so much positive ocean energy into the atmosphere?
Does this question make sense to you? And if so, can you answer it please. Where is the heat that Roy Spencer is measuring in the troposphere coming from?
Is it that the winds are blowing in a different direction because of Maximum Lunar Declination with the result there is more incoming solar insolation?
Could it be that increasing winds cause decreasing temperatures or are we stuck with the idea that decreasing temperatures cause increasing winds?
None of these are trick questions. Just some insights into my thinking. :-).
Responding to Jennifer’s post https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/05/climate-change-a-natural-hazard-a-note-from-bill-kininmonth/#comment-743914
Jennifer writes: “Has this warmth that has passed from the oceans to the atmosphere been transferred to the higher latitudes by atmospheric process from which, because of the increased infrared opacity (to quote Christopher) it has not been able to escape to space.”
Semi-transparent gas bodies such as the atmosphere obey the Helmholtz reciprocity principle. Coupled with Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, and with the presence of local thermodynamic equilibrium, this means that a relatively opaque gas body is precisely correspondingly a relatively good radiator. This is the main reason why Bill writes above that “the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere radiate more energy than they absorb”. The shedded radiative energy loss is made up by supply mainly through evaporation, but also through radiation, conduction, and convective circulation.
I can airily say the foregoing, but still I can’t fully answer Jennifer’s question from her post “So, where is the warmth from the equatorial Pacific going?”. Presumably, some of it is radiated locally to outer space from greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide, in the body of the atmosphere, and some of it is carried by atmospheric convective circulation to higher latitudes. Some of it will reach the poles, including the condensed matter surface (ice and water), from whence it will be radiated to space through the relatively transparent (less opaque) dry atmosphere. This is how the polar ice and water get cold.
Responding to Jennifer’s post above https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/05/climate-change-a-natural-hazard-a-note-from-bill-kininmonth/#comment-743918
Jennifer writes: ” Where is the heat that Roy Spencer is measuring in the troposphere coming from?”
Such questions are too hard for me to even hazard a guess.
I think that Bill Kininmonth thinks (please check and correct me, Bill) that changes in ocean circulation may explain the warming that has occurred since the temperature minimum of 1977-78, as well, perhaps, as the cooling from about 1945 that led to the minimum. I know nothing of ocean circulation, and I can’t offer an opinion about it. The ocean circulation is a massive, massive process of massive complexity. It transports vast quantities of energy and carbon dioxide. Almost certainly, it is subject to what mathematicians call chaotic dynamics. That means that it is possible to predict it on short time scales, but impossible to predict it on longer time scales. The new Argo buoys have been providing information about it that was utterly missing till recently. I guess that the information hasn’t yet been adequately digested. We had the mighty Nils-Axel Mörner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner visit us about a decade ago.
Jennifer,
I am sure you have read the relevant portions of Alex S. Gaddes ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ on the multiple Lunar influences, plus Gravitation (etc,) on ocean currents and Climate.
The fact remains, that the Earth’s weather systems move from West to East and towards the Poles, via Axial Spin.
The only way a Dry Cycle can move from East to West, is by a retrograde Solar influence that effects water vapour Albedo in the Upper Atmosphere – and subsequently, precipitation reaching the surface.
There may be a Lunar ‘interference’ effect on the intensity of the Solar particles reaching Earth’s atmosphere – but it does not effect the passage of the Dry Cycles, or the frequency of their arrivals – and their exact predictability.
The (so called) El Nino concept has never been predictable, since it left the University of East Anglia in the mid 1970’s.
So yes, it is entirely contrived.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores crucial peer-reviewed literature and cherry-picks evidence to promote doom scenarios on climate change. These are just some of the findings of Climate Intelligence (Clintel) founder emeritus professor Guus Berkhout (84) after critically analyzing IPCC’s scientific reports. “They refuse my request for an honest and open debate. The result is a very one-sided, fear-mongering story.”
Berkhout emphasized that Clintel advocates a scientific approach in which dialogue, discussion, and debate are pivotal. Berkhout: “If you refuse to debate models and data, it gives the impression that you are not a scientific organization but serve another goal.”
That is precisely where the shoe pinches regarding the IPCC. The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization, a forum of national governments. Scientists do not control it, but politicians do.
https://theliberum.com/ipcc-refuses-repeated-calls-for-dialogue-with-critical-scientists/
Elaborating a little on my just previous post, mentioning the hypothesis that chaotic changes in ocean currents might explain some global warming and cooling.
I think that ocean currents must work alongside atmospheric circulatory convection to carry energy from the equator polewards.
Perhaps the ocean currents have changed so that since 1978 they have not transported energy polewards as rapidly as they did before. This would slow down the radiation of heat from the polar regions to outer space. It would also lead to some tropical warming, and speeding up of radiation to outer space from tropical regions. If the slowing of polar radiation outweighs the speeding of tropical radiation, then the whole earth will warm. And vice versa.
I have no knowledge of what might speed up the polewards carriage of energy by ocean currents.
“The (so called) El Nino concept has never been predictable, since it left the University of East Anglia in the mid 1970’s.”
The 20thC climate was defined by 3 Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO). The PDO is determined by El Nino and La Nina.
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
A positive or warm PDO is dominated by El Nino and a negative PDO phase is dominated by La Nina. During the 20thC there were 2 positive PDOs, the first from about 1910 to 1940 and the second from 1976 to about 2005 (although some scientists say 1998). The fact that there were 2 positive/warm PDOs and only one negative/cool PDO is in itself sufficient evidence to explain why there was warming during the 20thC.
But as well as the 2 positive/warm PDOs there was also an asymmetry between the 2 positive/warm PDOs and the one negative/cool PDO. That is the positive/warm PDOs were warmer than the negative/cool PDP was cooler: see:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/15/2011jcli3999.1.xml
The transition from the negative/cool PDO to the positive/warm PDO in 1976 produced a global temperature increase of about .5C which is about all the temperature increase the world has seen since the 1976 PDO phase change. This paper explains that and also proposes a mechanism for the phase change and the global warming:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
Simply in 1976 ocean upwellings partially ceased. These upwellings replace warm surface water with colder water from the ocean depths. As a result of the upwelling cessation warm surface ocean water, which is heated by the sun NOT human CO2 IFR, remained on the surface producing an immediate warming of the atmosphere
“So yes, it is entirely contrived”
ENSO and PDO are not contrived and have been regular for centuries:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311922223_Characterizing_unforced_multi-decadal_variability_of_ENSO_A_case_study_with_the_GFDL_CM21_coupled_GCM