This is the last in a brief series that looks at this year’s ‘Super El Niño’ and what it may mean. The first, “A Record El Niño Is Coming,” noted the record El Niño sea surface temperature. The second, “More on the Next ‘Super El Niño,” took a deeper dive into what’s coming this year and next, and discussed what we’re in for just a little bit down the road, the next ten years or so.
I want to close with a more comprehensive summary of where we now stand by presenting a short page of charts, most of them actively maintained by James Hansen. (His main website is here. The homepage for his charts is here.)
I’ll keep this simple and clear. The pictures and not much text tell the story. This is mostly data only; measurements, not speculation.
Temperature
Discussions of temperature can refer to a number of regions: Global surface, sea surface, land surface, northern or southern hemisphere, the El Niño area, and so on. Consider these charts.
Global Surface Temperature
The solid blue line shows data through July 2026.
Land vs. Ocean Surface Temperature
The first of the two charts below shows land temperature change versus ocean temperature change relative to the base period. Data is complete through July 2026. Note that we’ve crossed +2°C on land.
Consider that when the ocean catches up with the air (when the planet is at equilibrium), it will take millennia for the system to cool down.
Daily Sea Surface Temperature — El Niño Area
This chart is from climatereanalyzer.org, updated to August 22. This is the “super El Niño” that has people worried. The chart at the link is interactive.
Climate Forcings
The term climate forcings just means “energy-in” and “energy-out” for the earth’s climate system. A positive “forcing” adds to the system’s energy, a negative “forcing” decreases it. Energy-in for the planet adds heat. Energy-out reduces it.
Retained energy is the net. When retained energy grows, the planet heats up.
The sun provides positive forcing; its energy heats the world. CO2 in the atmosphere is also a positive forcing, since like a blanket, it blocks escape for the heat created when sunlight strikes the surface.
Pollution from aerosols provides negative forcing. These microscopic solid or liquid particles shield the earth by reflecting the sun’s energy back before it can reach the surface and turn into heat. Other reflectants, like sea ice, are also negative forcings.
This is a simple concept, as simple as what happens when fire is lit under a pot, or ice is added to water — the water is heated or cooled, just as you’d expect.
Net Climate Forcing Today
That said, let’s look at a chart of energy-in and energy-out. It tells its own story. (Image courtesy of Leon Simons; red annotations are mine.)
The chart shows two measures of imbalance — Net GHG + Aerosol (the one I’ve marked in red), and the inner one, NASA CERES Satellite Observations (the one marked with a black square bracket). Regardless of how it’s measured, the imbalance is increasing rapidly. The fire is being turned up.
Carbon Emissions and Renewables Growth
If energy imbalance is the problem, what’s causing that?
The black line at the top of the chart above (Total GHG Forcing) is the answer. Greenhouse gases increasingly go into the air, while particle air pollutants (the green line at the bottom of the chart) are decreasing dramatically.
What’s causing more greenhouse gases? The chart below has the answer: global energy consumption (a) and global carbon emissions (b) taken together. (This chart is from Hansen, updated through 2022.)
Here’s the same thing from Our World in Data (interactive chart at the link):
Below is the view from 2000 to 2025. It gives you a sense of the scale of renewable growth against fossil fuels:
If you think the problem is total energy growth, you’re probably right. If you think the problem is too little renewable growth, you’re also probably right. And if you think the problem is time, meaning we don’t have enough, I think you’re as right as it gets.
Unless there’s major news, I’ll probably put climate on the back burner here for a bit. But this should catch you up; you know where we are.
Looks like we’re still good on the AI front.
Good, basic, straight-forward info. If only facts could change the minds of people who believe the science rejectors who are STILL arguing that most of what you’ve presented here is malarkey and “alarmism.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright knows, of course, that it’s not alarmism — he’s malicious but not stupid — but admitting that we do have a climate crisis would clash with the fossil fuel fools’ agenda.
We are beyond screwed.
Even doing the seemingly right thing in stopping the use of bunker fuels in sea going vessels backfired. It appears that sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere did reflect light to reduce atmospheric warming.
On the other hand, advocating for the dispersal of carcinogens seems unseemly.
Denial is going to ruin that river in Egypt.