Satellites which monitor the global temperature were launched almost 36 years ago, and there has been no warming for the majority of that period.
But it is worse than it seems. Most of the apparent warming prior to 1996 was due to settling of volcanic dust.
Best of all, this month’s temps were equalled or surpassed in 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, and then – of course – from 1998 onwards.
AGWing theory absolutely requires that temperatures increase, at an ever increasing rate, as CO2 concentrations rise. Temperature averages of one decade should never be matched by records from prior decades – they should always be increasing, at an ever increasing rate.
They are not. The theory is falsified. Only the stupid, the ignorant and the corrupt would deny it.
Anto in your last sentence you forgot those that are highly paid to believe in AGW and whose jobs depend on keeping the con alive.
ops … you would probably file those folks in the “corrupt” category … my bad, sorry 😉
I would suggest that the warming prior to 2005 is a result of a positive PDO. The current pause is just statistical. As part of the PDO cycle, the temperature started dropping in 2005. As I understand it the PDO switched in 2005 and the AMO is about to switch. When the AMO does switch, the Earths temperature drop will more noticeable. All a part of the PDO 60 – 70 year cycle. Bob Tisdale would be the expert to refer to when investigating this subject.
When is the AMO expected to switch?
Probably fairly soon. SEE: Climate4You
One thing to keep in mind is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift) runs up the side of Africa and influences the Gulf Stream and the AMO.
Solar influences===> formation and destruction of ozone =====> weather cells ====> wind ======> ENSO and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift)
New paper finds solar activity related to the polar vortex & jet stream variability
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/new-paper-finds-solar-activity-related.html
Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and Solar Cycle Influences on Winter Arctic Total Ozone
King-Fai Li Ka-Kit Tung
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021065/abstract
06 May 2012 Nature Geoscience | Letter Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
If solar cycle 25 if quieter than solar cycle 24 things could get rather ‘interesting’
“One thing to keep in mind is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift) runs up the side of Africa and influences the Gulf Stream and the AMO.
Solar influences===> formation and destruction of ozone =====> weather cells ====> wind ======> ENSO and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift)”
Great summary Gail.
It’s difficult to imagine why the AGW alarmists cannot see such an obvious connection and how the present low cycle is cooling the world from the polar regions.
The increasing Antarctic ice anomalies are obviously changing ENSO and the AMO and, consequently, I think it’s also affecting the PDO because the positive anomalies of ENSO are being pushed to lower latitudes (near the NP) *and* eastward.
This “forcing” is the cause of the persistent high pressure positive anomaly in the west coast of US and Canada and is favoring the drought conditions in CA.
In two words: solar radiations.
You may be interested to look at tallboke blog for Miles Mathis: The Cause of the Solar Cycle. Basically he uses simple(?) orbital modeling of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune and their variations. But adds in electric charge fields, magnetic fields, and solar wind proton production and distribution to explain the solar cycle (not simple!).
If I read it correctly he predicts a short and low solar maximum peak, followed by a comming long solar minimum.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/miles-mathis-the-cause-of-the-solar-cycle/
Thank you Tom for the link, I’m reading it right now and liking it very much! 🙂
I’ve noticed that Miles Mathis seems to have an “Electric Universe”-type approach to describe the Sun:
“… The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and the surrounding galactic field …”
This is fascinating because I’m convinced that there is an important EM-type component in the solar phenomena connected with the movement of the solar system through the Milk Way.
Maybe Miles has already worked out all the details. 🙂
The expected length of each phase is ~30 years, it started the present positive phase in ~ 1995 (almost 20 years already) then it “should” switch to negative in ~ 2025, but due to solar forcing (low radiations in the present cycle) some analyses are predicting the reversal to happen much earlier, possibly in the next 2-3 years.
If this happens it’d be the shortest oscillation ever recorded (see graph in my previous post).
The AMO switched to positive mode in 1995 and its large positive anomalies already reflex the accumulated heat in previous decades
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg/672px-Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg.png
This heat accumulation is related with the step-change in world’s temperatures shown in Steve’s graph.
The powerful El Nino oscillation of 1997-2001 is the signature of the step-change and also marks the change of the average temperatures trend from “warming” to slight “cooling”
https://dhm44444.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/woodfortree-step-change-1997-2001-trend-tg.png
https://dhm44444.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/woodfortree-step-change-1997-2001-trend-tg.png
err… double-posted the 2nd graph: sorry!
The fact that CO2 levels are apparently rising at an increasingly rapid rate makes is even more puzzling for the warmists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29115845
They are “worried” by the fact that there was no apparent impact on the biosphere:
“In 2013 there are no obvious impacts on the biosphere so it is more worrying,” said Oksana Tarasova.
They’re puzzled because they want to explain the El Nino of 1998 with CO2 forcing, which is incorrect because it was caused by accumulated heat in the oceans due to the repeated strong solar cycles of the XX century.
If plant CO2 absorption is lower than expected (“.. reduced carbon uptake by the Earth’s biosphere… “) this should bring *more warming*, not the cooling that has been observed in the recent trend.
Their problem is not “plant CO2 absorption”, but their inability to learn with their own mistakes.
Thanks for the link, it’s always interesting to make a collection of their mistakes. 🙂
“Most of the apparent warming prior to 1996 was due to settling of volcanic dust.”
Tony, can you point me to more information on that? Been saying that for a long time that stratospheric dust load levels were considerably lower prior to Pinatubo, for a decade, mostly they poo-poo’d it. Pinatubo destroyed a lot of ozone which lead to a strong rebound effect and a super El Niño.
Cosmic dust load is something else we do not have a handle on, estimated between 5-300 metric tons every 24 hours.
We have had one period of warming since the 1930’s, 1980-1997. The rest of the time has been either cooling or neutral. End of discussion.
Reblogged this on Climatism.