Simple test shows sulphates not cooling

There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?

Well, yes, because “blame” for this interruption in warming has been placed on sulphates emitted by China’s power stations zealously burning coal. Hasn’t it?

Has this hypothesis been tested? No. Can it be tested? Yes.

Most of the aerosols are in the northern hemisphere, and there’s little mixing of air between the hemispheres. Reason tells us that the northern hemisphere should be cooling and the southern hemisphere should be warming.

Well, go on, this is the big test, look it up.

world temps since 1998

So in the northern hemisphere, where all the aerosols are, it is actually still warming, and down here where there are hardly any aerosols it’s cooling without them.

The sulphates aren’t cooling us after all. How interesting. We’ve been cooling for 15 years and nobody knows why.


Article nicked from Author Patrick Michaels. Enjoy it in the original.

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Notify of

Interesting article. I was wondering about the spatial distribution of aerosols globally which I put up in a previous comment.

It seems to give a good example of a falsifiable theory being falsified.


NASA has now read your above dis-proof of the Kauffman sulphates.

They flew into a panic and released a paper saying “well, it was the … the earthquakes! No, no, it was the ..the … volcanoes. That’s it, it was volcanoes all along.”

Apologies to Ian Plimer.

Richard C (NZ)

NOAA has added to the aerosol question and concede that:- “….models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of stratospheric aerosol, or don’t include recent changes in stratospheric aerosol levels” See:- NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming (Solomon et al, 2011) 1) Will they also concede that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of cosmic ray flux on cloud cover if Svensmark’s hypothesis is upheld by CERN CLOUD along with Aarhus? 2) Will they also concede that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for oceanic oscillations that have been proven to influence climate and temperature in particular? 3) Will they also concede that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of celestial cycles? 4) Will they also concede that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of tropical volcanic eruptions (and how will they “project” those to 2100?)? See:- Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade (Vernier… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

I’m wrong about ocean oscillation come to think of it, there’s extensive on-going development. AR4 has this:-

8.4 Evaluation of Large-Scale Climate Variability as Simulated by Coupled Global Models
8.4.1 Northern and Southern Annular Modes
8.4.2 Pacific Decadal Variability
8.4.3 Pacific-North American Pattern
8.4.4 Cold Ocean-Warm Land Pattern
8.4.5 Atmospheric Regimes and Blocking
8.4.6 Atlantic Multi-decadal Variability
8.4.7 El Niño-Southern Oscillation
8.4.8 Madden-Julian Oscillation
8.4.9 Quasi-Biennial Oscillation
8.4.10 Monsoon Variability

Richard C (NZ)

I was thinking of this paper and the blog comments:- GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L10703, 4 PP., 2011 Decadal variability in snow cover over the Tibetan Plateau during the last two centuries Caiming Shen, Wei-Chyung Wang, Gang Zeng 2011 Key Points * Coherent variability in ice cores can be considered as a proxy for snow cover * This proxy for snow cover over the TP exhibits significant decadal variations * Its variations are highly associated with AMO Hockey Schtick blog comment:- “Ocean oscillations such as the AMO are not incorporated in climate models” C3 Headlines blog comment:- “Climate models used by the IPCC and the national climate agencies are notoriously bad at making predictions of precipitation, including snow during the Northern Hemisphere winter months. The primary resaon for this prediction failure is the lack of input from natural ocean and atmospheric cycles. The models’ perfect ignorance of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a case in point.” AR4 WG1 8.4.6 Atlantic Multi-decadal Variability “Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models simulate Atlantic multi-decadal variability (e.g., Delworth et al., 1993; Latif, 1998 and references therein; Knight et al., 2005), and the simulated space-time structure… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

AR4 has this on aerosols:- Direct aerosol radiative forcing is now considerably better quantified than previously and represents a major advance in understanding since the time of the TAR, when several components had a very low level of scientific understanding. A total direct aerosol radiative forcing combined across all aerosol types can now be given for the first time as –0.5 ± 0.4 W m–2, with a medium-low level of scientific understanding. Cosmic rays:- Empirical associations have been reported between solar-modulated cosmic ray ionization of the atmosphere and global average low-level cloud cover but evidence for a systematic indirect solar effect remains ambiguous. It has been suggested that galactic cosmic rays with sufficient energy to reach the troposphere could alter the population of cloud condensation nuclei and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), inducing changes in cloud processes analogous to the indirect cloud albedo effect of tropospheric aerosols and thus causing an indirect solar forcing of climate. Studies have probed various correlations with clouds in particular regions or using limited cloud types or limited time periods; however, the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

New Study Linking Global Cooling With Coal Sulfur Emissions Found To Be Clown Science: Without Merit & Silly

Post Navigation