Sun spots & El Niño tricks: the true causes of Earth warming were named
Global warming is caused by complex processes of heat exchange in the thickness of the World Ocean, and it is not humanity that is to blame for this, but solar radiation. Such is the content of the new hypothesis of the American ecologist Jim Steele, which refutes the calculations of the generally accepted theory of anthropogenic influence on the planet's climate.
Steele's hypothesis is based on the study of convection dynamics in the eastern Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean. Its strong side lies in the fact that it correlates well with the data collected on the results of centuries-old climate changes. Moreover, unlike the doctrine of the decisive influence of hydrocarbon emissions of human civilisation, Steele's hypothesis explains not only the current temperature spikes, but also the general cooling that has been observed on Earth for the last 10,000 years.
Steele argues that it is not CO2 from coal-fired power plants that is "responsible" for the current very short-term increase in degrees, but a completely different phenomenon - the transfer of increased quantity of heat by sea currents to the North Atlantic. The scientist sees the reason for the process in the fact that under the influence of increased solar activity, the area of the tropical warm pool of the World Ocean has expanded in the area of Indonesia. And this is the largest reservoir of warm water on Earth and the main source of heat for its atmosphere.
The consequence of this was the melting of Arctic sea ice and the release of a large amount of heat stored in the waters of the Arctic Ocean. At the same time, due to their multifactorial nature, the same climatic processes affected, for example, the growth of glaciers in New Zealand from 1983 to 2008. That is, global climate warming, whatever it is explained by, is not global at all to begin with, the scientist notes.
Anyway, we are facing a cyclical process. The nearest reduction in the energy coming to Earth from the Sun will lead, as has happened more than once in the history of the planet, to the cooling of the tropical "battery". The last time such an emptying of the warm pool was observed quite recently, during the Little Ice Age (14th-19th centuries).
In other words, the current warming will sooner or later be replaced by cooling, and it depends not on human behaviour, but on the more powerful forces of nature - the sun and the ocean, says Jim Steele.
"Little motor" for sea currents
The essence of Steele's theory is quite simple, despite the complexity of the phenomena described by it. The World Ocean is the main heat accumulator on the planet. The top three meters of its water contain more thermal energy than the entire Earth's atmosphere. At the same time, the ocean is able not only to accumulate heat, but also to carry it by currents for tens of thousands of kilometres. The most famous example is the Gulf Stream, without which European civilisation simply would not exist.
As it's known, warm and cold sea currents form a single system in which energy and matter constantly, albeit at different speeds, move between continents at different depths of the World Ocean. This system is called "thermohaline circulation", but in popular English-language literature it is simply referred to as "the great oceanic conveyor". It can really be imagined as a giant ribbon of water stretched across all four oceans.
This conveyor has at least one "motor" - this same tropical warm pool. It works like an inveterate eco-activist on solar energy. It's no secret that the tropics receive more heat from the sun than they radiate back into space - and it's this excess that makes it possible to heat the oceans in certain areas of the planet.
The dependence here is elementary: the wider the tropical warm pool, the warmer it becomes almost everywhere in the world (not counting New Zealand and other deviations).
According to the observations of scientists, the temperature of the tropical warm pool last began to rise globally 25,000 years ago. In the early Holocene, 10,000 years ago, it reached its peak and began to gradually fall - until the 18th century, when the reverse trend prevailed.
Since the water cycle in nature occurs not only in sea currents, but also in the atmosphere (in the form of evaporation and precipitation, as well as winds carrying large masses of clouds), Jim Steele draws attention to another climatic phenomenon - the intra-tropical convergence zone. This is an area of winds that are calm, encircling the entire Earth just north of the equator and separating the north and south - trade winds. It is best visible from space and looks like an extended series of clouds.
This zone shifts to the north, then to the south under the influence of sunlight, depending on the time of year, but in addition, it is subject to longer fluctuations - also tied to the activity of the sun. As this zone migrated south for many years, this increased the frequency of the El Ninõ phenomena - the famous weather fluctuations in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which nowadays occur once every 3-8 years. Conversely, with the shift of the convergence zone to the north, the amount of El Ninõ’s activity decreased.
But what is El Ninõ for our "little motor"? It's like a giant fan. It "ventilates" the tropical warm pool - and thereby cools the currents going to other zones of the World Ocean.
The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which the regulars of climate summits are caring so much about, has practically no effect on all these processes, says Steele. His idea is confirmed by the observations of the American paleoceanographer Delia Oppo, who in 2009 reconstructed the temperature fluctuations of the tropical warm pool over the past 2000 years. According to her charts, it began to heat up again three centuries ago — that is, even before the start of mass CO2 emissions by humans. At this same time, the intra-tropical convergence zone shifted further north than usual, reducing the amount of El Ninõ activity.
What awaits us next? It all depends on the activity of the Sun, Jim Steele answers. If, as some astronomers predict, it suddenly weakens, then the convergence zone will fall to the south, and temperatures on the planet will approach the conditions of the Little Ice Age. If solar activity, which even without this is already record-breaking over the past 12 centuries, continues to grow, then the warm pool, and with it the entire planet, will continue to heat up - up to a new climatic optimum by analogy with the medieval warming of 950-1250.
The good news is that in any case, no apocalypse is expected: as history proves, periods of warming and cooling replace each other on Earth with enviable constancy. That is why the prevailing theory of anthropogenic influence on the climate should be considered what it really is - an instrument of political and economic competition in the hands of globalist elites. Or, in any case, as just one of the scientific hypotheses - along with the others.
"Science is an arbitrary thing !"
So what do the adherents of this cult say in response, insisting on the key influence of man on the Earth's climate? Oh, no, they are not silent at all when ignoring skeptics like Steele. They act more subtly - they weave any exceptions and deviations into their theory.
The same New Zealand scientists who studied the unexpected increase in the size of glaciers in their country managed to fit it into the prevailing agenda.
"It may seem unusual—this regional cooling during a period of overall global warming—but it's still consistent with human-induced climate change," Associate Professor Andrew Mackintosh from the Victoria Antarctic Research Center commented on his sensational study in 2017.
However, it is possible to fit in in another way too. For example, Delia Oppo's colleague in marine sediment research, Yair Rosenthal, bluntly paints an apocalyptic picture of the near future. Now the world's oceans are absorbing heat 15 times faster than in the previous 10,000 years, he says, but how long this can last is unknown.
"It may buy us some time – how much time, I don't really know – to come to terms with climate change. But it's not going to stop climate change," Rosenthal predicted in 2013.
His words are still read like a call to action. But what exactly is proposed to oppose the three-hundred-year work of the Sun is not very clear. Is it indeed the extermination of all farting cows and the wholesale transition to artificial meat?
No need to show false modesty, other adherents of the "green transition" tell us: humanity has long gained the power of the natural elements. You don't believe it? Well, there are a lot of scientific papers in refereed publications about the decisive contribution of man even in such a titanic process as the heating of hundreds of billions of tons of water in the World's oceans.
"Greenhouse gas forcing is found to be the dominant cause of the observed increases in IPWP intensity and size, whereas natural fluctuations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have played a smaller yet significant role," South Korean meteorologists say, in particular.
However, they continue to insist: the form and influence of anthropogenic growth can vary greatly in the Indian and Pacific pools, the reasons for which remain unclear. But no matter, all of this is still man's fault!..
In his research, Jim Steele gently scoffed at this blind faith in the anthropogenic factor. Actually, your predictions don't come true, he tells his opponents. You can't answer why the sea level isn't really rising. You are not able to explain the periods of cooling on the planet. Your models insisted that CO2 emissions should heat up the eastern Pacific Ocean. This didn't happen — and then you just... rewrote the models!
"Apparently, the choice of the right science to follow is completely arbitrary," the skeptical scientist says ironically.
His supporters go further. At one of the forums where Steele's article was discussed, a certain commentator noticed that even such an "iron", at first glance, practice as measuring the temperature of the atmosphere from satellites, on which modern climatology is based, often looks like profanity.
Suffice it to recall that various satellite sensing systems, for example RSS and UAH, not only differ significantly from each other, but also proved the trend for global cooling just a couple of decades ago! As a result, scientists had to repeatedly make adjustments to the work of the probes, just for the sake of the readings from them coinciding with the "correct ideological attitude". In other words, all these are nothing more than data sets that are being modified, if necessary, in order to match other data sets.
The rich-man-ocean and the poor-man-atmosphere
Of course, it is also difficult to consider Jim Steele himself completely free from indoctrination. After all, he shares the values and beliefs of his colleagues in the CO2 Coalition, an American non-profit organisation that unites skeptics from science who do not accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. In this sense, his theory should also be treated critically — as an attempt to bring research to a predetermined result.
However, for example, back in 2015, Russian academician Robert Nigmatulin, as director of the P. P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, argued that even despite the human factor, the planet is currently undergoing a global cooling stage, and it is caused by the influence of the World Ocean on the atmosphere. Yes, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but the greenhouse effect gradually includes compensating planetary mechanisms, the capabilities of which are incomparably higher.
"The mass of the ocean is 300 times more than the mass of air. Its heat capacity - more than a thousand times," Nigmatulin reminded. “In addition, the ocean is the main holder of carbon dioxide, the dissolved quantity of which in it is 50 times higher than in the atmosphere. Therefore, if the ocean has changed something, then for it it is nothing: it, figuratively speaking, gave its "penny". But for the "poor man", which is the atmosphere, such an impact can be significant."
It's precisely for this reason that the role of the ocean in shaping the climate on Earth turns out to be decisive, the Russian academician summed up.
So who is right: the bearers of the triumphant theory or the authors of alternative ideas? Whose model is more correct? It can only be stated for certain that neither of them has complete objective data. But if humanity really wants to understand the structure of the world and predict the future, no scientific hypothesis should be rejected immediately. Including Jim Steele's new hypothesis about the "little oceanic motor", which puts a big question mark over those theories that today determine the big climate policy.