THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING STAGNATION IN
THE 21ST CENTURY
Yoshiaki Fujii1
1

Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Division of Sustainable Resources Engineering, Hokkaido University,
N13W8, Sapporo, 060-8628, JAPAN, Tel: +81-11-706-6299, E-mail:fujii6299@frontier.hokudai.ac.jp
Date received: Sep. 15, 2014

Abstract
The global surface temperature is not rising in the 21st century, although the CO2 concentration
continues to increase and there have been no giant eruptions. Dr. James Hansen, who advised theUnited States Congress in 1988 of the global warming threat, thinks that the cause is La Niña andpredicts a record temperature in 2014 and again in 2015. However, it is impossible to explain thestagnation in global warming for more than 10 years since the period of ENSO is several years inlength. Prof. Judith Curry at Georgia Tech. thinks that the cause is the long-term cycles of ocean
temperature. She predicts an imminent glacial period. The author does not deny the possibility ofthe cycles, but thinks that the primary cause is the inactivity of the sun. The more active the sun is,
the greater the number of sunspots that are observed. The sun became less active at the end of the20th century and has been markedly inactive in the 21st century. The sun is changing from dipole
to quadruple pole and its magnetic field is becoming weak. The sunspots are predicted to disappear
in 2022. This situation is the same as the Maunder minimum in which almost no sunspots wereobserved between 1650 and 1700. It was so cold during that period that farmers in New Englandexperienced 20 cm of snow in June and had nothing to harvest. It also has been determined that thesun has been inactive for the most of the last 13,000 years based on isotope analyses of beryllium.
This suggests that the sun’s activity in the late 20th century was rather abnormal.

Keywords: Global Warming Stagnation, Sun Spot Number, Maunder Minimum, Little Ice Age,
Quadruple Pole

Introduction
It is a well-known fact that the global surface temperature has not been rising in the 21stcentury (Revkin, 2009, Hansen et al., 2012, Fujii, 2012, etc.), although some people havestated, "Recently, global warming is accelerating." This paper reports the facts and explains
the causes of global warming stagnation and predicts the climate of the future.

The Global Surface Temperature is NOT Rising!
The CO2 concentration is increasing and reached 397 ppm in Dec. 2012 at Mauna Loa
Observatory in Hawaii (Fig. 1). The GST (Global Surface Temperature), however, has notbeen rising in the 21st century (Fig. 1). Giant eruptions can cause the GST to become lower,reflecting insolation by sulfate aerosol. However, there have been no giant eruptions since
Pinatubo in 1991 (Fig. 1). Scientists are interested in the reason for the stagnation of global
warming.

GST anomaly (K)CO20.6GST

300

0.40.2

Pinatubo

0Sunspot

200-0.2
St. Helens-0.4
1980

6VEI

100

Sunspot number

400

CO2 concentration (ppm)

0.8

2000
Hudson Year (AD)02020

5El Chichon
Figure 1. GST (Global-mean Surface Temperature, source: NASA Web site,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt), CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa,
Hawaii (source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web Site,
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/greenhouse_gases/co2/in-situ/surface/mlo/co2_mlo_surface-in
situ_1_ccgg_month.txt), sunspot number (source: SIDC - Solar Influences Data Analysis
Center Web Site, http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/yearssn.dat) and giant eruptions (Source:
Natural Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History, Global Volcanism Program
Web Site, http://www.volcano.si.edu/)

Why is Global Warming Stagnating?
Dr. Hansen (ex NASA), who warned the United States Congress of the threat of global
warming in 1988, explained that the slowdown of global warming was due to La Niña.
(Hansen et al., 2012). However, it is impossible to explain the stagnation of more than 10years by ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation), which lasted only for a few years.
It should also be pointed out that the global warming theory has lost its scientific
backbone. The global warming theory that assumes the anthropogenic CO2 emission as thecause of the rise in GST was based on a prediction using the GCM (Global Climate Model)
by Hansen et al. (2006, Fig. 2). The prediction of Scenario A (on the high side of reality
with rapid exponential growth of GHG, Greenhouse Gases) deviated from actual
observations from the beginning. It for Scenario B (the most plausible CO2 emission) alsodeviated from the reality. Even it for Scenario C (a more drastic curtailment of emissions
than has generally been imagined, specifically GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after2000) is slightly higher than the observation although GHGs emission has not stopped.
Thus, it can be pointed out that the prediction by the GCM is apparently unreliable and theglobal warming theory has no scientific backbone now.

Figure 2. Prediction of GST by GCM (Hansen et al., 2006. Observed data after 2006 wereadded by the present author using as source a NASA website,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt)
Prof. Judith Curry at Georgia Tech. explains the stagnation by the long-term cycles inocean temperature over a period of several decades. She points out that the situation issimilar to that during the global cooling period that lasted until 1975 and that we may befacinganimminent
glacialperiod(Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ic
e-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2ww0rs1QV).
On the other hand, those whose specialty is the sun are paying attention to the sun’sinactivity. The sunspots are the areas of lowest temperature and decrease when the sun isinactive. The number of sunspots also varies at 11 year period. The variations indicate areversion of the poles. The period becomes longer when the sun is inactive. The sun wasless active during the 23rd solar period, which began in 1996, and is very inactive in the24th solar period (Fig. 1).
The sun has been dipolar since modern observations began. However, it is now goingto have quadruple poles (Sokoloff & Nesme-Ribes, 1994). This is similar to the situation in
the Maunder minimum during 1650 and 1700 in which almost no sunspots were observed.
It was so cold then that the period is called the Little Ice Age. For example, farmers
received 20 cm of snow in June in New England. They had no crops to harvest and had tomove westward. People enjoyed skating on the frozen Thames River. In Edo City in Japan,people experienced difficulty in transporting goods because the Sumida River was frozen.
Hansen et al. (2012, 2014) stated that the effect of the variation of the solar activity was
not neglected, but small, since the solar energy varies less than 0.1%. In fact, a 0.1%
change in insolation corresponds to a 0.07 K GST change based on the Stefan-Boltzmann
law. However, when the sun becomes inactive, the solar wind becomes weak, the incidenceof cosmic rays increases and clouds increase (Svensmark & Christensen, 1997, Fig. 3). The
clouds reflect the insolation and cause the GST to be lower.

Figure 3. Changes in cloud cover from ISCCP-C2 (thick line) and cosmic ray intensity atClimax, Colorado (Svensmark & Christensen, 1997).

What Will the Future Be?
The magnetic field of the sun is becoming weak and the sunspots will disappear in 2022
(Fig. 4). Observation of the sunspots was begun by Galileo Galilei in 1600s. The numberof sunspots, however, can be estimated back to the year 13,000 BP from beryllium isotope
analyses. The results imply that the sun’s activity in the late 20th century was unusual andthe present inactivity of the sun is rather normal (Fig. 5).
We can try to reduce CO2 if the sun becomes active again. However, even in this case,it should be realized that a reduction by 50% in CO2 will cause, if IPCC (2006) is correct,
only a 0.7 K global warming mitigation, but a loss in the world’s GDP of more than 5.5%,
which corresponds to three Lehman shocks. This is apparently unreasonable.
We need do nothing if the sun remains inactive because the GST will be unchanged.
We must try to raise the GST if the sun becomes more inactive, because agriculture will
suffer severe damage from cold weather. Burning as much coal as possible to warm theEarth would be a temporary solution.

Figure 4. Sun's magnetic field(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003824/Earth-facing-mini-Ice-Age-yearsrare-drop-sunspot-activity.html)

Figure 5. Estimated number of sunspots up to 13,000 years ago (Solanki et al., 2004)

Concluding Remarks
The GST is not rising in the 21st century and the main cause is the sun’s inactivity. We
should carefully observe the GST and solar activity rather than simply discussing blindly
how to reduce CO2 emissions.

References
Y. Fujii, "The earth is not warming in the 21st century!", In Proc. MMIJ Spring
Meeting, pp. 83-84, Tokyo, 2012.
J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M., Sato and K. Lo, "Global surface temperature in 2011, Trends,and prospects", Available at NASA Web Site, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/.
[Accessed: Aug. 20124]
J. Hansen, M. Sato and R. Ruedy, "Global temperature update through 2013", Availableat NASA Web Site,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf.
[Accessed: Aug. 2014]
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. Lea and M. Medina-Elizade, M., "Globaltemperature change", PNAS, Vol. 103, No. 39, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103, 2006.
IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change, 2007.
A. Revkin, "Momentum on climate pact is elusive", New York Times, Sep. 21, 2009.
D. Sokoloff and E. Nesme-Ribes, E., "The Maunder minimum: a mixed-parity dynamomode?", Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 288, pp. 293-298, 1994.
S.K. Solanki, I.G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer, J. "Unusual activityof the sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years", Nature, Vol.
431, pp. 1084-1087, doi:10.1038/nature02995, 2004.
H. Svensmark and E. Christensen, "Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud
coverage - A missing link in solar-climate relationships", J. Atmospheric
Solar-Terrestrial Phys., Vol. 59, No. 11, pp. 1225-1232, 1997.