I must be getting over the target
I guess someone on the other side finally took notice of what I have been trying to show for nearly a year now about volcanoes
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33YL
It’s a “fact” check on my ideas on the increase in geothermal input as a prime driver of the warming, That input warms the oceans.
I am writing this in a way that even the “fact checkers” can understand instead of just getting opinions from people whose livelihoods depend on this whole charade continuing.
So here we go again.
The massive volcano ripped the veil of their ideas in half. They are gawking at the “warmth” of the planet, the sudden spike. Is it not clear that the combination of that volcano with its tremendous input of water vapor and the El Nino is leading to this? Hello Macfly.
Have you looked at the increase in Water vapor (WV)? Do you know the increase over the last 30 years from oceanic warming has been about .75 grams/kg, which at the global temperature accounts for about a 1F rise, precisely what we are seeing?
This makes sense. This volcano, unlike Pinatubo which led to cooling due to increased aerosols over the tropics reducing incoming Solar radiation, had much more of a discharge of water vapor. The fact checkers should understand that the lower the temperature, the greater the correlation to a rise in water vapor.
Do they? So by quantifying water vapor, we can then use saturation mixing ratio charts (that’s what meteorologists use) to see what rise is taking place. This site actually does that:
it shows that the peak-to-peak amount of WV since 1990 has increased about .75g/kg and at global temperatures somewhere in the upper 50s does correlate to the observed rise.
From the decades from the ’50s through the ’90s, while CO2 increased at the same pace it is now,
there was no virtually no change in the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) around the planet.
1951-1960
1981-1990
A very important factor since the oceans are the source of water vapor (and CO2 also). As the oceans warm, they release more. Try opening a can of soda, leave it to sit for a day, and warm to room temperature.
It goes flat. Where does it go? Into the air. Again, we are writing this so the fact-checkers can understand.
But why would CO2 cause the oceans to warm? Its back radiative properties, which are the heart of the CO2 theory of warming, not the so-called ‘heat-trapping’ gas (it’s still too small to do that), only penetrate the top MM o2 of the oceans.
So why would it warm the ocean?
It doesn’t. The oceans warm the air, not the other way around.
Now, what do you think would happen (for the fact-checkers) if you have essentially an equilibrium and then a new input is introduced? Mainly geothermal warming. (Think of a pot of water on a stove, and you turn on the heat.)
How good is that fit?
Key to all this is the increase PRECEDED, not followed, like CO2 does, the rise. It points the finger squarely at the cause.
Now, suppose this buildup is occurring. What happens naturally when it becomes too much for the system? Well, it has to have a release. These are the strong El Ninos.
When they go off, large amounts of water vapor are put into the air. There is a step up in temperature. It is clearly shown.
Now let us show you how this affects the global weather pattern. Since all this warming is occurring, the atmosphere tries to fight back with La Ninas. These are not so much cooling but delaying the warming in an attempt to establish a new equilibrium.
That is Le Cheteliars Principle 101.
Presto, the multivariate ENSO index shows that since the Super Nino of 1997, we are mostly in a La Nina base state (huge for forecasters to know btw). But La Nina, in a case where there is a constant added input of heat from geothermal sources, is not a cooling agent except against the rise; it tries to reestablish equilibrium, hence the step-up function of temperatures is explained.
Take this El Nino. It will be gone by the summer of next year. Good to know. In fact, it is why I am already predicting a hurricane season from hell. Another story for another time.
But you can see the logical progression and linkage here. It is not rocket science, which is likely a big problem to people who wish to make you think it is so complex that there is no way you can figure it out, so you rely on the experts.
But think about this: If I am right, so what? If it is not about climate and weather, it is not going to stop the stampede that is out of the barn. If I am wrong, so what? I am not out to save the planet.
I am out to show all the information and then, yes, give a conclusion. Am I right? I BELIEVE SO. But I don’t know. You can only know after the answer is in, and it most certainly is not.
Here is the other thing. I am not on TV anymore, if you notice. I am not writing a book a year. No sweat off my brow. So, I am not out to get attention. I am out to nail weather forecasts for anyone who wants them, and that requires adjusting ideas for the warmth, no matter what the cause.
The money is not on my side of the debate. The Green movement is such that the government, under the guise of the Inflation Reduction Act, is force-feeding money into one answer. Now we have a 20k Climate Corps being proposed. Nice, eh? The Germans had their youth corp and brown shirts.
Under Biden, we have 87k new IRS agents and an army of green shirts. What possible good does it do me to stand in the way of that? When it is that far gone, it is over.
But let us get this straight. I am being hammered by people who can’t even tell you what the Net Zero destructions of our energy base would save as far as temperature to the planet (in a time that is known as a climate optimum, not a climate emergency) vs a guy that shows you what he is doing, lays out his reasoning and linkage, and offers his conclusion.
I don’t hide what I am looking at. And you are seeing what I am looking at. Contrast that with some of the hiding of data or “reanalyzing” it in the opposite camp.
Think of the fate of people who, if it turns out I am right, would blow their whole missive out of the water. If I am not, makes no difference to me. I still have to figure out what these changes do with the weather, even if it’s the man in the moon who is doing it.
It is of no economic benefit to me to be right. For them, it is everything and more. Not only follow the money but follow your God.
They are essentially asking the question, who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?
In the meantime, we have had a cold, stormy winter out for a forecast for months in the face of plenty of varying opinions, so I will retreat into my weather bunker and continue to do what I am truly made to do.
While I believe that kind of winter is coming, I won’t know right or wrong till spring.
Like so many things, it’s not settled.
See more here cfact.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Richard Greene
| #
Mr. Volcano has a theory that underseas volcanoes heat the ocean, and the ocean outgasses water vapor that causes global warming by increasing the greemhouse effect. This is a crackpot theory. There are no data to support the theory.
The total heat output from underseas volcanoes is unknown. The heat release trend could be up, down or steady over the past few decades. No one knows.
But a lack of data does not stop Mr. Volcano.
Other scientists consider heat from Earth’s core to be less than 0.1% of all the heat that reaches Earth’s surface (the sun accounts for over 99/9%) … But why let all those real scientists gets in the way of a pretend armchair scientist’s pet theory? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Right?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
Are you this Richard Green: Richard Greene ’54, M.Ed. ’58, Ed.D?
Have a good day
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
No
I previously left the same message but it “disappeared”.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Thank you. Good bye.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I commonly research whom the authors of PSI articles and comments are. And I have just checked Arthur Viterito (Ph.D., geography, University of Denver. [1], [2]
M.A., State University of New York at Albany. [1]
B.A. Long Island University. [1])
I read a lot and long ago discovered R. C Sutcliffe’s book “Weather and Climate” (1966). On the 2nd page of his introductory chapter he wrote: “Actually we must go to schools of geology and geography to find students who have been asked to direct their minds to the natural phenomena on earth, …)”.
Physical geographers have never “averaged” the surface of the earth as they use differences in its surface to explain differences of weather and climate that sometimes are only miles apart.
Volcanoes are quite localized and their possible influence cannot be explained using an large scale average model.
However, I began this comment to report that I cannot read the dates of the Seismic Activity, 1977 to 2022 graph upon which Arthur commented. And I am not clear what the jagged, continuous line is relative to the red vertical bars.
Maybe some one could help me. Have a good day
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Jerry, the plot shows seismic activity at the mid-Atlantic Ridge which Viterito claims (and I agree) is a proxy for heat flux there. What he claims (and again I agree) is that a step-change in GMST happened in 1995. Contrary to what Richard says, geothermal heat is an important contributor to climate change. What Greene – and many others – fail to appreciate is that we are looking at change in temperature and not absolute values. The GMST changes are very very small and are effected by very very small changes in climate forcings. Using the IPCC forumula RFGHG = 5.35 * ln (1+ΔC/C0) the CO2 climate forcing over the 2000 (CO2=369 ppm) to 2010 (389 ppm) forcing was about 0.4 W/m2 per year. Several new subsea volcanoes erupted to the north of Iceland in 2001, and several Iceland volcanoes (on the mid-Atlantic ridge) became re-activated in the same period, some for the first time in millennia. The average geothermal heat flux at the mid-Atlantic ridge is on the order of 0.5 W/m2, so on the same order of RFGHG. Adding volcanoes and renewed geothermal activity to the mix can easily double this value, and is therefore very plausible. Mr Greene is confusing absolute with relative. His comments are inaccurate and misleading.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
Totally agree with your comment, especially with the reference to th mid-ocean Ridges.
Have a good day
Reply
RockyTSquirrel
| #
as with all thing, in our current societies and human development..
Follow the Money.
Who has the most to gain from any one point of view..?
Who has the most to gain for an agenda that aids a select few over the mass of humanity.. ?
Money talks, and science walks…
. . .
(as requested, this is an opinion and or SARCASM)
“Let’s Go, Brandon” – “Pedo-Joe” (F.J.B.)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSi Readers,
Joe concluded with “Think of the fate of people who, if it turns out I am right, would blow their whole missive out of the water. If I am not, makes no difference to me.”
I often quote from Sutcliffe’s book, but I have not often quoted from the jacket cover of my copy. “At the end of World War II, he was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British Forces in Europe.” So I expect he was part of the Allied Meteorological team which predicted the timing of the Allies Normandy landing on the Continent from Britain which required specific weather conditions to hide the crossing of the English Channel. So if this team’s predictions were wrong, they could not likely say: “If we are not, it makes no difference to us.”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
While I frequently quote from RC. Sutcliffe’s book, it seems no readers are familiar with his book. So I have decided to give you an example of the first sentence of the preface and the first five chapters.
Preface “This is not a textbook on metrology, neither a general introduction nor a formal course, bit to has a Serapis purpose and that os to explain to the general reader what it is that meteorologists are doing and trying to do.”
Introduction “When we begin to write about weather and climate we embark upon the story of our natural home, which has been our dwelling in one continuous stream of these thousand million years, and for the last million or so has been explored by the conscious mind of man,”
Troposphere, Stratosphere and Beyond. “This book is about weather and climate as ordinarily understood and it will rarely be necessary to consider the behavior of the atmosphere beyond the highest level reached by clouds, say 10-15 kilometers, by commercial aircraft, say 20 kilometers, or at most the limit of ballon ascents, say 40 kilometers.”
Exploring the Free Atmosphere. “No small part of the attractiveness of the earth sciences. Including geology and geography as well as what we call geophysics, lies in meeting the challenge of exploration, by expeditions of discovery to all parts of our planet and by devising methods of obtaining information from the inaccessible; interior of the solid earth, the depths depths of the oceans or the heights of the atmosphere.”
The Classification of Clouds. “Water evaporates from the earth’s surface and is carried in the air as a completely transparent and invisible vapor, by some process, mainly by rising and expanding, the vapor-laden air is cooled to its saturation point and beyond, whereupon moisture is condensed in the visible form of clouds.”
The Microphysics of Clouds. “That part of weather study which we call the microphysics of clouds, is concerned with the analysis of the processes within the clouds, pursued even to the behavior of individual particles themselves.”
In my next comment I will quote some individual sentence which I consider to be high points of these first five chapters.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Introduction. Pp13. “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature …. “
Troposphere, Stratosphere and Beyond pp16-17. “When it became firmly established from observations on mountains and in manned and free balloons that the a8r became steadily colder as the altitude increased, scientists were very ready to generalize and to assume that the cooling went on indefinitely to the limit of the atmosphere. This was the general belief until in 1899 the Frenchman Teisserene de Bort, announced to an astonished and even incredulous world that his sounding balloons had reached heights above which the temperature decreased no further.”
Exploring the Free Atmosphere. {a key word is free] pp25. “It will be recalled that the air pressure at the ground is about 1000 mb and as a rough rule decreases to 100 mb, 10 mb, and 1 mb at heights of 50,000, 100,000, and 150,000 feet.” [this is a basic law of nature]
The Classification of Clouds pp33 “It would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapor and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means ends here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. “
The Microphysics of Clouds. pp50 “The first fallacy is to assume that water naturally freezes at temperatures below the freezing point, … .”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The following is a single paragraph near the end of “The Classification of Clouds” pp 41-42.
“It is not quite true to say that all clouds are formed by cooling occasioned by expansion and we may as well dispose of the main exceptions first. It is true that the air must become saturated, or at least nearly saturated before cloud particles will form and this means either the addition of water vapor or the reduction of temperature. It is not easy in nature to cause condensation by adding water vapor the air, for the simple reason that evaporation naturally stops before condensation begins, but in special circumstances something like the cloud from a steaming kettle does occur. A localized example is the could ever a hot spring; more widespread is the mist rising from a stream in frosty weather or from relatively warm ocean waters when very cold winds blow across them; more trivial is man-made cloud from the exhaust of a motor-car in frosty weather, especially when the engine is cold; more remarkable is the man-made cirrus cloud from the exhaust of a high-flying aircraft, the pure white rippled condensation trails which may stretch across the whole width of the sky, strikingly beautiful for a few minutes before either dissolving away or dispersing into ‘ordinary’ cirrus, revealing their origin origin only to the discerning eye, In all these cases the essential process has been the addition of water vapor to the air but in every case also the detailed physics is rather complicated, for heat as well as moisture is added and it is a matter for precise calculation if theory is to decode whether in the outcome the saturation point is ever reached, The exhaust from a well-tuned car is generally invisible unless the outside air is either cold or unusually moist and near saturation already. The rather subtle nature of the problem is realized by noting that very near the exhaust outlet there is clear air, for here the temperature is too high for saturation; then there is a plume of cloud bearing witness to the fact that in the mixing process the effect of cooling surpasses that of dilution, so permitting saturation to be surpassed for a time; but soon afterwards the plume disappears once more by further mixing and evaporation, showing that now the effect of dilution of moisture by the surrounding air surpasses the effect of further cooling, with consequence that the air becomes unsaturated one more. The case of the aircraft exhaust is similar but complicated by temperatures well below freezing point and the possibility of forming ice clouds. It is, however, a problem which is amenable to calculation in a rather interesting way. The fuel is a known composition of hydrocarbons which us burnt almost completely so that the rate of production of water vapor, H2O, is decided by the rate o fuel consumption. All the energy of combustion goes either in heating the exhaust gases or driving the aircraft and there are rather reliable design data which allow an estimate to be made. In this way the amount of exhaust heat and exhaust moisture may both be calculated and further will show whether by mixing this hot moist air with the cold atmosphere a sufficient degree of saturation will be reached. It is an interesting calculation which leads to the rather surprising result that persistent trails cannot occur unless the air temperature is a long way below freezing-point. The point wea of concern to the weather-forecaster at one time as being of some military importance, long condensation trails being far more easy to detect than the high-flying aircraft itself, and methods of avoiding trail formation by using special fuels and in other way were seriously studied. For peaceful purposes the phenomenon is of little moment except perhaps as a reminder that human activities are capable of altering the higher atmosphere in a detectable way and possibly in a significant way if that was the deliberate aim.
Have a good day
Reply