A summary of recent writings showing the power of natural forcing on climate
I want to sum up a lot of what I have been showing anyone who would look with an open mind or open heart. The narrative that CO2 “traps heat” is a “how many angels can you stick on the head of a needle argument.”
The fact is a step-up in Global temps is linked directly to Sea Surface Temperature (SST) increase and, in the past Super Ninos, which points the finger directly at water vapor (WV). This should be common sense. But it brings us to CO2’s role in re-radiating outgoing LW radiation.
If there is more WV, then obviously, there is more effect. But the water vapor rise IS NOT INITIATED BY CO2 BACK RADIATION. It is backed by increased evaporation off a warming ocean. So then we must ask, IS CO2 WARMING THE OCEAN, since it is the source of water vapor?
ABSENT ALL OTHER FACTORS, CO2 WOULD BE THE DRIVER.
So the key is, are there other factors? We find Geothermal spreading linked DIRECTLY to increased SST in the last 30 years, and what’s more, it preceded it, not followed.
You have seen this a kajillion times. Here is a kajillion and one. From Dr. Arthur Viterito:
We also find a collapse of the normal Vertical Velocity (VV) ( patterns over the tropics, allowing more sun and so more outgoing longwave radiation ( blue) and another source of oceanic warming. Both ACT ON CO2, FORCING A REACTION.
But the bands are already saturated and doing whatever they are capable of doing and likely have been since before all these other factors I am showing you started. Yet, as you will see below, the first big step up in air temperature did not occur til the 97 Super Nino, pointing the finger at WV, not CO2.
But if you are unaware of geothermal, or you are aware of it and decide you will “Hunter biden laptop” by denying it, saying it is disinformation, or whatever, you leave the only reason for you to believe it’s warming is CO2. And there is the key to their argument.
Dismiss or ignore obvious natural inputs that have developed last 35 years. Look at the SST. While CO2 was rising rapidly from the ’50s on, the SST had virtually no change. Why does it jump after that when the geothermal spreading starts?
1951 to 1960
1981-1990. One could argue the oceans cooled.
But then what happened once geothermal spreading started?
2013-2022
Look also at actual air temperatures surging after the Super Nino in the ’90s, while having been in a steady state before then a step up, with a further one in 15-16. If you look at saturation mixing ratios, you understand that the input leads to more warming in cold, dry areas.
But this, in turn, is factored into the entire global temp, and so we have the rise. So it is the oceans. Distorted warming, in colder, drier areas, disturbs Vertical Velocity patterns leading to the breakdown of the Hadley cell’s Upward motion and LESS CLOUDINESS. MORE SOLAR, MORE Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) in the tropics.
So you would have to believe the back radiation of CO2, which can only penetrate a MM or 2 of the ocean surface, is causing all this. The air is reacting to the ocean. If you want to push CO2, you hide what I am showing you. The rise in CO2 began well before the geothermal and solar considerations I am showing you.
Yet you see, there was NO CHANGE in SST and in the air, until the super nino, which screamed its water vapor went off. So what has changed? The geothermal and solar aspects. That is nature, not man.
So to all: Exactly how do you explain the SST vs Geothermal, and then the increased solar due to the resultant distortion? You have input from below ( geothermal) (and above — solar) of large natural drivers. Do you disregard Le Cheteliers, which says any CO2 effect should diminish since it has been the longer player on the field since the 1950s?
What’s more, if you now are aware of this, does it not at least raise your curiosity since the introduction of those two features has largely been either dismissed or, even worse, simply hidden so you are fed a steady diet of “it’s warm, CO2 is rising”, that has to be the cause?
Am I right? Well, I am right to ask the questions, and I am right to ask other people involved to at least look. As I have said all along, I may not have the answer, but I do have questions. Saying, you have the answer, so no one else needs to apply should raise red flags. And weaponizing weather for your purpose speaks clearly as to intent.
Every day the weather demands an answer to a question, and I attempt to answer it with the forecast. This is no different for me. There is this question, and it’s ‘need to know if I am going to be the forecaster God made me to be. What is strange is what it has become.
Basically, the center point of a fundamental change in the foundational values not only of the nation but how science is actually approached. That we have two major natural drivers that were introduced when SST took off and ignored, while the accused man-made feature had been at work for 40 years makes clear what Klaus Schwab’s daughter has said and is the true intent of all this: “Permanent Climate Lockdowns Coming — Whether You Like it or Not”.
And as I said in my book in 2 chapters on Covid, it’s a warm-up for all this.
read more at www.cfact.org
LISTEN TO JOE BASTARDI ON TNT RADIO’S SKY DRAGON SLAYING HERE
About the author:
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.
Koen Vogel
| #
Well put! Increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot be responsible for the heating the of the oceans, and certainly not for the observed heating of the upper 2000+m (as is reported by IPCC AR5). Most of the ocean heating is occurring in the Atlantic Ocean, which sits immediately above the world’s largest geothermal anomaly, the mid-Atlantic ridge. I came to the same conclusion as Dr Viterito, albeit later and via a different route:
https://principia-scientific.com/a-case-against-anthropogenic-climate-change-part-1/
https://principia-scientific.com/a-case-against-anthropogenic-climate-change-part-2/
https://principia-scientific.com/a-case-against-anthropogenic-climate-change-part-3/
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
… and I also agree the recent warming phase started around 1995-1997:
https://principia-scientific.com/an-energetic-look-at-the-possible-end-of-recent-global-warming/
Reply
Alam
| #
Heat, by definition, cannot be trapped because it is thermal energy transferring from a high to a low temperature location. It would make sense to say trapped thermal energy, but in the natural world there is always a temperature difference hence it cannot be trapped. We attempt to trap thermal energy in a thermos flask, but it always leaks out. We don’t need to trap thermal energy because it is trapped in fossil fuels which we can move to where we want to use them and release the energy.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
I met Joe Bastardi and Dr Arthur Viterito at the Heartland ICCC-9 Lukewarmist Love Fest in 2014. Dr Viterito had produced an Excel spreadsheet with a million data points from USGS seismic and NOAA satellite temperature data over a 30 period. There is conclusive evidence that the ENSO, El Nino Southern Oscillation is a variable, volcanic forcing artifact. Dr Viterito has also analyzed the Indian, Atlantic and Arctic seismic/temperature data. It has taken a decade of determined effort to debunk dogma with data.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Meteorologists are not scientists but historians. They do not what information a thermometer or a barometer is providing them and confuse temperature, which measures kinetic energy, with energy. Energy flows, mass does not.
The loss and gain of energy from the Earth occurs in the thermosphere, where equalization with the sun happens. That is where the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere occurs.
The surface of the Earth is not radiating energy into space. In the troposphere energy is transferred by convection (collisions between objects) not radiation. Molecules collide 30,000 times per second and these collisions obey the law of conservation of momentum, not the second law of thermodynamics (which is incorrect).
Water controls the temperature and transfer of energy in the troposphere. When there is more energy at the surface (whether from the sun or a geothermal source) more water evaporates (an inaccurate term since water does not convert to a vapor) and carries more energy up to be released into the stratosphere. An eruption of geothermal energy (or a fire releasing more stored solar energy) will not result in a rise in temperature on the Earth but on an increase in the energy being carried aloft, by water, to be released into space.
Off the Yucatan coast, in Mexico, the water is warm and you can Scuba dive not wearing a wet suit. In the water off Acapulco on the west coast the water is cold and a wet suit must be worn. At both locations the sun is providing the same energy but on the west coast the rotation of the Earth and inertia of the water carries the energy to the Philippines and Indonesia. On the East coast of Mexico the water carrying the energy from the east coast of Africa increases the temperature of the water. It is water that is distributing energy, not gas molecules. If you are off the coast in Los Angeles the atmosphere will get hot (from radiation from the sun but the water remains cold. How can that water be heating the atmosphere?
Geothermal energy is not a factor in the temperature of the Earth In the arctic region the surface of the Earth is closer to the source of geothermal heat and yet there is permafrost, where a layer in the Earth remains frozen year round. At the equator, where the radius is greater than in the arctic, there is no frozen layer showing that it the output from the sun that provides the energy to the surface.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Herb, your geothermal model whereby heatflux is a function of Earth radius is much too simple. Surface heat flux varies between 20 mW/m2 at the center of plates, to 500 mW/m2 at the plate boundaries. These plate boundaries overly long-lived, linear Outer Core heat anomalies. This Earth-internal convective heat travels through Earth’s Mantle, and is largely responsible for driving continental drift. Have a look at the PSI article I cite above. The heating of the Arctic Ocean can be credibly attributed to recent geothermal activity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
I am not denying that there is geothermal heat and the Earth is cooling. The Earth, when it formed, once had more geothermal heat but the fact that the crust, after 4 billion years of cooling, is paper thin shows that it is losing heat at a slow rate. This is because the sun continues to add heat to the surface and it is this greater source of energy that determines the temperature. Over the vast majority of land when you dig down the temperature cools until you get to the depth where the solar heat and geothermal heat are in equilibrium (no transfer of energy). In the oceans, where heat is transferred more efficiently by water, the normal is again a surface heated by the sun with decreasing temperature with increasing depth. Geothermal activity may bring more energy to the surface but that energy is in the form of more warm water not water with a higher temperature.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
My reading of what “forcing” means is that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” (infrared radiation – IR – active) gases absorb energy from the sun’s total solar irradiance (TSI ) which is 1,361 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
This total irradiance has been observed to decline to 889 W/m2 just inside the atmosphere and to be further reduced to about 622 W/m2 on the surface, where convection takes over cooling. The reduction of this incoming energy appears in satellite images as a large missing wedge of the outgoing energy around the 15 micron solar energy wavelength. Why 15 microns?
Professor emeritus of physics J.E.Witteman on these pages found in 2020 that CO2’s major average tropospheric radiation point was at about 15 microns. Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law provides a formula relating wavelength to Kelvin temperature by dividing Wien’s Constant m 2897 by the wavelength, yielding for CO@ at 15 microns a temperature of 193.13K or 80°C ( 112°F).
So what about climate “forcing” by total solar irradiance? It leaves out that everything responds radiatively to fitting “spectral bands” of energy (each material gets several). Nothing can absorb a whole radiant spectrum except Max Planck’s theoretical (and probably nonexistent) blackbody surface. No gas or other material can absorb all of TSI “undigested” by the material’s restrictive quantum number, which determines what part of a radiant spectrum will interact with the material. Although CO2 radiates at 4 or 5 places, the overwhelming major radiation point for CO2 is this 193K point.
QED: Undifferentiated TSI cannot radiantly “force” any Earth material, solid, liquid or gas to the unwanted warmth the consensus claims.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
EDITOR’S NOTE: This online text system seems to always omit minuses before temperature numbers. I have lost them every time I submit.
CO2’s radiating temperatures are MINUS 80 Celsius and MINUS 112 Fahrenheit.
The Kelvin figure is right. If you subtract the 193K from273K, water’s freezing point you have it right.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The atmosphere exists because the kinetic energy of the gas molecules can overcome gravity. The volume of the atmosphere is a result of of collisions between the molecules. As the density of the molecules decrease the collisions become less frequent but energy of those collisions becomes greater. All the molecules in the atmosphere are ricocheting off the surface of the Earth or other molecules ricocheting off the surface. The energy of these molecules are a result of them absorbing radiated energy coming from the sun and the decline of energy is a result not only the absorption by the molecules but also the distribution of that energy to an increasing number (mass) of molecules. If you take the measured temperature at a altitude by the density of molecules at that altitude you will get the kinetic energy for a constant number (mss) of molecule eliminating the expansion of volume due to the increased energy of the molecules. This shows that the kinetic energy (temperature) of molecules increase with increasing altitude and the reading of the thermometer with its zig zag graph is an inaccurate representation of reality.
I have written another article “Where Planck Got It Wrong” that explains why all of Planck’s theories (including quantum mechanics) do not conform to reality.
Herb
Reply