Oceanic Influences: A Missing Part of the Climate Puzzle
New research indicates subsurface oceanic seismic and volcanic activity has a significant influence on large oceanic circulation patterns, which in turn impact ocean temperatures, yet these are not accounted for in climate models.
Research published by Dr. Arthur Viterito indicates nature, not “greenhouse gas” emissions, is the largest driving force behind climate change. After surveying the literature in various disciplines, Viterito’s research shows a strong correlation between an uptick in subsurface oceanic seismic and volcanic activity in 1995, that is continuing today, that has a significant influence on large oceanic circulation patterns. This turn effects ocean temperatures and other climatic activity, yet these influences are not accounted for in climate models.
Arthur Viterito is a Professor of Geography at the College of Southern Maryland, and has previously held positions at the University of Pittsburgh and the George Washington University. He is also a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.
Listen to the 30-minute podcast below:
More at www.heartland.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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.
Herb Rose
| #
WATER IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS.
First water is not a gas in the troposphere but nano droplets of liquid water. The gasses in the different layers of the atmosphere are determined by molecular weight. The top layer consists of helium (mw 4) and hydrogen (mw 2). The next lower layer consists of helium (mw 4) and oxygen atoms (mw 16). The heavier a gas the lower its altitude. Oxygen (mw 16 or 32) and nitrogen (mw 28) range throughout the atmosphere while the next most abundant gas, argon (mw 40), is confined to the troposphere. How is it that water (mw 18) is confined to the troposphere (99.9%)?
Second water does not prevent the flow of energy into space but increases it. Most of the energy (84%) contained in liquid water does not show up as radiated energy (temperature) but is internal energy (620 calories of the 720 calories needed to convert 0 C ice to100 C steam). When evaporation occurs water transports energy from the surface to higher altitudes where it is released to be radiated into space. It is cooling the surface, just as sweat cools your body, not keeping it warmer.
The closest temperature where CO2 absorbs heat to temperatures that occur on Earth is -80. CO2 has no effect on slowing the flow of energy.
Reply
Tom
| #
Most of these silly climate models are based not on science but on agenda. They are mostly computer guesstimates and extrapolations that mean little. In my necks of the woods, a 100 degree day, not so normal, has occurred less than 40 times in the last 150 years…or .0007 percent of the time. That is not a trend any way you measure it.
Reply
Jerry Kruae
| #
Hi Tom.
YOU wrote: “.In my necks of the woods, a 100 degree day, not so normal, has occurred less than 40 times in the last 150 years,” I do not question this; my question is how (or why) did this rarity occur???? Any thought about this???
I need to add: What do you think about Herb’s idea: “First water is not a gas in the troposphere but nano droplets of liquid water.”???
Have a good day, jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
Do you have a comment about about Tom’s statement: “Most of these silly climate models are based not on science but on agenda. They are mostly computer guesstimates.”??? Do you think he knows that most of these climates models are based upon ideas that existed decades before anyone had invented a computer???
And Herb, have you ever set a pan of water on an electric ‘burner’ and measured the temperature of the water as it warmed and then as the water began to boil. And continued to measure the temperature of the boiling water as its volume clearly decreased until the water disappeared???
This is a very easy experiment you or anybody can do. And Tom, this experiment has nothing to do with computer models.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Have you ever set a pan of water on an electric ‘burner’ and measured the temperature of the water as it warmed and then as the water began to boil. And continued to measure the temperature of the boiling water as its volume clearly decreased until the water disappeared???
James:
So, Jerry, you are just demonstrating what a completely nonscientific goon you are and, by association, you are also demonstrating the nonscientific nature of your whole generation of goons who believe their anecdotal interpretations are experiments. If, as you just described, evaporate is invisible then how the fuck do you know whether it’s gaseous or nanodroplets?
Jerry:
This is a very easy experiment you or anybody can do. And Tom, this experiment has nothing to do with computer models.
James:
It’s not an experiment. It’s just anecdote. Likewise, your generation of goons has manufactured a mountain of anecdotal nonsense (ie. Sutcliffe) that achieve nothing but the same thing that climate science achieves–keeping the public confused so that the funding keeps flowing.
More here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/snwzpwg9Pe0
James McGinn / Genius
Moreover most of the
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This article begins: “New research indicates subsurface oceanic seismic and volcanic activity has a significant influence on large oceanic circulation patterns, which in turn impact ocean temperatures, yet these are not accounted for in climate models.”
And continues “Research published by Dr. Arthur Viterito indicates nature, not “greenhouse gas” emissions, is the largest driving force behind climate change. After surveying the literature in various disciplines, Viterito’s research shows a strong correlation between an uptick in subsurface oceanic seismic and volcanic activity in 1995, that is continuing today,”
Does Viterito not consider that any 27 year trend of anything be used to establish the existence of much longer term climate change (glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere’s continents that is an observed fact. Especially when we know of the short period, but unpredictable, El Nina and Ls Nina events.
Can anyone, today, admit that they (we) don’t know???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers.
I need to remind a reader that in SCIENCE we can never know what IDEAS are absolutely TRUE; we can only absolutely prove what Ideas are absolutely FALSE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi jerry,
None of your beliefs can ever be proven wrong because you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
While fully aware that I know very little about these technical science issues, I thought the sun was most likely the biggest factor in climate, which although fluctuating, is always intricately controlled within the finely tuned parametures of God’s infinite creation. I had read (can’t remember where) that as the earth’s rotation is not exactly concentric but elliptical and at the apogee (of ap. only 1%) of its rotation over thousands of years, creates more ice accumulation that results in say the little ice age or as when the orbit becomes more concentric for say a few hundred years will result in the medieval warming that was very beneficial to all human activity, not only survival and increased economic activity but also the much needed increased crop production. I have also read that there are also periods over decades where the sun is more active as to solar radiation and is another factor. Perhaps you and Herb would be willing to comment on this as to what is the most relevant factor.
Thanks, Mark
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mrk,
The most dominant factor is the energy the Earth receives from the sun. Since the Earth rotates the sun and the tilt of the Earth means the Southern and Northern hemispheres will receive different amounts of energy in a year.
The output of the visible and infrared spectrum from the sun come from the surface of the sun.These are emitted by the sun’s surface and remain almost constant during cycles. Solar flares emit ultraviolet and X-ray radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere and heat it. The amount of solar flares is controlled by 4 magnetic fields on the sun These magnetic fields vary in a sine wave. Sometimes they combine to produce more flares and some time they cancel each other reducing the flares. When all the magnetic field cancel each other out(Grand Solar Minimum) it results in little UV light heating the atmosphere and the Earth cools. This is what caused the little ice age that resulted in crop failures, livestock freezing to death, snow in June, year within summer, and starvation which brought about the French Revolution. We are now entering a new Grand Solar Minimum so things are getting cool.
The Earth’s climate is determined by its position and the energy coming from the sun with weather being how the energy is distributed.
I hope that this helps..
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb, and thanks for the clarification. So it is true that variations in solar cycles are the prevailing factor in long climate (and also shorter) cycles. Does the sometimes very slight elliptical path of the earth around the sun also contribute to colder periods. Also some claim that the sun is burning out at a constant rate that of course would effect the earth over a long enough time. And some claim the sun’s energy output has remained constant other than the cycle parameters you have described. Would like to know your opinion on this.
Thanks, Mark.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
Yes the elliptical orbit contributes to climate. If winter occurs in the northern hemisphere when the Earth is farthest from the sun it will receive less energy and be cooler as will be summer in the Southern Hemisphere. If this combines within solar minimum (low sunspot activity) both the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere will receive less energy producing colder conditions.
It is not only the energy produced by the sun but also the volume that energy is distributed to that contribute to temperature and glaciation. The energy coming from the sun will decrease with increasing distance from it. This occurs until it encounters energy from an different source that is equal to the sun’s energy. Think of it as a container around the sun with the walls being energy from other solar systems. As our solar system and other solar system move the volume of the container and the density of the energy in it change. The cycles of glaciation may be a result of changes outside our solar system.
Whether the sun burns at a constant rate I don’t think a mere 5000 years is long enough to determine that.
My heretical belief is that the sun produces energy by fission and hydrogen, helium, and stable atoms are ashes from this reaction. When the ash level becomes to great a sun gets rid of them (and atoms that are still breaking down) in an explosion (nova) and then these ashes coalesce to form planets, asteroids, and the other objects in the solar system.
Herb
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
I was not aware that heat from other solar systems also affected the box we are in. It is apparent that if the earth tilted either a little bit more or less in its annual rotation around the sun, crop production in temperate climates would be destroyed. I fail to grasp the significance of the 5000 yr. figure. Evolutionists claim the solar system is what, almost 4 billion years old? It seems to me that over that massive span of time that the sun would have lost some energy. If that were the case from where we are now, the earth would have been much too hot.
I believe there is evidence for a much younger earth. within the last few years, separate paleontological groups claim to have found remnants of ligaments, soft tissue and even blood vessels in Montana from the T Rex. Of course that would indicate these huge reptiles were only at most a few thousand years old, rather than millions as the evolutionists state.
We have good historical and archeological data from both Egypt and Mesopotamia that humans developed the alphabet ap. 8000 to 9000 years ago. If that is true and as is claimed, modern man climbed down from the trees over 200,000 years ago, what took them so long. I don’t think we will ever have the answers to all our questions. Some things are imponderable, even for the likes of James McGinn / genius or Jerry. Thanks for your explanations. You have explained these climate topics in a clear and concise manner so now I can gain more from PSI science discussions.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
The 5000 year was a reference to how long man has been measuring the sun versus how long the sun has been producing energy. Too short a period to determine if the output is constant.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Now that I have your attention I will share with you some of what William L. Stone wrote about the history of Gary, South Dakota (the Gate City of the Dakotas) from 1872 to 1972. In Stone’s history a man (Jim) tells a story, (The Twisting Tornado) from his memory years later.
“It was a bright sunny blistering hot day and after unloading one load os hay, Old Knute turns to Jim, and said, “Shimmie,” if we were in Iowa on a day like this we could be in a cyclone cellar. They then unloaded the other load of hay and went back to Donaldsons down by the creek. When they reached the Donaldson place Walt Peachey was just out of his barn across the street and shouted across that a cyclone had wiped out the Hutchinsons. … Upon arriving at the Hutchinson farm they found Mr. Ballard, manager of the elevator at Moritz tending to a small baby, the only one of the whole family alive.” They had no cyclone cellar because cyclones more than a few hundreds miles north of Iowa were and are a rarity. But note the detail with which the story was told. And I believe these details were fact.
The Gary Inter State (a local weekly newspaper), Aug. 19, 1898, wrote: :The Twisting Tornado—Deuel County swept from End to End with The Bosom of Destruction.” What is written here about the destruction cannot be questioned. This is the reI call this violent atmospheric storm to your attention. For it was not only rare at this locality but it was rare anywhere because of its continuous, long path of destruction which cannot be questioned.
You have spent much effort and time trying to understand these violent atmospheric circulations; I have not. But I believe that given what we have discussed that we can absolutely agree that an atmospheric jet stream, far above the earth’s surface was a critical factor involved in the destruction of this storm’s long path. So I consider these observed facts (details) might help you better explain your ideas so I might better understand them. For any idea about the relationship to tornadoes in no longer an idea; it is an observed fact.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James, Herb, and PSI Readers,
I had merely scanned back to here this morning to see what I had forgotten. I had been pondering what I had read about this historical Gary (Deuel County) tornado. And I questioned if these people, who were killed had gone down into their home’s cellar, to which Jim had mentioned. For I had finally remembered that an Iowa “cyclone cellar” was not the basement of a house. For the people of Iowa had learned that sometimes the debris of the demolished house words ended up in its basement. Iowa’s cyclone cellar was a ‘cave’ dug underground so there was no debris to fall into it.
AsI review this I also see the observed fact that the general climate of Iowa was quite different from that of Gary, South Dakota, only a couple of hundred miles north of Iowa.
This history of Gary began with accounts of the very first [three] settlers in this part of the country.. Which were penned by the editor of a Gary newspaper in 1890, about 18 years after these men had settled near Gary. About the oldest of these three the editor had written: “He had stood 19 years of blizzards with out freezing so much as a finger, he withstood the grass hopper raid without the loss of a crop, … .”
These blizzards are never actually described in this history; what is described is the snow which needed to be cleared so the train could deliver its freight and the US mail. About these blizzards a geologists, John P Bluemle, in his 2016 book ‘North Dakota’s Geologic Legacy’ wrote: “The word “blizzard” appears to peculiarly North American, European newcomers to the praises had never experienced a blizzard. One account says that early German settlers referred to these sudden winter storms as blitzartig, meaning “the storm comes lighting like.” This sudden nature of a blizzard is what makes them ‘life threatening’. I have read (but cannot find it so I cannot reference who wrote it and paraphrase what I read. ‘These extreme winter storms only commonly occur on the prairies of North and South Dakota and western Minnesota. No where else in the world are they common.’ I and my brother (who lived past 89 years) have experienced several (more than one) during most every winter when in South Dakota near Gary.
“The only source of knowledge is experience.” (A. Einstein)
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Meteorology knows they are lying about the supposition that gaseous H2O exists in the atmosphere. They have made the notion a taboo that can’t be discussed. This is why you will never see any discussion from them about it.
The notion was accepted in the 1840s by Espy, the father of Meteorology. It was included in his model of storms. At that time it was common to assume that clear moist air contained gaseous H2O. Now people are more educated and less prone to blindly follow superstition.
For Meteorology, however, the notion is baked into their convection model of storms. And so, for marketing reasons and funding reasons they cannot reveal to the public that they know it is a nonsense notion.
This is why if you ask a meteorologists about this notion they will not give you a straight answer nor will they continue the discussion.
If you go out looking, not only will you find no evidence of gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere but you will find no evidence that meteorologists have ever tested the issue and no evidence of them acknowledging the existence of the issue. It is a genuine taboo.
In the public you may find a few people who claim to have seen support for the issue. But even amongst these “least sharpest tools of the shed” actual sighting of such evidence is more scarce than bigfoot.
Understanding Water is a Prerequisite to Understanding Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Understanding-Water-is-a-Prerequisite-to-Understanding-Storms-eou2cg
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I just discovered I did not attempt to answer your question of 3/8 : 5:05pm “how the … do you know whether it’s gaseous or nanodroplets?” Which failure of others to answer my questions irritates me. So I must correct my problem.
I know that it easier to lift one pound than a 1000lbs or 100lbs or even 10lbs. I accept that Kevin temperature of a gas composed of atoms or molecules is directly proportional to these particles average kinetic energy (1/2 x M x V^2). So I reason that a faster moving particle (a single molecule of water at the water’s ‘liquid surface’) is more likely to break free of the molecules beneath it than a nano droplet of 10, a 100 or a1000 water molecules. And I accept that I know that liquid water is boiling because I can see the ‘violent’ motion of boiling of this boiling water.
Now I ask you: how … do you know whether it’s gaseous or nanodroplets? And please to water phase diagram because you have written that you accept that the violent motion of the boiling water continues at lower temperature as the atmospheric pressure over the surface of the liquid water is reduced.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
failure of others to answer my questions irritates me.
James:
What about the other twenty times you refused to answer this question?
1) According to the H2O phase diagram it is impossible for H2O to be genuinely gaseous at ambient temperatures.
2) H2O is highly attracted to static electricity.
3) There is no shortage of static electricity in earth’s atmosphere.
Watch this video:
Static Electricity and Water
https://youtu.be/VhWQ-r1LYXY
Another thing, consider the fact that the weight of the stream of water in this video is millions or even billions of times heavier than nanodroplets.
Lastly, you also asked about he nature of evaporation. This is a more complex question.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I have observed that a stream of water is attracted, or repelled, static electricity when the “relative humidity” (RH) is quite low. And lightning is observational evidence that very is no shortage of atmospheric static electricity. And meteorologists have long recognized that the atmosphere most contain tiny, tiny particles of condensed (solid or liquid or both) upon which surfaces atmospheric water molecules could condense to prevent the atmosphere from becoming super-saturated with water molecules. However, I can not remember that you have given even a hint how your nano droplets of water are so critical to your violent atmospheric storm (tornadoes). Or why the nano condensation nuclei could not serve the same function.
And I cannot imagine what the great energy source to fuel the violent storms you are attempting to explain, if it is not the latent heat of water molecules condensation, what is the energy source??? In the chapter titled ‘The Winds of the World’ R. C. Sutcliffe wrote: “one cannot explain the broad features of world climate is one does not know the ACTUAL mechanisms involved.” And we, you and I, know it involves the water molecules ability to form highly directional hydrogen intermolecular bonds between water molecules. And you should know and I do know that at temperatures above 4+C that there is no influence of hydrogen bonding and that it is because water molecules are an electrical-dipole and these electrical dipole attractions are how the tiny water molecules boil at 100C given an atmospheric pressure of 1atm (atmosphere). But I believe we should not ignore the fact that some water molecules naturally dissociate to probably form the hydroxide ion and the hydrodion ion (H3O+). Therefore, in the liquid state there is some ion-dipole attractions.
So will you explain the general mechanism the nano particles in the natural atmosphere.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply