The temperature may prove IT IS NOT CO2

Let us look at how CO2 is involved in warming the atmosphere. The bands that radiate back into the atmosphere are relatively narrow and saturated already. They are doing whatever it is they can do and have been doing it for decades. Once saturated, the increase in the amount of CO2 has DECREASING efficiency. Therefore, in line with Le Chateliers principle, which seems to be ignored in all this, CO2’s effect, whatever that is, should have a diminishing effect, not result in a sudden increase.

According to Le Chatelier’s principle process, if a system under equilibrium is subjected to a change in temperature, pressure, or concentration, then the equilibrium shifts itself in such a way as to undo or neutralize the effect of change.

Therefore it is when CO2 was introduced to the system, it should have done most of what it could do.  So there is a diminishing return.

But the theory is very nice and tidy INDEPENDENT ALL OTHER NATURAL CONSIDERATIONS.

So if you can ignore and cover up counterarguments and weaponize weather events, you essentially march unopposed. That is the strategy being employed.

In any case, the back radiation, in turn, affects the air, so it warms ( or does not cool as fast). This then stops oceans from cooling, so the oceans warm. The more the oceans warm, the more water vapor is put into the air, and on and on it goes.

Like I said, absent other considerations, a nice little idea.

But here is the problem in that 1) the atmosphere has far less energy than the ocean in the system, so it is not going to push the ocean around 2) Back radiation penetration of the ocean surface from co2 sources is only a MM or 2. That is hardly any direct effect that can account for the warming.  3)  IT RELIES ON WARMING TO CAUSE WARMING. That should send up red flags since because it only absorbs outgoing Long Wave Radiation, which would be dependent on cloud cover; the less cloudiness, the more outgoing long-wave radiation, and of course, the more incoming solar hitting the surface and warming the surface, it means that for CO2 to have any effect, it  CAN NOT BE THE CAUSE,   but merely a reaction. Something has to initiate it.

So let us look at the Over Land Masses (OLR).

I have shown this before. Surface Skin Temperature (SST) anomalies changed very little from the 1950s to the 1980s.

OLR from 1951-1990

The reddish colors are less than the 30-year means. Meanwhile, there are more clouds. We can tell this because of precipitation considerations.

Notice the areas of heavy precipitation in the Atlantic basin and in the central Pacific, meaning two major areas of heat are getting LESS  solar radiation than the latest 30-year mean.

It is all linked, the relatively unchanged state of. SST, OLR, and Precip over the big bang for the buck areas.  Globally temps did start to rise off the very cold decades of the 60s and 70s, but was that just natural, or perhaps the increase in CO2? Let me give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it was the introduction of CO2. But the main energy source of all this was not going anywhere.

That is until the geothermal spreading developed. Again from Dr. Arthur Viterito:

Now look at the current SST pattern.

A mind-boggling change from 30 years ago, when the geothermal spreading started.

What has happened in the last ten years to OLR, and again this is against the most recent 30-year means.  If you set the base at 1951-1980, it would be off the charts.

What an increase of the positive over the Atlantic, the western Indian Ocean, and the Enso 3.4 region of the Pacific. The negative is seen over land masses. There is an indication of convergence and upward motion, but the blue indicates sinking relative to average. This is a disruption of the normal processes and, as I have put it, a  distortion of the global pattern so that while perhaps TOTAL energy has increased ( how would we know, we quantify CO2, but not water vapor), but zonal potential energy which drives extremes is decreasing. It means that if we get the clash, look out,  but we will get it less than what we used to. This is not told to you, but instead, you are served up with every single local weather event that happens in an effort to portray this as a runaway situation. It clearly can not be, given the decreases over the tropics, where the greatest source of energy input occurs.

Precip responds. It has dried out in the Atlantic basin, central Pacific, and western Indian Ocean with major decreases. This also means a change in the release of heat into the atmosphere from convection.

This also means the MJO natural tendency is centered on phases 5/6.

These are the warm phases for the eastern and central US and Europe, and I suspect the dominant phases during the medieval warm period.

If we look at the correlation of CO2-temp, it is “whack a mole”. Since temps naturally may be going up every time they do, then CO2 proponents argue it is driving it. But there are obvious step-up functions based on strong El Nino events up until now because of all the warming that is occurring in the oceans all over. AND THERE IS THE CLUE AS TO WHY ITS HIGHLY UNLIKELY IT IS MAN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE! The nature of the warming means it has to be the introduction of stronger drivers in a direct fashion!  In fairness to the CO2 argument, it may be that the system adjusts and then starts up again. Perhaps. But again, if the bands are saturated, then the input has been in a steady state since the 1950s. It is only in the last 30 years the oceans have warmed. During the last 30 years, geothermal input has increased.

Ask yourself. If you have a system that has new DIRECT factors that can cause warming  (Incoming solar radiation increases over the warmest oceans that penetrate the ocean far further down than the mm or 2 of CO2 impact, and the increase in geothermal, how can that be dismissed?) This idea that such an increase in geothermal is trivial, as one skeptic put it, like a bunsen burner at the bottom of a swimming pool, does not fit the smell test with the increase in SST; something created a rapid rise. In geological time it has likely occurred before, simply by looking at the geological history.

Is it man’s input? If not, what could it be?  We have a double team of large-scale NATURAL DRIVERS far more important than CO2. It is intuitive that a huge body of energy like the ocean would need  A DIRECT INPUT THAT CAN CAUSE ALL THIS.  Remember CO2 warming is dependent on warming. If there is no change in the OLR  then there is no change in what those bands can do.

Like it or not, the CO2 argument is one that, until such time there is cooling, and I am not talking cherry-picking a peak and then using a month cooler than that; I am talking about a real step down, one that has people pushing it and having every right to do so, no matter what you believe.  The shame is that it is now forced by an agenda because, you see, the argument over what is driving the climate may never have led to the knowledge we are gaining in arguing back and forth. That is why dismissing the CO2 argument is folly. It leads to the counterarguments which I have outlined above.

Without climate debate, we may not have dug in like this and examined the counters.  So I am in no way, shape, or form advocating the dismissal of the argument. CO2 is increasing, and it’s warming. Right there, you have the premise to fight for your point. However, it only penetrates the top millimeter of the ocean with its so-called back radiation. And the counterarguments are strong and based on a stronger, more direct impact. It stands to reason that the larger the energy source, the more direct impact it will need. The drop in the amount of cloudiness over the tropics in the last 15 years would account for at least some of this since it means more incoming solar radiation. The OLR charts are astounding, and no one seems to be paying any attention to it. That’s the first thing.

The second thing, like it or not, in the early 90s, there was an increase in the amount of underwater volcanic activity. This is completely dismissed, and I cannot figure out why it would be dismissed. See, surface temperatures from the 1950s through the 1980s did not change at all. Consequently, you had a profile without having Long Wave Radiation that stayed static. Once the oceans began to warm, they naturally began to change vertical velocity patterns. This led to a decrease in the normal amount of upward motion over the tropical oceans, especially the Atlantic basin and the central Pacific basin, and the Western Indian Ocean. This, in turn, forces the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) to center into phases more favorable for warming, so the circle is being completed for warming. The increase in the absorption of solar radiation apparently is completely ignored. I want you to think about this; if you had a relatively steady state of solar radiation over the tropics in a relatively steady state of input of thermal energy from volcanic activity underwater from 1950 to 1990, what do you think is going to happen when increases in both of those are introduced to the system? CO2 rise has been occurring since the 1950s. The bands are saturated. They can do no more than what they’ve been doing. While we continue to dismiss the things that I am bringing up, I think they deserve to be examined as they have a lot to do with this because they are the new direct inputs that have been introduced to all this. In a way, this warming means it almost can’t be carbon dioxide or whatever part it plays is dwarfed by the large-scale natural drivers, which makes sense. It seems dangerously intuitive because it would blow a lot of ideas out of the water. I have to work with this stuff every single day.

The lack of long-tracked strong main development region storms compared to the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is a huge clue as to what is happening. And the fact that there is no increase in vertical velocity patterns and, in fact, a decrease over the tropical oceans to produce the increased outgoing longwave radiation due to lack of cloud cover is exactly opposite of the CO2-induced trapping hotspot theory. Yet we sit here and continue to get pounded by them. If you are an analog-based forecaster like I am, then the reasons appear to be clear.

In the ultimate irony, if this argument had not existed, I may not have ever examined it. Notice the comment that we are in a natural phase 5/6 base state now. That encourages La Ninas. But if the underlying source is warming, when the La Nina is done, what is the bounceback result? A stronger El Nino, and you are seeing that now. In fact, you are seeing it despite major sources for destructive interference in the forms of a cold PDO and the Atlantic being so warm.

Remember a couple of things, The warmer it gets, the harder it is to get warmer. That is why the finger-pointing has to be at the new natural forcings the last 30 years, geothermal, and the increased solar due to the lack of clouds over the tropics. CO2 can not be causing underwater volcanic increases, and I suspect it has something to do with solar, but it is way, way, way above my pay grade. I can comment on the result, though. And what really should cause questioning, though NOT DISMISSAL of  CO2 ( it is warming and CO2 is going up), is: 1) it relies on increased OLR to make it do its part and does not initiate it, and 2) there is no physical correlation of CO2 to temps that we use the way we do water vapor.