The Multivariate ENSO Index is another meteorological aspect that casts doubt on CO2

I realize some of this may be a bit complex, but part of the reason I am showing all this is it shows ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON with these writings so whoever reads with an open mind can at least understand that there are challenges to the “consensus” which makes sense. Science is not about consensus.

So my recent writings have shown the linkage of the increase of underwater geothermal input to the increase in SST ( sea surface temp). It’s quite easy and indeed intuitive to see why CO2 has little to do with this.

If we look at the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is easily seen since the 1950s:

And yet temperatures, both ocean and air, did not go up through 1990.

1951-1960

Ocean

One can see the natural evolution of the spreading out of the cold, but overall the temperature was the same. The Indian Ocean, for instance, was not as cold in the 1950s, but the Atlantic was colder along with the North Pacific.

But since CO2 was introduced to the system, why did the air temperatures remain so cold if CO2 was a warming factor?

1951-1960

1981-1990

There is no perceptible change.

CO2 attribution is in direct violation of Le Chetelliers principle since the change in the air should come when the condition changes (CO2 increase starts).

Le Chatelier’s principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium shifts to counteract the change to reestablish equilibrium.

The changing of the conditions started in the 1950s, yet there were obviously only tiny changes in temperatures. This minute change (I can’t tell if it’s warmer or colder) might be attributed to CO2 in the air, but it is very, very small at best.

The CONDITIONS CHANGED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF GEOTHERMAL INPUT!

And its associated almost perfect fit is the reason.

So we see what the last ten years have warmed to.

air

The Polar area warming is a direct consequence of increased water vapor, as the correlation of water vapor to temperature in saturation mixing ratios show. There is no such scale for CO2.

From Freeman Dyson:

FREEMAN DYSON Emeritus Professor, Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies (2009) THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING, THERE IS ONLY REGIONAL WARMING (AND IT’S A GOOD THING!): “The change that’s now going on is very strongly concentrated in the Arctic. In fact, in three respects, it’s not global, which I think is very important. First of all, it is mainly in the Arctic. Secondly, it’s mainly in the winter rather than summer. And thirdly, it’s mainly in the night rather than at the daytime. In all three respects, the warming is happening where it is cold, not where it is hot.”

The facts support him:

Ocean warming

A La Nina base state has been established, not to say its cooling but simply to establish equilibrium, according to Le Cnettliers. Water vapor increase is plainly the cause. One can tell because the relationship of water vapor to temperatures is such that small amounts correlate to large increases in the coldest, driest areas.

Enter the actual satellite temperatures with their step-up function after major El Nino events:

Here is what is going on. The buildup of heat that started in the early ’90s had a natural response, the Super Nino of 1997. The heat buildup continues until it adjusts. Result” Super Nino. This pumped immense amounts of water vapor into the air. And the result was that the plateau against the 30-year running means was higher than before that. ( but we knew that, looking at how cool it was in the 1980s). This is perfectly lined up with Le Cnetelliers. The oceans are immense sources of heat, dwarfing what the air can do to the entire system. What you see in the air is a reflection of the input from the oceans. The air does react and tries to adjust, but it is being pushed around, not pushing the oceans around. Radiative processes from co2 can not warm the ocean to what we are seeing, and it’s why the jumps in water and air temperatures prove it IS NOT CO2.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .00042 of that.

Man contributed less than .1 of that.

While people pushing CO2 try to show how many tons we are putting into the atmosphere, if it is such a big deal, why is it not changing the fundamental rules we use for the atmosphere? After all, if it is so dense, and there is much of it, why do the fundamental laws still work? BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ONE THING. For TWO,  they are relying on the radiative properties. To do this, you must eliminate the other factors or assume they are not changing, hence playing no role. THAT IS PLAINLY NOT THE CASE. What is the case is what I am showing you has been hidden or dismissed. But I am showing you the observational proof, because, unlike most climate researchers, they don’t forecast. I HAVE TO FORECAST AND KNOW WHAT IS DRIVING ALL THIS. And it is not CO2 radiative feedback, but large-scale natural forcing, which makes sense physically given the amount of energy in the ocean.

Now enter the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), and this is why every meteorologist that is looking at this should understand, that natural forcing not only deserves a seat at the table but seated at the head of the table.

What happened after the Super Nino of 1997? The MEI, which takes into account not just water temperatures but atmospheric and radiative responses, became mainly in the La Nina base state. The La Nina base state is the attempt at the system trying to attain a new equilibrium. The problem, though, is that the input of geothermal energy continues to raise the amount of heat in the oceans. What does that mean? That the compensating balancing act gets overwhelmed, and another strong ENSO event responds. So, while overall we see the La Nina base state, IT IS IN RESPONSE TO THE WARMING. As long as the oceans warm, it is a continuous step-up function which is plainly seen in the satellite data.

The La Nina base state can be shown in the Outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), which has changed dramatically since the 1950s.

Orange represents low OLR due to more clouds, and Blue has high OLR due to fewer clouds. Air is rising where there are more clouds, sinking where there are less.

1951-1960

last 10 years

This is confirmation of the La Nina base state since upward motion over the western Pacific encourages stronger low-level easterlies from the central Pacific to the Atlantic basin, This, in turn, accounts for the small area of cooler temperatures west of South America in the water temperature chart above. It also means more incoming solar radiation of large areas of the tropics. You are seeing a similar response over the western Indian Ocean and Africa.

The La Nina base state is NOT A COOLING SIGNAL. I suspect we were in one in the ’60s and ’70s (the misnomer is the cold Pacific Decadal Oscillation{PDO}) in response to warmth in the ’30s-’50s, but without the kind of satellite reconstruction we have now it is tough to be certain about that. But this idea that low solar or a “cold” PDO will cool the planet is wrong. It’s simply a balancing response to the warming. And now it’s linked with the MEI showing that.

Why can’t we argue this is CO2? Maybe we needed 40 years of buildup to do what we see now with the geothermal. But therein lies the problem. How can CO2 do this if its back radiative properties have virtually no effect on the ocean and whatever it is doing in the air was not seen UNTIL THE OCEANS WARMED? The oceans did not warm until the geothermal increase started. The buildup of heat has to be released. It is done through El Ninos. A higher base state is established, and the process repeats. It is natural, and any man-made effect is impossible to ascertain given all this.

You have geothermal input.

You have increased solar over the tropics.

You have a linkage to the step-up process in the actual temperatures ( arctic proving it’s water vapor).

You have the natural reason backed up by Le Chetelliers as to why that happens.

And you have the MEI that is showing you the attempt to reset the equilibrium.

The only way the CO2 argument can be pushed is if you completely ignore all this. Or you simply do not know it. Either way, not acknowledging this is lousy science for one and dangerous for two, since its sending mankind on a path that will destroy the upward surge of progress inherent in adaption in a free and competitive society and send us into some kind of dark age relative to where we should be.

I would like to see one of these “climate scientists” do their job 100 years ago. Perhaps they should take stock of how they got this chance and what led to it.