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,
.png)
there was no virtually no change in the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) around the planet.
1951-1960
.png)
1981-1990
.png)
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.)
.jpg)
How good is that fit?
.png)
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.
.png)
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.