Pretend you are taking the SAT and must answer, what is the cause of the last 35 years of warming? to get in. Assume also you do not have a brainwashed climate campaigner but a rational human judging you.
You are presented with 30 years of temperatures from 1931-1960 in the US, using the climatology from 1951-1960. Why that period? Because before that period, Co2 was not being accused of what it is accused of now.
You are also presented with the increase in Carbon Dioxide from 1960 on
If carbon dioxide is the main driver of global warming, what should the next 30 years look like? After all, you know LeChateliers’ principle, which says there should be a reaction and then a new equilibrium established. So there should be warming when the stimulus that is causing the warming is introduced, and then a leveling off.
That did not happen for the following 30 years, in fact, it cooled a bit.
.png)
but then it warmed the following 25 years
But what was new? The introduction of increased geothermal input.
.jpg)
How can you ignore this or get outraged by the suggestion it may have something to do with it?
I have shown this dozens of times. There is huge resistance to it, but it is plain to see, that when geothermal input increased, there was a response in the ocean. This indicates Causation. Extra water vapor from that warming, not CO2, is the most likely explanation for the warming. And CO2 did not cause the ocean to warm, in fact the warming may have contributed it to it, Water vapor as the cause was proved in no uncertain terms by the immense amounts of WV put into the air by Tonga and the strong el nino that water vapor is the cause. It led to the highest temperatures in the known record over the last 100 years.
And yet here we are, the world continues to progress despite the best efforts of those that apparently are unaware of the plain facts shown above, or are, and simply lie about them.
There has been great resistance to this hypothesis for some reasons 1) people say I don’t have the data to prove it. It is through no fault of my own, but instead, a bass-ackwards approach that somehow, relative to the entire system in which the ocean is most important, has a laughable setup for reporting data rapidly on what is going on in the ocean, So my idea is based on what I am seeing in the atmosphere that supports an oceanic stimulus.
Also on this
pre-input SST
.png)
now
.png)
This eliminates the CO2 option completely. It has to be the warming of the oceans via the input. You don’t warm a pot of water with a blow drier or a sun lamp, but a stove. Solar is certainly involved, but in the last 35 years it can not be responsible for all this warming. The warming itself creates the imbalance that leads to less cloudiness over the tropics, which also means more incoming solar in those areas. But I can also say my opponents don’t HAVE THE COUNTER TO PROVE ME WRONG. It can’t be CO2 and its too fast for solar.
2) This idea destroys the entire climate change industry on both sides. If we get the answer, there is no need for the argument. No more books. No more grants. No more 93 trillion dollars to fight a phony climate war.
But circling back to the original premise, given the charts above, what would you say? Well, you can say it can’t be CO2. And at the very least, it could be geothermal spreading.
Finally, when confronted with the 93 trillion dollar question as to how to stop the crisis, if presented with this graphic, what is your answer, since it means whatever we are doing is leading to 1/28th the number of deaths with a 4x increase in global population in the last 100 years.
In any case, it is time to stop kowtowing to an agenda that ignores common sense and basic natural factors. The climate campaign has cost this nation much with little or nothing to show for it.