Factoring in water vapor

Of course, if you are the opposite, you might believe this:

Shock! It comes from The Atlantic. What they love to do is get snippets of the truth, then refuse to show the whole picture.

And while this does not apply to you, dear reader, you can’t fix stupid when there is a good dose of dogma driving it.

Climate models struggle to accurately predict climate patterns because they are primarily designed to detect warming trends. As I’ll demonstrate in a future blog post, these models are ill-equipped to anticipate cooling periods. When faced with a potential cold spell, they simply adjust their feedback mechanisms, reset to a new warm baseline, and continue projecting upward temperature trends. This limitation stems from their inadequate representation of oceanic heat dynamics.

In reality,  climate models can’t keep up with what is happening in a precise way because temperatures are a 3rd derivative metric.  Wet bulb temperatures are much better, and saturation mixing ratios quantify much better what we should be looking at. Fat chance we would measure that, because it would become apparent CO2 has little if anything to do with the climate. The focus on temperature as the primary indicator of climate—and the associated narrative of impending climate catastrophe pushed by certain agendas—is misguided. This narrative seems to serve those with no productive purpose, who seek to impose top-down control or harbor a messianic complex craving for worship and power, sustained by years of relentless propaganda. Water vapor, in fact, accounts for nearly all of the observed phenomena.

The reluctance to deploy extensive, deep-reaching data collection devices across the oceans—where the heat originates—is telling. Current efforts, like buoys placed down to 6,000 feet every 100,000 square miles, are woefully insufficient given the oceans’ critical role. This resistance resembles a religious stance: unquestioning and dismissive of challenges. Much like debating an evolutionist who might argue that a slow progression from monkey to man implies a flawed or nonexistent deity, the climate modeling community often sidesteps evidence that could expand their understanding.

The relationship between water vapor and temperature offers a factor that contributes to what we observe.

Of course it does not take Nobel Prizes or PHDs, real or not, to see that relationship, which would be scary to anyone relying on some great mystery to continue their missive.  In fact, someone who got a D in geology can see this, though it likely would mean his reason to fly around in CO2 spewing private jets would be done.

As I’ve highlighted in at least 20 prior blog posts, water vapor strongly correlates with significant temperature increases, particularly in the coldest, driest regions. For instance, an increase of just 0.1 gram/kg of water vapor at -40°F can lead to a 10-degree temperature rise. This occurs because, in areas with minimal energy, even a small input can produce a large temperature shift—temperature being a measure of energy. In contrast, the same energy input in a hot, energy-rich environment barely registers. This dynamic elegantly explains why current warming patterns resemble those of the Medieval Warm Period.

Just look at Arctic temperatures. Almost all warming is in the coldest time of the year, when water vapor increase would have its greatest impact. It’s still frigid, just well above normal. And at the time of the year it is warmest (temperatures average about 33), there is no warming.  While you may not get as much ice increase in the winter, you don’t have more melting in the summer.

The temperature spike over the past two years can be readily attributed to a powerful Warm ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) event, known to cause abrupt increases, combined with the significant water vapor injected into the atmosphere by the Tonga eruption. Earlier temperature jumps can similarly be understood as the result of accumulated oceanic heat, which is then released during intense El Niño events. These events are triggered as a response to imbalances driven by ongoing ocean warming. We can see this by looking at Dr. Roy Spencer’s chart, which I have added. (Note: I do not know if Dr. Roy agrees, and I know he does not agree with my idea that since geothermal spreading started in the late 1980s, this might be a possible explanation for cumulative build up and the strong Niño response and corresponding rise.  I am a big fan of Dr. Roy and understand his skepticism. So the chart is simply me pointing out these step ups.)

1 is the 97-98 Super Niño

2 is the 15-16 Super Niño

3 is the recent double shot of water vapor love, the strong El Niño with Tonga

The fact that the oceans were still overall cold from the 1950s to 1980s should raise one’s curiosity about what happened in the late 1980’s and on to have caused them to warm. I have discussed that many times, so I won’t here. Suffice it to say, the impact of CO2 on ocean warming, given the the known saturation of the so called “feedback bands” from 1951 and on, coincides with the step ups that started occurring almost 40 years later when geothermal appeared on the scene.

Steady state rise of CO2, but the oceans were still cool all those years.

Again, for kicks and giggles, the geothermal input that preceded the rise, also a hint of causation.

You don’t have to believe this; I have found that many do not. Fine. We will get our test if we see the geothermal drops off and then the oceans follow.  There is likely to be other natural forces and simply a cyclical intersection of what could be a multi-decade or even century long pattern.

BUT IT’S NOT CO2, but rather water vapor that is put into the air that may be the larger driver.

If you genuinely believe that CO2 is the primary driver of current warming or could somehow overshadow natural forces, you might fit into that group I mentioned earlier—those with no real purpose, no way to earn a living, or an urge to impose control from above. Or, as I’m starting to suspect, maybe it’s some messianic complex craving for worship and power, fueled by years of relentless propaganda. It’s not like we haven’t seen that before in the course of human history.

For a couple of years, I’ve been tossing around a hypothesis that’s finally nearing a test phase. There are signs that geothermal activity might be tapering off. But here’s the kicker: The data is so delayed it’s ridiculous—I’ve got to wait four months just to see 2024’s numbers. It’s almost like it’s intentional. This could explain why the oceans are heating up, yet we’re stuck twiddling our thumbs. Regardless of what you think about that, the notion that climate models can nail down warming predictions without accounting for natural water vapor inputs is laughable. The recent warming spike proves CO2 isn’t the culprit—it obliterates that theory entirely. The surge happened right alongside a massive water vapor injection from the Tonga eruption and a strong El Niño.

Water vapor is an important driver of temperature. The ocean is pumping out that water vapor. We need to figure out what’s heating the ocean—and no, you don’t have to take my word for it. The latest data shows the impact of CO2 has been exaggerated.  In that data, you have your answer.

So, adapt and move forward. Which I am sure CFACT readers think is a good idea.