The 2014-2016 El Ni√±o “warm blob” was created, maintained, and is now being partially recharged by massive pulses of super-heated and chemically charged seawater from deep ocean geological features. Manmade atmospheric global warming had nothing to do with this El Ni√±o, nor any previous El Ni√±o.
A summary of the four lines of thinking supporting this claim are as follows; consistent failure of El Ni√±o / La Nina forward-looking computer models, very good correlation of western Pacific Ocean strong earthquake occurrences to El Ni√±o onset, the short term “eruptive” nature of El Ni√±o ocean warming, and the very unique / one of a kind shape of El Ni√±o warm blobs. This article will review each of these lines of thinking to start with the failed El Ni√±o / La Nina computer models.
Supposedly state of the art computer climate models have failed to properly predict the timing and intensity of El Ni√±o warming, La Nina cooling, and of late El Ni√±o Partial Re-Warming (Figure 1). The progression of failed predictions during the last two years has caught everyone’s attention and can be paraphrased as follows; “El Ni√±o has not started…oops it actually has started, El Ni√±o will last 12 months…oops 14 months, when El Ni√±o ends it will be followed by a strong La Nina…oops a weak La Nina…oops no La Nina just normal conditions”, and finally “not sure what is happening will get back to you”.
It is now extremely obvious that something is very wrong with the current multi-billion dollar mainstream El Ni√±o / La Nina climate analysis process, including the highly touted and often cited computer models. This analysis work is funded in large part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). To be perfectly clear the problem is not the working level staff because these are highly qualified, motivated, and well-intentioned / apolitical scientists. Additionally, the problem is not the amount of data these folks run through their highly sophisticated computer programs.
So what is the problem? They are analyzing / inputting the wrong type of data! When searching for a cause or a timing of an El Ni√±o event‚Äìincluding the current one‚ÄìNASA and NOAA scientists are only utilizing atmospheric and oceanic data. Their computer models are loaded with just atmospheric and oceanic data. All of this data is here contended to be secondary in nature, it is side effect data that is not directly associated with the root cause of anomalous El Ni√±o / La Nina cycles.
One example of how this works is as follows. Anomalous geological forces, specifically chemically charged and super-heated deep ocean seafloor fluid flow, heat the overlying ocean column thereby directly generating an El Ni√±o warm blob. This heated warm blob then indirectly affects the overlying atmosphere in many ways such as altering the trade winds. NASA and NOAA scientists have observed these changes in trade winds and incorrectly assumed they are one of the important root causes of El Ni√±o generation. They take this side affect trade wind data study it, then they computer model it, and then make predictions. When the model fails they add more trade wind data or other side effect data. This process is inherently incorrect and consistently fails.
Next, let’s discuss the correlation of western Pacific Ocean strong earthquake occurrences to El Ni√±o onset. In February 2014 (Figure 2), there wasn’t any sign of anomalous El Ni√±o warming in the key / telling area just west of Central America. No bright red and therefore warmed ocean in this area on the SST Map. Beginning in April of 2014, a significant swarm of high magnitude earthquakes occurred in the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island region. This swarm was related to a shift in the large deep-sea hot lava chamber beneath this region (see here). By May 2014, (Figure 3), an El Ni√±o had formed. Note the bright red / super-heated ocean areas across the entire breadth of Pacific Ocean the SST map.
In February of 2015, the emerging El Ni√±o had diminished a small amount in response to diminished flow from the deep-earth hot lava chamber beneath the origin point as per Figure 4. Beginning in May of 2015, a second, and as it turns out a more significant, swarm of high-magnitude earthquakes occurred in the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island region. This swarm signified another and larger movement in the deep-earth lava pocket. This reactivation of the magma chamber initiated a stronger and longer-lasting, chemically charged, super-heated fluid flow pulse. By June 2015, as per Figure 5, the 2014-2016 El Ni√±o was in full warming mode.
The correlation or western Pacific Ocean earthquakes to El Ni√±o onset has also been tracked back historically by utilizing earthquakes data from the Solomon Islands area which is the geological Heat Source Point on all this articles figures. This process has yielded an excellent correlation.
The El Ni√±o ocean warming process occurs in very short “eruptive” bursts (Figure 6) and not in a uniform constant fashion. These bursts all originate at the same limited and fixed non-moving geographical point in the far-western Pacific Ocean. Once a burst of warm ocean water forms it maintains its shape and intensity as it is progressively moved by normal ocean currents eastward toward Central America. These bursts are here interpreted as geologically induced fluid flow pulses from fractured rock layers above a deep earth magma chamber. Deep ocean magma chambers, like land volcanoes, erupt in pulses. Eruptions of land volcanoes chemically charge and heat the atmosphere. Eruptions / activations of the Solomon Island / Papua New Guinea deep ocean magma chamber located at the Heat Source Point act to chemically charge and heat the overlying ocean. This is a significant part of the geologically induced formation of El Ni√±o’s.
The eruptive heat pulses can be viewed on a time-lapse video of all Pacific Ocean 2015 SST maps generated by the Computational Information Systems Lab (see here).
A significant portion of the proof supporting a geological forces origin to El Ni√±o’s appears in previous Climate Change Dispatch articles that discuss many factors including the unique and one of a kind shape of all El Ni√±o warm blobs. The reader is directed here, here, and here to access these articles or to the Addendum 1 at the bottom of this article for a shorter and more concise summary of the salient facts and observations.
In summary, the 2014-2016 El Ni√±o “warm blob” was created, maintained, and is now being partially recharged by massive pulses of super-heated and chemically charged seawater from deep ocean geological features. Manmade atmospheric global warming had nothing to do with this El Ni√±o, nor any previous El Ni√±o. This contention is backed by substantial information and acts to strengthen the Plate Climatology Theory which states that geological forces are greatly underestimated driver of Earth’s climate and many climate-related events.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “we learn geology the morning after the earthquake”. It is time to open our minds to the possibility that “learning” geology also includes studying how it affects other related natural sciences, for instance, climate.
James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 42 years with a B.S. and M.S. in geology who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. More than 11 years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate. The Plate Climatology Theory (plateclimatology.com) was recently presented at the annual 2016 American Metrological Society Conference in New Orleans, LA. (see here)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3734853/The-world-s-hidden-volcanoes-Stunning-images-reveal-underwater-lava-flows-mesmerising-detail.html (Mid-Atlantic Ridge Huge Lava Flows Research, we know very little about 70% of Earth’s active volcanoes))
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545HYPERLINK “http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=44586″&HYPERLINK “http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=44586″tid=3622HYPERLINK “http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=44586″&HYPERLINK “http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=44586″cid=44586
- All El Ni√±o’s originate at the same fixed “Point Source” located east of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Fixed point sources a typical of geological features, and not typical of ever moving atmospheric or ocean current energy sources.
- The Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island area is the most geologically active (volcanic eruptions and earthquakes), and complex deep-ocean region on earth.
- The shape / map pattern of El Ni√±o sea surface temperature anomalies are unique / one of a kind. These shapes do not match every changing atmospheric or ocean current shapes / map patterns.
- The El Ni√±o sea surface temperature anomalies have “linear” and “intense” boundaries inferring that the energy source is fixed at one point, and is very powerful.
- The shape / distribution pattern of super-heated fluid flow from fixed point source deep-ocean hydrothermal vents is a very good mini-analogy of the larger El Ni√±o ocean warming shapes / distribution patterns.
- The shape / distribution pattern of fluid flow from fixed point source large continental / dry land volcanic eruptions is a fair analogy of El Ni√±o ocean warming patterns.
- The amount of energy needed to generate an El Ni√±o can be mathematically modeled using a 20 by 30 mile volcanically / earthquake active deep-ocean area (“point source”). The measured energy released from the Yellowstone Plateau, a 20 by 30-mile area, is a good mathematical analogy.
- El Ni√±o’s do not occur in a predictable historical pattern, rather they occur randomly. This is indicative of a geological forces origin such as volcanic eruptions which are not predictable.
- El Ni√±o like events does not occur elsewhere in Pacific. Why? If they are atmospheric in origin, there should at least be other mini-El Ni√±o’s. There are none.
- La Ni√±as originate from same fixed point source as El Ni√±o’s. This implies both are geological in nature. La Nina’s representing the cooling fluid flow phase from a geological feature.
- Atmospherically based El Ni√±o computer prediction models consistently fail, likely because they are modeling the “effects” of geologically warmed oceans and not the root “cause” of the El Ni√±o’s.
- Historical records indicate that the first “recorded” El Ni√±o occurred in 1525 observed by Spanish explorers. Other studies suggest strong ancient El Ni√±o’s ended Peruvian civilizations. The main point here is that strong El Ni√±o’s are natural, and not increasing in relationship to global warming as contended by many climate scientists.