A significant number of fundamental climate science principles are incorrect as the result of force-fitting all climate data, information, and observations into an atmospheric-only framework; a scientific methodology here termed “atmospheric bias“.
For many years, hard-working, dedicated and intelligent climate scientists have utilized atmospheric data in an attempt to decipher the root cause of our planet’s climate and climate-related events.
Utilizing atmospheric data would seem to be an excellent choice for several reasons.
- It is abundant, accurate and collected from differing locations across the entire planet.
- Short term atmospheric parameter trends spanning a few thousand years lend themselves to detailed analysis and comparison.
- Most but not all climate scientists incorrectly assume that finding the truth is best achieved by utilizing accurate, abundant and detailed data.
Discovery that numerous atmospheric parameters correlate with changes in climate and climate-related events has been accepted by most climate experts as proof that many of the fundamental principles of climate science are correct.
However, as is true with many scientific disciplines, correlations are not necessarily proof of root cause or truth.
Here we show that determining the true root cause of many climate and climate-related events is best achieved by interpreting then integrating data and observations from all available climate influencing sources.
The most notable are oceanic, atmospheric, astrological, biological and geological sources.
There are several ways to review evidence supporting this claim: First, do a “Search” here at this website by typing in the words “James Edward Kamis” or by clicking here.
The author’s long-term association with this exemplary free-press organization has provided a platform to post roughly 80 articles documenting the connection between geology and climate.
Secondly, listed below are four widely accepted fundamental climate science principles (italicized) followed by a brief summary describing alternate explanations.
1.) Anomalous modern-day warming of Earth’s oceans and the atmosphere is dominantly the result of solar radiative and anthropogenic forces.
Nearly 100% of ocean warming is the result of heat flow from seafloor geological features especially those associated with reoccurring major 100,000-year astronomical cycles termed (Milankovitch Cycles).
Importantly, 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans with an average depth of 12,100 feet.
Oceans have a much greater capacity to influence atmospheric CO2 concentrations, methane concentrations, and temperatures than solar radiative and anthropogenic forces (see Figure 1, here, here, here, here and here).
By reviewing details of the Figure 1 graph, it becomes obvious that there are a significant number of variations in atmospheric temperature, CO2 concentrations and their relationship to one another.
These variations are very frequent in short time intervals. It’s a mistake not to recognize that these short-term variations in atmospheric parameters are direct or significant indicators behind climate trends.
This is especially true when the influence of other major climate sources is minimized relative to the short time frame of atmospheric variations.
2.) Modern-day increases of El Nino intensity, frequency and magnitude which greatly affect the Earth’s climate are the result of human activities.
Data and observations from many scientific disciplines clearly show that El Ninos and associated La Ninas are the result of seafloor geological forces and not atmospheric forces regardless if they are natural or human-induced.
3.) The currently anomalous rise in Sea Level is the result of anthropogenic warming and portends disastrous flooding of human civilizations.
The Smithsonian Ocean Research Branch states that between 1900 to 1990 sea level rose 0.05 inches per year. In the year 2016, they say sea level rose 0.13 inches (see here).
Information from a Climate Change Dispatch article provides a similar perspective that sea-level rise is not as significant as climate scientists and media outlets state (see here).
These actual sea-level-rise values contradict the currently accepted dialogue that future disastrous sea level rises are a certainty.
Accurate calculation of annual sea-level rise is extremely difficult.
- Measurement of sea level recorded at numerous locations varies from year to year dependent on tidal values, wind direction, ocean temperature, and local atmospheric pressure values. Therefore, the error factor of these measurements is likely greater than the recorded sea-level values rendering them unreliable.
- Natural subsidence/compaction of geographically extensive coastal areas such as river deltas that are composed of soft water-filled sediments resulting in an influx of ocean waters is often misinterpreted as seal level rise.
- Natural elevation rise of geographically extensive coastal areas, for instance, related to Glacial Rebound, is often misinterpreted as a sea-level drop. In these cases, sea level recedes.
Confident projections stating that sea level is about to disastrously rise during the next decade are not supported by reliable evidence and are here thought to border on being misleading with intent.
4.) Data and trends obtained during ancient maximum and minimum extent of ancient Ice Ages do not provide detailed evidence explaining today’s anomalous atmospheric climate trends and events.
The opposite is true as per Figure 1 and an associated Climate Change Dispatch article (see here). This information indicates that the Earth is currently in the midst of an astronomically and geologically induced 100,000-year heat pulse.
A pulse, which is the result of Milankovitch Cycle, activated seafloor geological features that are emitting massive amounts of heat into the overlying ocean.
This warmed ocean that acts to increase atmospheric temperatures, which in concert with the warming oceans, melts mountain glaciers, and sea and continent-wide ice. Exactly what is occurring in modern times therefore very relevant information.
In conclusion, a significant number of fundamental climate science principles are incorrect, primarily the result of atmospheric bias and not incorporating information from oceanic, atmospheric, astrological, biological and geological data.
Determining the root cause of complex climate and climate-related events is difficult however, it can be achieved.
James Edward Kamis is a retired professional Geologist with 42 years of experience, a B.S. in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), an M.S. in geology from Idaho State University (1977), and is a longtime member of AAPG who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. More than 42 years of research/observation have convinced him that Geological forces, especially Earth’s Upper Mantle Convection Systems which drive the dynamics of outer crustal plates, are an important driver of the Earth’s climate as per his Plate Climatology Theory.
Earth image by Alexander Antropov from Pixabay
Mr. B. R. Catt,
Calculating the number and effect of ocean floor geological features such a volcanoes (Seamounts), ocean floor hot geysers (Hydrothermal vents) and faults is difficult and as a result has been a point of debate.
Certainly, estimating the number of geological ocean floor features is an important part of the debate. You may be surprised to know that calculating this number is not the most contentious potion of the debate. Rather, it is determining the combined heat and heated chemically heat flow magnitude emitted from these features relative to atmospheric forces, especially anthropogenic emissions.
Here are few observations and data that may assist in refining your research.
• The estimated number of worldwide ocean floor geological features varies greatly most falling between 500,000 and 1,000,000. This includes geological features such as volcanoes (Seamounts), hot geysers (hydrothermal vents) and faults (often not included in the number of geological features or heat flow rate and magnitude from them).
• Earth’s major ocean floor faults have a cumulative length of 50,000 miles long that act to move continents and oceans floor segments apart, sideways and underneath each other at a rate of 1-1.5 inches per year…the Plate Tectonics / Continental Drift Theory. The force needed to accomplish these movements is gigantic and by my estimates significantly greater than atmospheric forces.
• Major ocean floor faults are home to most of earth’s active ocean floor geological features. For instance, the Pacific Ring of Fire (PRF). It accounts for 90% of earth’s large volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. What scientists don’t typically mention is that most of the PRF’s geological features are located in ocean waters and not on land.
• The climate science community states with no uncertainty that anthropogenic emissions are 100 times greater than all geological emission’s combined, ocean and land. Every climate science article you read will state this. There three very significant problems with their calculation. First, estimation of ocean floor geological emissions is based on only seven or so features or limited groups of features and for a limited duration of time. This is clearly an inadequate number of features, especially knowing there are 1,000,000 ocean floor features…0.0007 %. Second, differing geo-features have greatly differing emission rates and magnitude. Third, recent work by several prominent research organizations and entities have proven that the magnitude CO2 emissions from land volcanoes is not correlatable with volcano size. Therefore, moderate size volcanoes can emit as much CO2 as large volcanoes.
Hope all these sciblings assist in you efforts to refine your research.
Regards,
J. E. Kamis
DEar James
So glad you popped up here :-).
I took in your earlier work when doing my own research. As far as short term change on the hundreds of years cycle the frequency analysis of the actual observations by Ludecke and Weiss clearly shows three main cycles as causal, and NO evidence of monotonic activity that must be present for any AGW effect to have occurred in the recent past. “All we see is cycles”. These cycles correspond closely to the known solar cycles clearly identified by the Fourier analysis of cosmogenic particles that groups like Shaviv and the Svensmarks have majored on. Although the solar cycle data I refer to is from Steinhilber (2009), also re stated graphically by Nicola Scaffeta. In case you have not seen the presentation from 2015:
… the paper from 2017 gives more detail and covers the main 1,000 year cycle better.
DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
As for MIlankovitch effects, I suggest that have delivered both the much longer ice age cycles in combination, and this cannot be caused by insolation variation, , as insolation over one year is balanced out for the 100Ka cycle, so have to be gravitational effects of maximum solid tides where the gravitational effects of planetary solid twerking have an effect on daily seismic activity that
remains at a maximum over thousands of years.
I wrote a paper describing this using recent data, that I am now re writing to get past the editors who only publish climate change = AGW = CO2 papers. Sadly most volcanic activity related papers from consensual academe limit volcanic effects to emitted CO2 causing climate change or short term cooling due to atmospheric particulates that the natural oceanic response quickly balances out, , the attributions are obviously unquantified, just assertion, they ven delude themselves itno suggesting that inter glacials cause the known increase in volcanicity during interglacials, clearly the more likely reverse effect is beyond their abilities to conceptualise.
Having decided on a theory I set about trying to find if there was enough data to quantify a likely effect. I was lucky in that my crude efforts were informed by two key papers that have made good estimates of the absolute emission rate of submarine volcanoes, and their variabilty with MIlankovitch cycles. The data had recently become available, but the imlications remain unrecognised, because, L like the reality of nature presented by LUdecke and Weiss, they don’t fit the consensual narrative.
I suggest the increase of submarine volcanic activity is easily capable o driving an interglacial on its own, to the c. 30 deg daytime flat line of the tropics, where negative feedback to all SST change from evaporation and cloud formation is greatest, and seasonal climate variability is more about the level of evaporation than the small change in temperature during the year. etc
Hope you enjoy my effort. The essence is the abstract, intro and conclusions. And the the three data tables. Thee re writes for truth avoiding journals have messed up the flow, so I am reducing it to the core statements regarding the quantification of magma’s effect based on the observations of rate and variability, and the probable cause, reducing the discussion of the factors eliminated and why.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
NB: I am of the opinion that the current emissions may be less than I first calculated, and the increase at 100Ka maximums is greater than doubling. I need an estimate from Kutterolf on this. So the increase in emissions must then be greater from a smaller off peak minimum. The energy in Kutterolf’s power spectrum suggests to me this is likely.
Primarily this is because the estimate I have made using the data of White as regards submarine volcano output, which my own estimates also support, and the extrapolated population density guess of the Univesity of Oregon, which may be over stated at 75,000 over 1km and 1 million altogether, creates enough magma entering the oceans to produce a 0.8mm pa rise…… I assumed 100,000 large/main cycle volcanoes. So I suggest the number of volcanoes hence total rate of emissions is more like half the amount I estimate, which requires a quadrupling of emissions at maximum eccentricity, and reduces the effect on ocean rise to current levels. It also suggests much of the observed ocean rise MUST be due to magma intrusion onto the ocean floor. Hot rocks meeting cold ocean will both warm it and raise its level. Obs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
I still remember their Save the Rain Forests campaign back in the 1990’S it was all big time scam just like with this Global warming/Climate Change campiagn’s a big time scam
Mr. B. Bateman,
Thank you for expressing interest in the CCD article. Concerning Milankovitch Cycles (MC’s), research by La-Mount Doherty showed that the begining of MC’s correlates with increased tectonism (geological activity) across the entire planet. The majority of this increased geological activity occcurs along major seafloor faults. It is likely that the begining of MC’s significantly increases gravitational stress on many of earth’s rock layers, especially the outer rock layer, which is home to the major seafloor faults. This increased gravitational stress is what triggers the increased geological activity. As is discussed in the CCD article these activated sea floor faults emmit huge amounts of heat, methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.
Certainly differences in the suns radiation magnitude affect atmospheric temperature, no question. However, it seems more probable that geologically warmed oceans control the majority of changes to our climate and climate related events.
Regards,
J. E. Kamis
Thanks for bringing a little reality to today’s modern-day climate paranoia. Milankovitch Eccentricity describes the natural changes of earth’s orbit from near circular to a more elongated ellipsoidal (greater average distance from the sun). It is by far the most powerful influence of the Pleistocene/Holocene ongoing ice age. Today’s temperatures are about average for our Holocene interglacial – normal and natural. Heinrick Svensmark’s work on the relationship between clouds and cosmic rays show great promise in explaining cloud density’s rhythmic and natural effect on climate. He’s even made a movie! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&t=498s
An example of the atmosphere bias of climate science.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/03/antarctica-rainforest/
Their putting Politics and Money over real science and real solutions