A study released in January 2020 by the Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, claims that the world’s oceans are warming at the same rate as if five atomic bombs were dropped into the sea every second.
When the Earth’s core enters an exothermic cycle, the Earth’s air-conditioning heat pump gets less efficient.
I read a very interesting study that a friend forwarded to me yesterday, one which piqued my interest in summarizing some of the research I have done over the last ten years regarding climate change. Yes, it is generally acknowledged by mainstream science and society at large that our planet’s oceans are heating very fast.1 2 The result of this warming is an increasingly unhealthy environment for our ocean’s flora, fishes, microbiota, mollusks, crustaceans, and fauna.3 To varying degrees, this emergent condition threatens everything which lives on planet Earth. The vast preponderance of scientists agree that we are well underway on the sixth mass, or what could be reasonably titled, Anthropocene Extinction. Much of this the result of extreme and recent climate change brought about through man’s activity.
Now before reviewing this article, I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, before getting one’s more-sciencey-than-thou Underoos all askew and succumbing to the temptation to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label, understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind. I have worked harder than the vast majority on this planet inside issues targeting mitigation of volatile organic compounds, alkanes, methane, carbon monoxide and dioxide contribution on the part of mankind. I have conducted professional studies regarding the value chain of carbon inside the economy, and have developed businesses and worked to change markets, with a principal focus of mitigating carbon contribution by the various industries involved. I am gravely concerned about human contribution to the stark rise in global temperatures now obviously underway.
Second, what I am summarizing in very short form herein stems from hundreds of hours of research and literally multiple hundreds of references which I cannot possibly compile into this blog article by coherent sequence – without sacrificing the ability to deliver its core message. This is a summary of my analysis, observations, and thoughts, all of which I have developed on this issue over time. It is meant to provide a framework of sponsorship behind an idea which I have slowly formulated.
This article is not a ‘claim’; rather it constitutes an appeal for deductive hypothesis sponsorship – a distinction taught in the philosophy of ethics and science – framed particularly for the instance where an existing singular epistemology is based solely upon inductive inference.4 5
This petition regards a construct, a critical path of observation-to-inference which now aspires to be developed into real hypothesis. As such, this work is not posed under a pretense of residing at the level of a broad-scope scientific research effort. To do full justice inside this argument would require a great deal more research on the part of mainstream science. However, one can anticipate herein a greater depth of schema and level of sourcing recitation as compared to the standard media article. My hope is that you find this article both challenging and refreshing. Please understand that its purpose is a petition for Ockham’s Razor plurality, and not any insistence (claim) as to a conclusive single answer. This idea is not posed as a denial of anthropogenic induced climate change. Therefore, I am not a ‘climate change denier’. Do not trust anyone who mindlessly employs such weaponized pejoratives, as it is their malicious conduct which is serving to create a mistrust of climate science to begin with.
If what I propose here as a supplementary contributor to climate change theory begins to explain more completely what we are observing globally – then the construct will have served its purpose. Further then, it is my opinion that its core kinetic-energy-derivation argument bears soundness, salience, elegance, logical calculus, and compelling explanatory power – key prerequisites of true hypothesis. Despite its need for further development and maturation, this argument should not be ignored through our polarization over this issue politically. We need fewer children with scowling faces, fewer leftist enforcement squads, and more unbiased thinking adults addressing this challenge.
The key issue entailed inside this argument is that of observed lithosphere and hydrosphere (oceans) heat increases, and these measures far-outpacing what atmospheric carbon capture models have predicted or could serve to induce.6 This is the critical path issue at hand.
Part of The Heat May Indeed Be Coming from Beneath Our Feet
I am not a climate scientist – however, nor am I carrying anyone’s water on this issue. I do not possess an implicit threat to my career if I say something forbidden or research an embargoed idea. During some of my agricultural and green energy work a number of peripheral observations I made have begun to linger in my mind over time. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing, and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. These notions stem as well from my time heading an exotic materials research company, and from working with several US oil exploration companies to reduce natural gas emissions. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.
In short, my alternative idea could be titled: ‘The Heat May in Part Be Coming from Beneath our Feet’. Its exegesis (at the end of this article), derived from a series of nine primary independent observations in order of critical path dependence and increasing inferential strength, follows:
Observation 1 (Inductive-Heteroductive-Introduces Plurality) – Fall to Winter CO2 Rise Exhibits a Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice Pause Which Should Not Exist if All PPM is Generated by Man Alone – Covid-19 Industrial Shutdown Served to Produce Two Critical Path Heteroductive Observations
The chart I developed to the right depicts the annual normalized cycling of carbon parts per million (PPM, ppm) as measured at the Earth’s northern hemisphere Mauna Loa observatory (blue bars) as compared to the annual geographic latitude position of the sun (orange sinusoidal line).7 8 9 One can observe the strong consumption of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which occurs each spring and into the summer, upon the annual greening of the northern hemisphere. Take note here as to the raw power which nature and forestation in particular possess in mitigating atmospheric carbon, if left alone to do their work.10 This trend is mostly solar-photosynthesis induced as its regression matches the latitudinal declination regression of the sun each year almost exactly (the summer months in the graph). Each year however, we experience a surplus between carbon generated and the carbon which plants and algae consume (difference between the magnitude of the peak on the left and the trough on the right in blue bars) – thereby causing an annual overage in our planet’s carbon budget, if you will – a deficit which accumulates and does not go away (observable in the carbon ppm and temperature graph below).
Now consider for a moment this parallel sympathetic trend between the solar latitude (declination) and the carbon ppm mitigation effect of northern hemisphere foliage in the spring and summer – and notice that this same parallel sympathetic trend is violated in the winter months for the northern hemisphere. If one examines the right-hand side of the carbon ppm bars (15 Dec – 15 Jan), there exists a taper off (flattening of ppm slope) in Carbon contribution which occurs annually each time the sun hits its most southerly latitudes – a feature which is not a signature of economic activity, as man does not just stop producing carbon in the winter and in fact produces more carbon for heating dwellings and massive levels of travel. Rather, I propose that this flatter ppm slope stems from an annual winter-cessation in solar heating of the high northerly-latitude permafrost, tundra, and shallow oil formations (such as exist in Russia and between Alaska and Texas). Deeper geostrata, features, and biomes which are already hotter than in the past, because of some separate influence than merely solar radiation capture. In other words, the pace of methane and carbon emission is synced very heavily with the sun’s geographic latitude – almost exclusively. One can see this inside the graph’s carbon ppm slope differential between the winter solstice period as compared to the vernal equinox period. The slope in carbon ppm is clearly less, during a time when its magnitude should actually be higher. This mandates plurality on the subject. Something in the northern regions of the globe responds in very sensitive ppm relationship with the rising of the sun’s geographic latitude across the Vernal Equinox (1 Mar – 15 Apr). An effect magnitude which is significantly larger than the carbon effect imbued through man’s activity during that same period.
Experiment: 2020 CoV-SA2RS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1A
In similar perspective, let’s examine the recent global industrial shutdown which was necessitated by our Coronavirus 2019 SARS-2 pandemic. Most of Europe, Asia and North America were shut down during the March – June 2020 time frame. During that same time frame however, the globe observed the most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years of data.11 One can observe this by means of the red dotted-line slope in the chart to the right (21 Mar – 30 May). The coronavirus incidence and shutdown periods are marked along the timeline as well, in the form of PCR-detection arrival curves for China and the US. Most of the industrialized northern hemisphere shut down commensurate with the United States detection curve, as depicted on this chart (and two to three weeks prior as well). Notice as well if you will, the US Energy Information Administration data on liquid fuels consumed globally for this same time period (red line on lower portion of chart).12 Just as our global use of fossil fuels for power, transportation, and industry hit their lowest impact-use of the coronavirus lockdown – at this very same moment in time, carbon dioxide ppm were posting a record 45-year increase (~May 15).
How does such a record CO2 ppm increase occur during a global industrial shutdown, if it is indeed industry which is the primary source of this CO2? In fact, how does this record CO2 ppm increase occur during that time frame, if indeed 47% of global greenhouse gas producing economies are shut down that entire time?13 A resurgence in Chinese activity (standalone 27.5% of carbon contribution) alone cannot explain this ppm rebound. The implication is of course, that another factor is playing into the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A factor which is highly sensitive to the sun heating our northerly landmass (67% of global landmass). Now while this heating occurs every year – one very plausible reason (among very few candidates) it is most recently ranging into higher and higher levels of unrecoverable CO2 release, is because this solar-heated source of CO2 (and methane?) is already hotter in its ‘winter’ than compared to previous years/decades/centuries.
Just as the entire world was burning fossil fuels at a record depressed rate
at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
at that same exact time the planet ironically observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years.
Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B
Now follow this experiment to its next inferential step. From June 2018 through to the end of 2020, humans emitted significantly lower CO2 than in the most recent years. One can observe this in the chart to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe.14 As we saw in the previous chart in Observation 1A, this was due unequivocally to China’s reaction to something which caused it to shut down industrial activity during that 2.5-year duration. Despite this sustained exceptional lower trend in CO2 emissions, curiously the Earth also happened to experience its hottest non-El Niño year on record in 2020.15
This was explained away with no study nor ability to forecast whatsoever, as stemming from the following: “global shutdowns related to the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic reduced particulate air pollution in many areas, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface and producing a small but potentially significant warming effect.”16 The credibility of climate models was severely strained with this form of ad hoc rescue. If 2.5 years of lower CO2 emissions also causes global temperatures to rise, then what are we doing? And why did we not know that this would occur in advance? Our models should have indicated this through ergodicity, yet they did not. We are broaching pseudo-theory with such an apologetic method. A theory which quickly explains everything a posteriori without any relevant research, likely explains nothing.
At the very same time as carbon emissions were depressed (from June 2018) through the end of 2020,
the Earth experienced its hottest year on record.
Even more disconcerting, our models did not predict this
and we explained it only after the fact through an ad hoc apologetic, not science.
Now combine the dynamics of these two natural experiments, 1A ad 1B in your mind for a moment.
The largest rise in atmospheric carbon ppm in 45 years came right on the heels of the hottest year on record, and during the vernal equinox timeframe (for the Northern Hemisphere) – in other words, the carbon increase followed the temperature rise, maintained its normal seasonal arrival distribution, and did not precede that heat increase. Moreover, all of this occurred during a climate change activist’s dream scenario, one in which global fossil fuel consumption was down 16% (~47% in western nations, the villains in this play) – and should have produced a sizeable and measurable effect in ppm and/or temperature, neither of which manifested (except carbon ppm in China alone).
Simply because a professional has memorized the abductive, static, and average metrics of a system, does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century believing falsely that obesity was simply a matter of personal caloric balance – and completely missed the entailed systemic injury. The injured stakeholders had to drag the professionals, kicking and screaming, into fully understanding their own discipline. Especially when victim-blaming and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘Watts per square meter’ figures, as if they know anything through recitation of static indices. This is nothing but chest-thumping and intimidation. Systems theory demands a completely different mindset and analytical approach.
Now that you have done that, let’s proceed onward through this chain of critical-path inference regarding system dynamics.
Observation 2 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature Rises and Are Accelerating – Man’s Carbon-Producing Activity is Linear and of Insufficient Slope to Drive This
In order to understand this correlation mismatch, one must understand what is occurring in the chart to the right. The two regressions – regressions of both Y-axis 1 – ΔT or global temperature anomaly and Y-axis 2 – Mauna Loa measured carbon ppm – are aligned manually and made congruent so as to remove any reference range bias. This allows the reader to make observation in perspective to a tight relationship between carbon ppm measures at the Mauna Loa NOAA observatory and the global temperature increases since 1958.17 18 But one must remember that this apparent tight relationship is forced by me, through an annual and necessary adjustment of the two-axis regression alignment. If I apply this same regression alignment (the straight line in the graphic to the right) to other timeframes as well, suddenly the two curves do not match up as cleanly.
However, of key note even inside this clean and annually re-aligned graphic are several observations:
- Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing by a square law. A square law means that two carbon emission considerations or more are underway, not just one: the carbon contributor itself and the mechanism of impetus behind its acceleration. This because,
- Economic activity levels on the part of man are not increasing by a square function – nor even this fast in slope. Moreover, there was no slowdown in carbon ppm trends attributable to the global economic depression from 2008 – 2012.
- Global temperature increases are rising linearly, while carbon ppm amounts appear to be chasing (dependent on) this trend by means of a responsive acceleration (linear anthropocentric and unacknowledged natural acceleration serving a square law increase)
- There is no acceleration-to-acceleration relationship anywhere inside this relational data. There is one discrete change in temperature trend at 1965, a trend which remains linear thereafter – yet carbon ppm are in continuous acceleration. Therefore, their only viable mechanism is dependency, not independence as a variable.
In other words – global temperature increases appear to be leading carbon ppm increases – and are not solely generated by them. Otherwise, we would observe a mutual acceleration, which simply does not exist in the data. Atmospheric carbon certainly will also serve to increase global temperatures – however this effect appears to be drowned out by another primary temperature change impetus. In model terminology, the heat is behaving like a strong independent input variable and not a constrained-dependent output result. The point is that – another source of global heating may be evident here – and we have ignored this, possibly to our peril. This is a very critical difference in observation from most of the material I have reviewed in the media.
Observation 3 (Deductive-Confirms Plurality) – Ceres EBAF measures of Earth’s Reemergent Albedo are Higher Than They Should Be – Indicating Earth is Not CO2-Capturing as Much Heat as Climate Models Require
If one insists on using average watts per square meter measures to prove out a case for a specific model of climate change which involves atmospheric carbon trapping solar radiation – then that model prediction should be confirmed by observing a commensurate reduction in the reemergent albedo of Earth as observed from space. In other words, if our atmosphere traps solar radiation at a greater rate than in the past, then quod erat demonstrandum we should observe a 100% commensurate reduction in that radiation which reemerges from Earth’s atmosphere back into space. The problem is, that we are not observing this commensurate level of albedo reduction.
A 2017 study by scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller published in the Journal of Environment Pollution and Climate Change elicits that the albedo of Earth has not diminished at a level sufficient to explain nor corroborate 100% of the GISTEMP global increase in temperatures (the data I used for the escalation graph in Observation 2 above). One can observe this comparative in the graphic to the right – rights held by and extracted from publications by Dr. Nikolov and Zeller.19 While Nikolov and Zeller propose that atmospheric pressure is the actual mechanism which is primarily sensitive-causal to global temperatures – it is clear in the Ceres EBAF data that too much solar radiation is being reflected/re-expressed back into space, sufficient and necessary to explain 100% of global temperature increases via a carbon capture model.
Two voices of support have been expressed by prominent client scientists as to this need for a new explanatory model for the excess heat in the Earth’s atmosphere which cannot be explained by radiation capture models.20 Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired chief of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, is among those who express support for pursuing a new model which bears explanatory power for these findings.
The paper by Nikolov and Zeller is exceptionally interesting, a big step forward, and probably a door-opener to a new ‘paradigm’.Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired chief of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University
Professor Philip Lloyd with the Energy Institute at South Africa’s Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) also expressed support for the idea.
Nikolov’s work is very interesting, and I think the underlying physics is sound… However, they face the question, if not carbon dioxide, what is it?Philip Lloyd with the Energy Institute at South Africa’s Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Read on, and I believe that what is proposed herein stands as a reasonable case for sponsorship at to what is causing this temperature increase above and beyond what Earth albedo measures and stand-alone carbon capture impacts can substantiate.
Plurality is Now Necessary Under Ockham’s Razor
The inference to be drawn from Observations 1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 above supports the construct (pre-hypothesis) that something else may be driving the production of CO2 and methane emissions into the atmosphere aside from simply man. That something else is
a. a strong independent input variable which is already hotter than historical without external impetus,
b. functions independent of carbon and methane emissions, and
c. is at the same time causing the planet’s oceans to warm at a rate unachievable through man’s activity alone.
This heat is behaving like a strong independent input variable and not constrained-dependent output result. If climate heat is a constrained-dependent output, and we have sufficient grasp of its dynamics to begin to blame specific companies, peoples and countries for climate change, then our models necessarily should have predicted this 2020 temperature rise phenomenon as well. Yet our models were not successful in doing so. This is inductive (heteroductive) inference to be sure, but is also strong enough in terms of inferential merit to introduce plurality. Something is wrong in the epistemic sauce, and the 2020 Covid-19 experiment demonstrated this in spades. We are now compelled to introduce plurality, no matter how many fake skeptic tantrums this serves to elicit.
The next question along such a critical path of inquiry would be, from whence does this ‘already hotter’ heat derive? We believe that the answer can be drawn as inference from the next six critical path and deductive observational elements, which follow.
Observation 4 (Deductive-Consilient-Introduces Critical Path) – Mean Sea Level is Rising Yes – But MSL Variance Range is Also Increasing (and Should Not Be) – Global Ocean Current Speed has Increased by 15% Over that Same Timeframe
I took a sample of forty-five years’ worth of NOAA Tidal Station mean sea level (MSL) data from the tidal stations at Annapolis, Maryland, Bar Harbor, Maine and Montauk, New York.21 You can observe this compiled data in the graph to the right. I chose three geographically proximal sea and temperature monitoring stations in order to observe any common signal inside their data. But three also with sufficient variance in terrain so that constrictions from geographic coastal formations did not come into play within the MSL range data. The critical path issue involved regards the red variance-range bands surrounding the mean sea level rise.
Yes, it is clear that mean sea level (MSL) is rising – and this does concern me greatly. But mean sea level ranges differently by year, based on the timing of the moon. The magnitude of this variance range itself should not increase over forty-five years (and the gamut of lunar periodicity), under a simple rise-in-sea-level scenario. Yet it is. The variance range of the annual MSL is itself increasing. There exists only a very small set of possibilities by which this can occur over a large geographic region (as sampled above) – that is by a change in the position of the Moon (which we know has not occurred), a change in height (altitude) of the landmass or local ocean bottom, or by a change in local upper mantle gravitational effect upon the ocean immediately above it. Or are these indeed the only possibilities? Let’s think outside the box a little bit more.
As a sailor and navigator who is familiar with and has employed mean sea level measures for decades, the migration in this variance phenomenon bothers me enormously. One can observe in the orange bars in the graph to the right, that the variance range of the annual MSL for the three monitoring stations shown has increased by 25% over 45 years. This is a monumental and recent change in a factor/measure which should not change at all – or cannot change without a commensurate change in geophysics. One thing I noticed during my years of estimating tidal speeds and bridge-to-mast clearances for my various vessels, is that MSL variance is heavily related to the speed of local ocean currents. The MSL variance for the Sea of Marmara near the Bosporus Strait is going to be much greater than is that of Norfolk, Virginia for instance. What if ocean current speeds are the impetus behind this increase in MSL variance at locations where it should not change at all? A permanent increase in ocean current speed could easily cause a dilation of the MSL range. As we examine next, global ocean currents have indeed increased over the last two decades. These faster currents may well play into this observable MSL range change, a more tantalizing and deductive clue than the mere matter of sea level rise itself.
There is only one energy source in contact-proximity to the Earth’s oceans,
which can deliver enough kinetic energy to speed up all the Earth’s ocean currents by 15% in just two decades…
and it is not the sun, and certainly not the Earth’s atmosphere.
Indeed, we find that in addition to this change in the viable range of annual Mean Sea Level comes a commensurate rise over that same period of time, in the average speed of global ocean currents.22 Ostensibly this increase in ocean current speed is driven by the ‘wind’ according to purported climate models and linear inductive affirmation (weakest form of valid inference) science. But using standard rule-of-thumb submarine sailing doctrine (rules long tested at sea) – a 48 knot wind is required to create 1 knot of surface current to 40 ft of depth. Heck, 16 knots of wind are required to move an object floating on the water 1 knot (an object without a sail); so much more wind velocity is required in order to move the water itself. Yes, hurricanes and cyclones push ocean surges ahead of them which can move at the same speed as the depression center, but these are pressure displacement waves and not ‘currents’. In fact yes, world wind velocities are increasing on average by 15% (6.5 to 7.4 knots) over the last four decades. In addition, all ocean currents are increasing in speed, and not just surface currents in direct communication with atmospheric inertia.23 This increase in global wind speeds has occurred over decades in which ocean currents have increased in speed by 15% in just half that time. This means that atmospheric winds could account for a woeful 1% (1/2 x 1/48) of the ocean current increase in speed (or even total kinetic energy).
There exist only two factors which possess the requisite and massive motive power potential necessary to drive this observed ocean current speed increase and change in range of mean sea level, and that is geophysical and geothermal impacts to abyssal ocean conveyance currents, not atmospheric kinetic energy.
It is one thing to assume that atmospheric temperature is driving ocean temperatures (which is a 1 to 1000 heat content problem in itself), but it is another level of linear-inductive-affirmation stupid, to presume that winds are driving 15% acceleration of abyssal ocean currents – immediately after discovery of this fact and based upon zero research.
Therefore, a reasonable deductive (not inductive nor affirming) contention can be made that changes in the geothermal and gravitational signature under the oceans, are the impetus behind both the increase in ocean current speeds, as well as the dilation of annual mean sea level variances globally. Accordingly, our process of increasing-strength inference follows that particular critical path as we proceed onward with our observation set.
Observation 5 (Deductive-Consilient) – The Schumann Resonance Banding-Amplitude Has Ranged High – While Geomagnetic Moment/Polarity has Weakened/Wandered – All Highly Commensurate with Historical and Recent Global Temperature Increases
It is a well-established fact that the global Schumann Resonance range banding-power peak serves as a very precise indicator of global temperatures.24 25 Recent Schumann Resonance banding-power (not the frequencies themselves as has been errantly reported by some sources26) has ranged upwards through more of the higher frequencies inside the established eight resonance harmonics (six of which manifest in the graph example to the right); indicating a weakening in the Earth’s magnetic moment generated from its solid core.27
A comparison of electromagnetic and temperature data indicated that there is a link between the annual variation of the Schumann resonance intensity and the global temperature.M. Sekiguchi, M. Hayakawa, et. al.; Evidence on a link between the intensity of Schumann resonance and global surface temperature; Ann. Geophys. 2006
This weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment as indicated by the chaotic power banding in the Schumann Resonance comes commensurate with a dramatic change in the geographic location of the geomagnetic north pole.
The Earth’s geomagnetic north pole has wandered significantly in the last two decades. In those decades, the geomagnetic north pole accelerated to an average speed of 55 kilometers (34 miles) per year.28 29 One can observe this acceleration in the migration of the geomagnetic north pole in the yellow dots inside the graphic to the right, obtained from the Nation Centers for Environmental Information of NOAA (click on image to see an enlarged version).30 These yellow balls reflect the movement of the north geomagnetic pole just since 1973, while the remainder of the colors cover the timeframe back to 1590. This as well comes commensurate with a pronounced weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment.
It’s well established that in modern times, the axial dipole component of Earth’s main magnetic field is decreasing by approximately 5% per century. Recently, scientists using the SWARM satellite announced that their data indicate a decay rate ten times faster, or 5% per decade.Global Research; The Weakening of Earth’s Magnetic Field Has Greatly Accelerated, Could Have Apocalyptic Implications for All of Us; 12 Apr 2019
While we don’t know fully what all this means in terms of global climate change, mankind can draw at the very least, the inference that substantial changes are at play in both the Earth’s inner and outer cores which serve to generate our planet’s magnetic moments. These three changes, higher Schumann banding, acceleration of geographic location as well as weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment, run commensurate with and sensitive in dynamic to the last two decades of extreme climate change. Such changes historically have served to correlate well with global temperatures. These changes cannot be ignored as potential contributors vis-à-vis the ‘heat coming from beneath our feet’.
Observation 6 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term but Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle
What is clear in the chronological records of the Earth is that the outer rotational body is slowing, due to a transfer of both kinetic energy and more importantly mass from the inner rotational body of the Earth, to its outer rotational body.31 In the graphic to the right, one can observe the daily slowing of the Earth’s rotation, along with the comparative addition of ‘leap seconds’ throughout the last 55 years. There have been 27 leap second additions since 1972 according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.32 This comes commensurate with NASA Global Land Ocean Temp Index changes showing that 75% of our 1880 – 2015 global temperature index increase has been since 1972 as well. This represents the fastest addition of leap seconds (since 1880) during a period which also just happens to account for 60% of our global temp increase since 1880. This is not mere coincidence.
Earth outer rotational body’s angular velocity slows, while angular momentum is conserved. Both mass and kinetic energy in the form of heat, increase inside the outer rotational body, while decreasing in the inner and outer core. The total system energy of the Earth is conserved.
Our pace of addition in leap seconds (red line in the graph above) currently is many times faster than the Earth could sustain inside its angular momentum epochally. Had the Earth been slowing at this fast a pace throughout its eons of history, the planet would have come to a rotational halt by now. So we are obviously in a kind of uber-slowing phase of outer rotational body angular velocity. In the graphic to the right, one can see the simple principle that, when the core of the Earth, which spins separately from the outer rotational body of the Earth, passes mass to the outer rotational body – that outer body slows down in its rotation (angular velocity slows, while angular momentum is conserved) – and the inner body consequently speeds up.33 Ergo, we add leap seconds at a more aggressive pace, as we have been for the last 50 years. The result of this is much akin to when a spinning ice skater extends their arms, and thereby slows the angular velocity of their rotation – mass added to the extremity of a rotating body serves to slow the rotation of that spinning body. That mass is being handed from the outer core of the Earth and into its lower mantle (part of the separate outer rotational body). This added mass is serving to temporarily slow the Earth’s outer rotational sphere faster than it typically has been slowed by the moon and ocean tides throughout its history. This extra slowing will of course will eventually end and reverse. But for now, in terms of understanding climate change, it is of significant importance. And of course, such an evolution correlates well with upper mantle activity, our next point in the observation base.
What they found is that roughly every 32 years there was an uptick in the number of significant earthquakes worldwide. The team was puzzled as to the root cause of this cyclicity in earthquake rate.
They compared it with a number of global historical datasets
and found only one that showed a strong correlation with the uptick in earthquakes.
That correlation was to the slowing down of Earth’s rotation.
Forbes: Geologist Trevor Nace: Earth’s Rotation Is Mysteriously Slowing Down: Experts Predict Uptick In 2018 Earthquakes
Which of course segues well into our next topic, the increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity globally.
Observation 7 (Inductive-Consilient) – Recent-Term Rise in Activity of Earth’s Upper Mantle in Terms of Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Perform Commensurate with Temperature Increases
While we have established a link between earthquakes and the slowing of the Earth’s rotation, of course there also exists a well-established link between volcanic activity and the Earth’s climate system.34 Both of these phenomena, earthquakes and volcanic activity pertain to activity changes in the upper mantle and especially the asthenosphere. The chart to the right and quote below come from a 2016 study by Arthur Viterito regarding an observed lockstep synchrony between magnetic dip pole movement, mid-ocean seismicity and global temperatures since 1979.35 If one wishes to understand the link between core exothermic activity and this increase in seismicity, examine the CNRS / Université Sorbonne Paris Cité simulation video clip nearer to the end of this article.
“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists.”Viterito A., The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 7: 345.
This serves to raise the question then, is global volcanism also on the rise across the entire planet (not that this would be necessary to support the argument)? The correct answer is that we do not know for sure. The tally of listed active volcanoes has grown simply because the number and geographic spread of humans on the planet have both grown substantially over the last two centuries. However, to me the Smithsonian data, a portion of which is depicted in the graphic to the right (active volcano count in green and number of eruptions in orange), does indicate a 3-to-5-fold increase in large volcanic activity since 1800. There exists however a concerted effort to downplay this putative increase in apparent large volcanism (as well as earthquakes) observed by mankind since 1800. Subjective essays which make a final claim to science of ‘No, no, no’, submitted along with masked data which screams ‘Yes, yes, yes!’. This is perhaps for good reason since the population of Earth has grown significantly in the most recent two centuries – and as a result the number of observed active volcanoes (and earthquakes) has also risen.36 This of course does not mean that volcanism is therefore on the increase.
However, I went ahead and ran my own graph on the only unbiased database I could find on the matter, which you may observe to the right.37 Despite the threats and intimidation about using their data to come to a conclusion contrary to their doctrine, I believe that the Smithsonian data shows a significant increase in volcanic activity globally. Ignorance is never science, even if its enactment supports the ‘correct answer’. This is the instance wherein an Omega Hypothesis becomes ‘more important to protect than the integrity of science itself.’ We shall have to see how this trend continues and how volcanic activity has served to impact Arctic and Antarctic ice cap formations in particular.38 I realize that this is a hot button issue employed frequently by AGW deniers, but to an ethical skeptic ignorance is never a satisfactory tactic in dealing with such rancor.
Observation 8 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño Thermohaline Currents
Yes, we have good clear evidence of the increase in occurrence, patterning, and frequency of global heat anomalies. But these anomalies exhibit other signal data which we tend to ignore. These anomalies also appear to originate at the same longitude, flow like molasses eastward around the planet geographically (one can observe the video here) and tend to cluster in mutually exclusive hemispherical Europe-Asia or Africa-Asia flow patterns, which alternate and bear fluid momentum. Such signal ergodicity cannot be ethically ignored. Examine the heat anomaly patterns/flows over the past 120 years and you will observe a cohesive and slow-fluid patterning imbued inside the occurrence of these anomalies. To a systems engineer, this is a signal pattern – and provides intelligence.39 To many other professionals it is a source of blank stares. This too is a problem.
No matter whether the heat anomaly flow is resident in the northern hemisphere or alternately the southern hemisphere, the heat anomaly itself always originates from the same longitudinal position – The Mid-Atlantic Rise: a bulge thought to be caused by upward convective forces in the asthenosphere pushing upward on the oceanic crust and lithosphere.40 This construct postulates that the Mid-Atlantic Rise is pushing more than simply mantle mass. It is pushing exothermic core kinetic energy (in a temporary cycle) as well. A cycle which is both releasing heat and serving to act as a reasonable cause of all the anomalous effects observed inside this article.
Notice as well that the cohesive dynamic of the temperature anomalies tends to begin in Europe and then extend into the Middle East, while at the same time a counter-sympathetic trend originates in Africa as well. In other words, when Europe heats up, Africa does not, and when the Africa heats up, Europe takes a break from its anomalies – which cannot be explained in terms of human carbon emissions. In other words, the clumping and neural feedback signals of these temperature dynamics are following a sub-signal. An influence which resides beneath both tandem phenomena.
Observe in the graphic as well that 32 years prior to 2019, or in 1987, this flow patterning kicked into a discrete and sudden high gear. Man’s economics and industrial output did not suddenly change in 1987 into this discrete a fashion nor magnitude. This discrete change matches the temperature average increase chart I developed below, a chart in which temperature increases are preceding CO2 measures and not arriving as merely the result of them. One as well in which carbon ppm are accelerating, while man’s economic activity is not. What I see inside this data is something wholly different than the 1:1000 effect which can be imparted through the heating of oceans by atmospheric contribution alone. The energy contribution involved here is several orders of magnitude greater than the speed at which our carbon is binding heat into the Earth’s atmosphere – and studies confirm this.41 As well, the heating of the oceans is far faster, and at the wrong depths – than can be imbued by a thin atmospheric heat content contribution.
A Case Example: The El Niño and La Niña Conveyance Effect
As a case example, let’s examine the heat anomaly timing resulting from the abyssal ocean conveyance belts and touch points in the Arctic and Antarctic.42
A second mode [of deep ocean conveyance to the surface], involving deep convection in the open ocean, has also been documented [e.g., Gordon, 1991]. In 1974 when the first satellite microwave data were obtained from the Antarctic sea ice zone, a 250,000 km2 open ocean polynya was observed in the winter sea ice pack of the Weddell Sea [Carsey, 1980]. The ocean mixed layer in the polynya extended to 3000 m depth, with strong upwelling of relatively warm (with respect to the surface) deep waters, supporting an average winter surface heat flux of 136 Wm2 [Gordon, 1982].Pedro, Martin, et. al. Southern Ocean deep convection as a driver of Antarctic warming events; Geophysical Research Letters; Research Letter 10.1002/2016GL067861
Please note that ‘conveyance’ in this context is a system-wide cycling of a fluid kinetic energy inside a system in equilibrium. Conveyance in deep, abyssal, and shallow ocean currents, while caused in part by convection heating, exists independent of that local heat which is being conveyed. Were that local heat (and an antipodal local cool) alone the cause of the fluid movement, this would be convection. Since global ocean currents are caused by an entire system, which exists independent of local convection effects (such as we observe here in the Antarctic) then this transfer of heat is not being caused by convection of that local heat itself; hence, its conveyance.
These deep ocean conveyance touch points serve to originate the El Niño and La Niña climatological phenomena specifically. In the graphic to the right, one can observe the abyssal ocean conveyance belt effect that pulls abyssal and deep ocean conveyance (blue line) from the eastern Pacific into the highly mantle-active southerly polar latitudes, whereupon this serves to impart a heat anomaly. This heating delta T (ΔT heat anomaly) then in turn becomes El Niño as the conveyance belt turns and heads back northward and shallow (red line) along the South American coast. This dynamic system serves to generate both of these climatological variation phenomena.43 44
One 2018 study published at The Royal Society Publishing journal, went so far as to cite that El Niño by itself contributed approximately 25% of the entirety of the Earth’s record rise in CO2 during its 2015/16 cycle. And while the study employed a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and appeal to ignorance in attributing the remaining 75% to man alone (there were no other oceanic climatological impacts during this time apparently), this serves to demonstrate the raw potential of geothermal contribution in the genesis of atmospheric carbon. Importantly as well, it serves to falsify ignorant ‘watts per square meter’ stasis arguments.45 Less than three or four percent of the Earth’s surface generated a quarter of its atmospheric carbon sensitivity within a single year of dramatic temperature increase. Should this not stand as at least a hint? See the blue line and top right red fingerprint in the ‘Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Versus Global Temperatures 1958 – 2019’ chart to the below right. I do understand however that it takes courage along with a risk of career to stand up and speak against oppression-minded politicos and their malicious social skeptics pretending to represent science. These angry fakers are a dime-a-dozen in social media and science discussion forums.
Accordingly, the map above and to the right, of deep and shallow ocean conveyance belts and their interdependence is called a Thermohaline map.46 In the graphic to the right one can observe that the pronounced El Niño heating and La Niña cooling effects are generated specifically by the ΔT heat anomaly which arises from that conveyance belt passing near hot Antarctic latitude mantle and volcanic activity. This is denoted as point 1 in the Thermohaline graphic. In similar fashion, points 2 and 3 just happen to reside at the Mid-Atlantic Rise heat sources which we examined earlier in this observation.
The exchange points for conversion of an abyssal ocean current, to a shallow ocean current are indicated as the yellow dots in the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes. But in reality, deep ocean currents are in immediate contact with the abyssal layer of ocean throughout the globe, so this effect can happen anywhere, and not just at the conversion points. The key is this – if anywhere along this conveyance, the blue lines are imbued with a heat anomaly, then this anomaly will carry forward to the shallow ocean currents (red lines at points 1, 2 and 3 on the Thermohaline Map). These heat anomalies (or absence thereof) then dictate specifically whether or not the planet will observe an abnormally hot or cold year relative to the average. Keep both of these principles in mind as you read further on to Observation 9 below.
Now notice that I have placed a red and blue fingerprint by each respective El Niño and La Niña phenomenon in the Thermohaline graphic above, with red indicating a hot period and blue indicating a relative cold period. If you examine the chart to the right, one can observe that these El Niño hot and La Niña cold periods fingerprint (not simply a correlation) exactly to the timing in global temperature peaks which we identified in Observation 2 above. In this case example it is clear that deep/abyssal ocean conveyance belt effects are driving atmospheric climate and not the other way around. Notice that the magnitude ΔT heat anomaly spread between simply the 2017 El Niño and 2019 La Niña is very pronounced. Notice further then that just four of these scale events can account for the entirety of the last 50 years of atmospheric climate change alone. Add in the same peak contributors from points 2 and 3 along the Mid-Atlantic Rise as well, and this explanatory basis becomes not merely plausible, but compelling. The evidence is clear on this, global temperatures for sea and air are not only rising fastest at the poles (our critical ocean current cooling spots), but those rise variances are more pronounced than the general global variance – indicative of a causal, not subjective profile. You probably guessed the next consilience – yes, these pole temperature surges are timed with El Niño hot and La Niña cold periods.
Just as the wind could not possibly physically drive the increase in ocean current speed, even so ambient atmospheric temperatures could not possibly drive the below observed polar temperature phenomena.
The Air Above Antarctica Just Got Very Hot Very Fast, Breaking All Previous Temperature Records47
Warming at the poles will soon be felt globally in rising seas, extreme weather – Arctic is heating faster than Antarctic48
Now realize of course that this flow of heat content (or lack of former rate of cooling) from the poles and into their associated ocean conveyance currents constitutes just one single example of conveyance belt impact upon global climate. There are at least 5 other similar pronounced global conveyance touch points we have not even taken into consideration in the graph above. It is no long stretch of conjecture therefore, and possibly even conforming to Ockham’s Razor, to consider that this case example in geothermal flow, therefore just might extrapolate to the entire planet’s climate patterns, including its climate change as well. Such an idea cannot be dismissed by a one paragraph statement from agency and little study whatsoever.
It is very possible therefore, that abyssal ocean heating bears the sensitivity effect necessary to explain the majority of global climate change,
and that further then, carbon ppm are chasing this statistic and may not be the sole cause of the entailed warming.
Such conjecture is not proof; however it does necessitate plurality. To dismiss this, constitutes an act of ignorance on the part of mankind.
Observation 9 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean (ΔT-gigajoules/m3) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin – This is Neglected and Highly Critical Path Climate Science
Finally, there is a highly probative and deductive climate observation set which we are ignoring as a science. The abyssal layer of oceans has absorbed more heat content per cubic meter of ocean water than has the surface layer of the Earth’s oceans. This should not happen in solely a solar energy capture global warming scenario. The atmosphere does not possess an immediate and direct way to rapidly heat the abyssal layer of the ocean (although the abyssal layer does bear a mechanism to heat the atmosphere, which we shall examine next).
We begin by outlining on the right, the well documented taper curve regarding ocean temperature progression versus ocean depth.49 As one may observe, the temperature of the ocean drops off very fast from about 300 to 1000 meters in depth. Thereafter ocean temperatures follow a linear taper until the final 500 meters of abyssal depth, wherein the temperature drops to about 0 to 3oC. This entire temperature function is called the thermocline. The first challenge to note is that most of our climate change oceanographic measures are taken only to the 2000 meter level (surface layer or grey shaded depths in the chart to the right), leaving mankind for the most part blind as to the thermal dynamics of both the deep (2000 – 4000 m) and abyssal (4000 – 6000 m) layers of the ocean.50 On the chart below, one can see those two layers along with a calculated thermal delta T per cubic meter of ocean water.
Over 3,000 free-drifting floats have been deployed all over the ocean and each float is programmed to sink 2,000 meters down, drifting at that depth for about 10 days. The float then makes its way to the surface measuring temperature and salinity the whole time. Data is transmitted to a satellite once the float reaches the surface, so that scientists and the public have access to the state of the ocean within hours of the data collection.Windows to the Universe: Temperature of Ocean Water (How Climate Scientists Monitor Ocean Temperatures and Salinity by Depth)
Now that we know the lay of the land with respect to the ‘normal’ (for our intents and purposes say 1954 – 1958 timeframe) ambient ocean temperatures by depth, let’s examine the temperature anomaly by those same 250-meter size depth bands which we just employed to define the natural thermocline.
If we take the known percent of Earth ocean surface, which is covered by each specific depth of ocean from 0 to 6000 meters – or what is called a hypsographic curve,51 and then use that arrival distribution to determine the percent of total ocean water, and therefore cubic meters of ocean water as well, which exist at each band of ocean depth by 250-meter intervals, we arrive at the ocean-water-by-depth cubic volume distribution curve in the third and fourth columns of the graphic to the immediate right. These two columns present the percent of total ocean water in each 250 meter-depth band, as well as then the resulting cubic meters which that percentage represents of Earth’s total 4 x 1012 m3 of ocean water (totaled at the bottom of column 3).52 This represents cubic meters of ocean water which exists on the entire Earth, partitioned into 250 meter bands of depth. As one can observe, each nominal ocean depth begins to represent less and less of the total percentage of Earth’s oceans as depths range into the lower abyssal (>5000 meters).
Subsequently, if we take the 2017 ΔT heat anomaly vs 1954, which was measured to be 148.5 zettajoules to a 700-meter depth,53 and allocate that heat content to the appropriate depth band, we arrive at the ΔT for each 250m band of the upper surface layer of oceans. Again, if we take the same heat content curve for the 700 – 2000 meter bands, and apply this same exercise, we find the ΔT for each of the 250m bands in the remainder of the surface layer of the oceans. This allows us to now calculate a gigajoule per cubic meter index for the first eight depth bands of the ocean. As you may observe in the graph to the right, those shallow ocean 250m bands have warmed substantially from 1993 through 2017, as expected from climate change impacts.54 This can be observed in the rightmost column in the graph, wherein the gigajoules per cubic meter index for the surface layer of the ocean is color highlighted by its heat content magnitude relative to the other layers (light orange).
However, if we continue this exercise and employ the heat content change data which has been measured in the few studies which do address climate impacts at the deep and abyssal layers,55 we find a reasonable taper curve in gigajoules per cubic meter, all the way to the 4500-meter depth level. This equates to a total 2017 ΔT heat anomaly of 345 gigajoules, by means of the three studies cited. In column 4, we have distributed that 345 gigajoules by the factor of the ocean’s natural thermocline. As a note, one gets essentially the same anomaly distribution by depth if the discrete components of the heat anomaly are distributed by layer and strict study result cited herein (that heat anomaly distribution is shown in the ‘Heat Anomaly ΔT Conveyance graphic to the right). In either case, the heat content cited in the abyssal layer always forces an extreme heat into ‘small footprints’ mathematically, as may be observed as the ‘Required Heat Anomaly’ in column 5 of the graphic above. Indeed, the actual heat content changes (ΔT) measured in the abyssal layer in particular – given the much lower cubic amount of ocean water which exists at that layer depth – result in rather dramatic estimates for the required gigajoules per cubic meter index needed to resolve this heat anomaly layer and arrive at the 2017 total ocean anomaly of 345 zettajoules. One can observe this in the darker orange and red shaded high index numbers on the bottom right of the chart above.
What we are observing in this set of calculations, is that of course a heat anomaly per cubic meter of ocean water exists at the ocean surface; however, a more pronounced heat anomaly exists at the abyssal, volcanic and ocean trench depth bands of the Earth’s oceans. This abyssal heat content anomaly of course does not just sit there. Nor is it ambient. It conveys as a belt of heat content (ΔT) inside the body of a long-extant current, rising eventually up to the surface. Where it renders that ancient abyssal oceanic conveyor belt less effective at cooling the ocean surface and its communicating atmosphere than it has been in the past – thereby causing a net increase in global atmospheric temperatures.
Clearly there exists an anomalous excess of heat content in the abyssal layer of ocean, relative to its volume of ocean water.
This must be examined – as it is both critical path and deductive.
In fact, two recent deep and abyssal ocean temperature studies comment upon this very observation, corroborating the necessity to begin to examine the abyssal layer and its critical path role in possibly effecting a portion of our observable climate change acceleration.56 57
Although considerable work has conclusively shown significant warming in the upper (<700 m) ocean where the bulk of historical ocean temperature measurements are found (e.g., Rhein et al., 2013, and the section above on The Observing Network), and extending down to 2,000 m during the recent Argo period, there is now a growing consensus supported by numerous studies that changes are also occurring in the deeper global ocean (>2,000 m). Based on observations below 2,000 m, it is estimated that the global ocean has accumulated heat at a rate of 33 ± 21 TW over 1991 to 2010 (Desbruyeres et al., 2016). Two-thirds of this warming is occurring between 2,000 m and 4,000 m, albeit with large uncertainty, almost entirely owing to warming in the Southern Ocean in this depth range (see Sallée, 2018, in this issue). Below 4,000 m, the observations show a large meridional gradient in the deep warming rate, with the southernmost basins warming 10 times faster than the deep basins to the north (Figure 5A). While the warming below 4,000 m only accounts for one-third of the total warming below 2,000 m, the regional variability is lower, leading to greater statistical certainty in the abyssal changes (4,000 m to 6,000 m; Purkey and Johnson, 2010; Desbruyeres et al., 2016; Figure 5A).Durack, Gleckler, et al. Ocean Warming: From the Surface to the Deep in Observations and Models; Oceanography; 9 Dec 2018
The strongest warming rates are found in the abyssal layer (4000–6000 m), which contributes to one third of the total heat uptake with the largest contribution from the Southern and Pacific Oceans.Desbruyeres, Purkey, et al. Deep and abyssal ocean warming from 35 years of repeat hydrography. Geophysical Research Letters
The issue therefore is not one of total ocean change in ambient heat (watts/m2 ‘budget’ as the Cheng-Abraham
study deems it), but rather one of the relative change in layer-depth heat content per cubic meter of ocean water (ΔT-gigajoules/m3).
As a final note, ignore those who speak in terms of average and ambient heat transfer statistics in ‘watts per square meter’, lithosphere taper curves or ambient heat transferred from the mantle by convection, radiation, and conduction. These concepts constitute merely sophomoric understandings of oceanographic thermostatic measures; approaches which ignore systems sensitivity and incremental dynamics – in effect nothing more than ‘Mt. Stupid‘ arguments. ΔT heat content (not ambient heat) in the Earth’s oceans transfers by means of numerous and extreme small-footprint exposures along with the fourth mode of heat transfer, ‘conveyance’ 58 59 – and less by means of ambient averages and principles of high school science. Systems theory, feedback and incremental dynamics are not taught in high school natural science. Ignore such dimwittery.
By means of principally these nine observations, I contend that Ockham’s Razor has been surpassed – the plurality of a new alternative explanatory climate change model is now necessary.
The Necessary and Elegant Alternative We Must Now Consider – Exothermic Core Cycle to Deep/Abyssal Ocean Induced Climate Change
Now with all of this observation set under our belt, let’s examine the alternative that I believe we must address – out of both ethics and precaution. This alternative is not vulnerable to the easy wave-of-the-hand single-analysis/apothegm dismissals to which so many other climate change alternatives fall prey. This does not serve to invalidate anthropogenic contribution to carbon and global temperatures by any means. But such a reality also never necessitates that mankind adopt complete ignorance either. This construct alternative can be summarized in four points.
1. The Earth’s core undergoes extreme exothermic change – shedding high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron plus kinetic energy (heat). Magnetic pole weakens and wanders.
2. The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches Earth’s asthenosphere. Methane pockets are heated and increase methane release into atmosphere (warming impact).
3. Ancient abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content from small-footprint yet now much hotter contribution points exposed to the asthenosphere – and convey (not conduct, convect, nor radiate) this novel heat content to the surface of the ocean.
4. Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean.
Because of the contribution of latent kinetic energy from hexagonal closepack (HCP) lattice material exiting the Earth’s outer core (and slowing the Earth’s rotation), the Earth’s asthenosphere heats up as much as 20 degrees Celsius. Most of this heat content cannot communicate with nor reach the surface of the Earth – as one will commonly be told in classic climate science ‘Watt/square meter’ literature. However, this is a grand assumption of Gaussian blindness, as some of the heat does escape the asthenosphere – and at critical heat transfer-to-conveyance points along abyssal ocean currents.
A – Ocean ridge volcanic activity is on a steady 220-year substantial increase trend. Temperature anomalies appear at the Mid-Atlantic Rise and then migrate as a fluid, eastward in an alternating southern and northern hemisphere exclusivity.
B – Deep oil formations are heated by the asthenosphere ΔT and release volatile organic compounds and alkanes (principally methane). Methane rises faster than economic activity can substantiate (which is indeed what is occurring).60
C – Deep and abyssal ocean solid methane traps are heated by the now warmer asthenosphere and begin to sublime into to methane gas.
D – Ocean trenches are heated by the now warmer asthenosphere and subsequently heat abyssal ocean conveyance currents by 1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (ΔT). Heat is not simply transferred by convection, radiation, and conduction – it is also transferred by conveyance from deep exposure points, to the surface where these now warmer currents used to cool the atmosphere, however no longer do so as effectively. (Note summary segment quote: “Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, claimed the world’s oceans are warming at the same rate as if five atomic bombs were dropped into the sea every second” – most of this heat addition occurring in the abyssal depths, as we saw in the Desbruyeres, Purkey, et al. study in Observation 9 above).
E – Gas hydrate vents are heated and become more active.
F – Permafrost/Tundra is heated and releases both carbon dioxide and methane. These geoformations now become active during the winter months in which the sun is increasing in declination, whereas once they were not. (See: National Geographic 6 Feb 2020: The Arctic’s thawing ground is releasing a shocking amount of gasses – twice what we had thought; https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/arctic-thawing-ground-releasing-shocking-amount-dangerous-gases/)61
G – Historic atmospheric-ocean deep/abyssal belt cooling deep convection touch points (Weddell Sea effect) no longer cool the atmosphere as they once did, thereby resulting in an increase in overall atmospheric temperatures.62 This explains the surplus heat identified by the shortfall in Earth albedo reduction cited in Observation 3.
H – The catalytic decay of volatile organic compounds into alkanes, alkanes into methane, and finally methane into carbon dioxide – all release latent energy into the atmosphere – indirectly and catalytically heating it.
Now let’s examine how this process plays into the heat released through a temporary exothermic cycle of the Earth’s inner and outer cores.
Now of course, stepping back and looking again at the core structure of the Earth, I conjecture a scenario (albeit temporary of course) wherein the latent energy bound up in the hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron lattice of the Earth’s core NiFe (Nickel-Iron) material, is converted to heat energy upon that mass’s communication up into the lower mantle of the outer rotational body of the Earth. This HCP lattice of iron converts into a face centered cubic (FCC) lattice of iron (see phase diagram at lower left-hand side of the above graphic – ΔT or ‘Delta T’ boundary) and a bevy of heat (ΔT) wound up in the incumbent latent energy release.
Below one can see a simulation developed by Nathanaël Schaeffer and his team at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS / Université Sorbonne Paris Cité)63. The simulation entailed demonstrates the flow of mantle generated by heat released from the Earth’s HCP Core, and how that dynamic serves to convey that heat to the Asthenosphere and surface of the Earth. Shaeffer quotes “[To date] computers [have not allowed] us to produce very accurate simulations of the Earth’s core. We [have had] to settle for approximations. Our simulation used up to 16000 interconnected computer processors that simultaneously shared the mass of calculations. So it took under a year to calculate what would have taken 250 years by a single computer.”
Inner/Outer Core Equilibrium HCP => FCC+KE Sloughing
This IPGP/CNRS simulation exhibits a cross-sectional slice of the Earth at its Equator. The red plumes are mantle heat+ anomalies above ambient level shown in blue. The white circle at the center represents the inner and outer core of the Earth. The jets of heat originate from the Delta T (ΔT) transition boundary from HCP-FCC eruptive sloughing, and proceed to the asthenosphere, where the heat is conveyed by deep/abyssal ocean current touchpoints, and into our atmosphere.
Notice the concentrations of heat and uneven distribution of heat arrival to the surface of the Earth through jet-like channels of conveyance stimulated from core heat. The incipience of these jets involves the L-HCP-sloughing which I am referencing in this construct (backed by the change in leap seconds shown in Observation 6). Moreover, remember that the core of the Earth is rotating at a different speed than is Earth’s outer rotational body64 – and you have a sound impetus as to the Thermohaline Cycles 1 and 2 patterns cited in Observation 8 above. Therefore, using this model of heat-conveyance communication from the Earth’s outer core and to its asthenosphere, I propose a continuation of this construct: that inner core-mantle interaction dynamics feed this surface heating as follows:
1. Earth’s inner core goes into an exothermic/exomaterial sloughing cycle.
2. Magnetic permeability of the Earth’s inner core falls – Earth’s magnetic field weakens, geo-magnetic north and magnetic north begin to wander in position – Schumann Resonance ranges into higher and higher amplitude power-bands (which correlates historically with higher global temperatures).
3. Inner core contributes solid hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron material to outer core across the Solid-HCP to Liquid-HCP boundary.
4. Outer core becomes exothermic/exomaterial and distributes L-HCP iron into the lower mantle. At the Delta T (ΔT) boundary between the Earth’s outer core and its mantle, iron snaps from an L-HCP to L-FCC lattice bravais at specific jet-points shown in the IPGP/CNRS simulation above, and releases: massive KE – kinetic energy in the forms of electrical energy (electrons – number of sprites, booms and clear weather lightning incidents rise) and most importantly, heat.
5. Mantle heats up, and in turn heats the asthenosphere by up to 20o C. 1.5 to 3.5 degrees of this heat escapes the asthenosphere and into the deep/abyssal ocean conveyance belts (heats ocean much faster than can the atmosphere).
6. Asthenosphere heats ocean conveyance belts by volcanic vents, abyssal troughs, and other touch points in deep/abyssal ocean. Ocean conveyance belts speed up from the added kinetic energy-forcing. Heat specifically impacts deep/abyssal ocean (cold) conveyance belts by raising their temperature slightly. This heat content is conveyed to the surface over the next decade of flow and is not imparted to abyssal ocean ambient temperature.
7. Abyssal ocean conveyance heats atmosphere by conveying kinetic energy in the form of added heat – and not through radiation, convection nor conduction.
8. Added heat from asthenosphere becomes genesis of novel volatile organic compounds, methane and other alkanes, from deep oil formations being heated and heating of the northern hemisphere’s permafrost and tundra.
9. Each spring as the Sun’s geographic position crosses the Vernal Equinox for the Northern Hemisphere, the ‘already warmer’ permafrost and tundra release proportionately even more VOC’s, methane and carbon dioxide than they did in the past. This resolves the mystery as to why methane increases are far outpacing what climate models have predicted.65
10. The above sets of deductive inference identify therefore, China and flux in the Earth’s Core as the two principal contributors to current climate change. All other factors and nations compose less than 5% of the total contribution. Hence, the peril in ignorance we have placed ourselves into, through not pursuing actual science on the matter, and rather, following political agency only.
Finally, I contend that this model elegantly and with ample explanatory power, addresses what we indeed see with respect to global climate change today.
Such is the state of the construct I have developed. In no way will the simple act of pondering this idea of course sway me from participating in global action regarding climate change. But neither will I conduct my activity from a position of willful ignorance.
Such is the nature of an ethical skeptic.
The Ethical Skeptic, “The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Jan 2020; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/01/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/