The Pitfalls of Electric Vehicles as Climate Change Panacea

Household generated electricity stands as a critical component to a nationwide electric vehicle rollout strategy. Anything short of this will be more damaging in terms of climate change than even the current fossil fuel vehicle population.

Toyota Motor Corporation President Akio Toyoda in mid December issued commentary framing electric vehicles as being ‘excessively overhyped’. He contended that EV advocates fail to consider the carbon emitted by the process of generating electricity in the first place, the energy loss inside its delivery value chain, along with the depreciated costs of developing a massive electric vehicle support infrastructure. Mr. Toyoda was reacting to local news reports in Japan last month citing that the Japanese government was to announce a ban on the sale of new gasoline-only powered cars starting in 2035.1 Certainly one could infer from Mr. Toyoda’s comments that he regards the quick panacea-to-climate-change thinking regarding electric vehicles, to be somewhat a Pollyanna proposition.

Don’t get me wrong, I like most people, probably including Mr. Toyoda, favor electric vehicles as the future of both private and public transportation. I am gravely concerned about our transportation infrastructure’s contribution to atmospheric carbon and the resulting climate change. I love my family’s Toyota Highlander Hybrid and would be pleased to drive an all electric vehicle as well. I ate lunch with the head of medical lab operations for one of my clients late last year, and he expressed how low maintenance costs were on his all-electric vehicle. He is a German engineer, trained on process design and systems, who describes a fossil fuel vehicle as involving too much ‘bewegliche’. Too many moving contraptions that are designed to fail along a planned maintenance revenue schedule. I will be looking at the Tesla Model S on my next car purchase as well. So count me as a big fan of electric vehicles. But I would be remiss if I did not examine the issue from a skeptic, value chain expert, and systems designer’s perspective before jumping onto the bandwagon.

Electric Vehicles Mandate We Develop New Energy Sources

I sat down this week and constructed a brief value chain analysis comparing several options for the generation and delivery of electricity to our upcoming world fleet of electric vehicles. An EV approach, if deployed incorrectly turns out to bear some pitfalls in terms of climate – negative impacts even more deleterious than the existing fleet of fossil fuel powered vehicles in terms of atmospheric carbon dioxide introduction. This is why matters involving decisions made on behalf of the entirety of society, a nation, or the world, demand multidisciplinary inputs and analysis from a systems theory perspective. Not blinders-on decisions based upon what sounds most virtuous to academics or their acolytes patrolling the streets of our major cities with baseball bats and gasoline.

Below I have assembled a brief value chain comparative among seven options as to powering our future of electric vehicles. An alternative comparative which reflects the existing fossil fuel to combustion value chain, along with two each (hydrogen and battery storage options) for fossil fuel, solar and wind farm, and household/micro solar and wind energy generation solutions. Each chain of value provision features normalized nodal-measures regarding levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), fully-loaded and traded-line-loss in electrical energy for transmission or charging, and finally the future-efficient pounds of carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere at that ‘node’ activity in the value chain. A value chain is a series of flows in expense, margin, and goal-enablement which flow across a series of fully leveraged nodes (necessary activities) which bring an objective into effect. It is a method of highlighting non-value-add activity and comparing different potential strategies to accomplish a goal (value). It is how a corporate or national strategy is analyzed.

Beware of deceptive puff-pieces such as Bloomberg’s Elon Musk Should Come Clean: Tesla’s Emissions Are Rising. They conflate the generation of power with its delivery and consumption in an electric vehicle, as constituting one thing. To wit the Bloomberg article states, “A current-model large car with a battery produced and charged in an average European Union country emits about 88 grams of CO2 per kilometer, compared to 284 grams for a petrol-powered equivalent. In a country with a low-carbon grid like Sweden or France, that drops to 50 grams or less.” This fabutistic arises simply from the fact that France generates 90% of its electrical energy from nuclear power, combined with other renewable sources.2

Such calculation is Yule-Simpson dishonesty. If you pro-rata this ’50 grams’ by France’s ratio of fossil fuel consumption, one ends up with a gross emissions of 500 grams of CO2 per electric vehicle kilometer, or a ratio of around 1.7 to 1 grams of CO2 generated versus a petrol powered one. The reader should note that we conservatively calculate in Footnote 4 and employ a 1.6 to 1 ratio versus a fossil fuel powered electric vehicle fleet later within this article (Value Chain 1 in Graphic A). This is the correct method of delineating the issue. All Bloomberg has done here is to unintentionally confirm that powering electric vehicles by means of a fossil fuel grid (our current direction), is the worst of all possible cost and climate combinations.

The above article excerpt elicits why such analyses as these must be developed inside a value chain framework. Moreover, once each value chain node is distinguished (what the author of the above Bloomberg article failed to do), the ‘load’ (value, risk, expense, margin, etc.) of each node (generation, storage, transfer, etc.) needs to be normalized to the future and not the present. Each of the measures in the chart below is normalized, as raw numbers and current costs/non-loaded energy demand per unit will only serve to skew a value chain analysis to conservancy. Something we observed in the Covid panic of 2020, when raw, specious, and red herring numbers served to incite a severely damaging overreaction on the part of government officials. All value chain node factors/data/constraints need to be normalized or they will offer the wrong answer – as the current practice will always seem like the best one (because realized economies of scale often bias to conservancy).

One example of this is the lower current cost to charge a vehicle during reduced nighttime electricity rate-tiers, an advantage which exists now, however will not exist once electric vehicles proliferate past a certain tip-in point among consumers. This analysis factors that non-diluted node differential out of the equation, so that conservancy is not introduced as bias. These are the lessons-learned one applies from having developed strategies which have been held accountable by governments and businesses for results, and not the academic pretend version thereof. Employing sophisticated MatLab applications in no way serves to lend any form of competence to this work. If you do not really know what is going on inside a value chain, then neither will fancy heuristics contain any functional application therein. Memorized pro forma and symbology hammers looking for the next nail, employed for the sake of outsider intimidation.

Electric Vehicle Power Alternative Value Chains – The Three C’s

Remember, to power your electric vehicle one must still generate the electrical energy somewhere. If that energy generation involves the combustion of a fossil fuel, all one will have done is move the engine of the vehicle to a remote location, one from which is it more difficult to access its energy output. This is depicted in the first conceptual value chain 1 in Graphic A below. Set aside of course the issue that one still has to extract those fossil fuels just as in value chain 4. By placing the point of combustion far from the point of accessing its energy one need burn even more fossil fuels (potentially more ‘sour’ API/sulfur and of a lower grade than gasoline by far or containing less chemical kinetic potential per atomic mass of carbon as with natural gas3), putting even more carbon into the atmosphere – simply to drive the same distance as before with a local fossil fuel engine. This disadvantage is only a portion of what I call value chain ‘line loss’ (in engineering terms or ‘chain loss’ when discussed in economic terms – see calculations/sources in footnote 4).4 Now one may dispute the absolute value used for line loss, as reflected by the 1.6 x additional energy needed in value chain 1 for example; however, if one claims it is negligible, one is a jamais l’a fait. Never done a value chain strategy, never participated in an energy plan for a nation, never designed nor run a power plant. Sometimes these types of ‘allies’ become climate change efforts’ worst enemies.

As well, line loss is not simply the amperage loss through heat (V=IR) inside transmission lines alone (which our team measured on a Southwest US energy project to be around 8-12% or 1.14 x (for EXPANDED infrastructure, not existing benchmarks, but is also much higher in the rest of the world)5, but the entire drop in kinetic potential from the point of kWh extraction from potential (we do not capture 100% of the fuel chemical energy when converting to electricity) to the point of beneficially expended drive torque in the vehicle. Every impact in terms of conversion, step-down, charge, battery cycle (fuel does not deplete while your vehicle sits for example, and all vehicles sit for the majority of their existence) and connection. In reality, between the sour fuel used and battery cycling/sitting, the chain loss in value chain 1 in Graphic A and Table A below is far greater than 1.6. But we stay with 1.6 (outlined in footnote 3) for purposes of this analysis as there is no reference or standard for the entirety of this type of chain loss yet, as such value chains are not yet mature.

If one then replaces this fossil fuel energy generation with solar/wind (or another non-fossil fuel source) – then one cannot possibly supply all the added energy needs and make up the incremental (not existing benchmark, remember this is a value chain) line loss incurred in this value chain (#2 in Graphic A). Indirect renewable energy sources are ubiquitously dilute, emergent-capacity constrained, and of intermittent reliability,6 paling in comparison to the reliable and robust 33.7 kilowatt hours per gallon of gasoline. Winter 2021’s electrical grid struggles in Texas highlighted the vulnerability a population bears with an aggressive 25% wind and solar makeup. Grid planners had, 1. failed to understand the impact of heat pump emergency heating coil load demand, and 2. the wind and solar network ended up not producing power, when Texas needed it the most.7 8 It would be ironic to have fossil fuel plant operators or fuel supply trucks stuck at home/origin, simply because their electric vehicles had no electricity which would power them to cart those operating assets to the power plants.

Moreover, ultimately the best value chain of generate-to-access energy, is to generate the energy as close to its torque demand as is possible; right there where it is accessed to create torque in a vehicle. This is why either micro/solar/home or fossil fuel value chains remain the best options to power our vehicles, and nothing in between. These are reflected in the bottom two value chains 3 and 4 depicted below in Graphic A. As a general principle the closer together are the generation (color icons in Graphic A) and access-to-torque (car on right in Graphic A) nodes, the more value-laden is the chain.

Graphic A – Four Competing Ideas of Energy Extraction, Generation, Delivery, Storage, Depletion, and Access

When analyzing or thinking about the above four value chains for powering electric vehicles, one must realize however, that these are theoretical optimal scenarios. The actual introduction of electric vehicles alone will cause an even greater negative impact to climate change than does our current gasoline-powered practice. Below in Graphic B we exhibit the principle that the current electric vehicle reality combines both, the chain loss incumbent with delivering electricity long distances to depleting batteries (Value Channel 1 in Graphic A), coupled with the reality that we have to emit proportionately more carbon to mine, transport and combust fossils fuels to power those chain losses as compared to a conventional gasoline value chain (Value Channel 4 in Graphic A). The worst of both worlds.

Graphic B – The Impending Reality is Not Utopia, In Fact is Worse

These are the principles which are entailed in the below brief value chain analysis regarding equivalent kilowatt hour delivery in vehicles. It is expressed in the form of three factors: Energy ‘Cost’ in terms of LCOE per 1 kilowatt hour, ‘Carbon’ in terms of pounds of carbon dioxide imparted to the atmosphere in one gallon of gasoline-equivalent energy (33.7 kWh), and finally ‘Control’ in terms of percent revenues offset from their existing regulated form, from 0 to 100%. In general, a value chain in this context includes: development, capitalization, construction, operation, extraction, generation, collection, processing, handling, cracking, piping, freight, conversion, delivery, step-down, storage, depletion, decay, access, and finally torque. It is the ‘torque’ beneficial use point where all measures must be struck as a comparable index, because this is the only apples-to-apples node between all 7 value chains roughly evaluated below.

Please note that the LCOE in cents per kilowatt hour is the cost (all factors from development and extraction to logistics and use) to kinetically move a vehicle, as indexed to kilowatt hours, not the cost to produce electricity per kilowatt hour nor the price to buy surplus energy at an auction. Value chains do not use such skewed figures as they serve to bias the analysis. The benchmark which must be used for comparison here is electrically-derived mechanical torque to combustion-derived mechanical torque – with the value channel fully loaded, fully normalized/diluted, and finally reflecting a full lifecycle cost burden for each technology.9 10

Table A – 7 Electric Vehicle Energy Sourcing Value Chain Comparative ‘Torque-to-Torque’


Chart 1 – The Three C’s

Chart 1 to the right depicts the relationship between the three C’s of decision making regarding powering electric vehicles: Cost, Carbon, and Control. These 3 C’s are extracted from the right hand side of the value chain comparative (Table A) above. Each is color coded to the bars inside those cells on the right of that table. If you take the time to examine the chart (first one must grasp that it is a chart and not an eighth-grade ‘x-y graph’), one can make several observations, among which include, cost factors:

1. The current approach of fossil fuel combustion is a very cost efficient method of powering vehicles comparatively (red line dip at center of chart) – even when alternatives are fully loaded to economies of scale. This is because

a. a gallon of gas can be pumped via extensive pipeline networks and ‘last mile’ trucks at very low cost per kilowatt hour of energy equivalent, i.e. 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline impart an LCOE of 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour. This cost is competitive with the wholesale cost of generating electrical power at its source. Indeed wholesale energy costs range around 4.2 to 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour nationwide.11 Note that if we move to electric vehicles, that cost jumps from 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour up to 14.7 cents per kilowatt hour for the sourced energy to drive our vehicles. But this cost may indeed be necessary if the solution entailed serves to significantly reduce net carbon dioxide imparted to the atmosphere. That is a big ‘if’ however, and is indeed the subject of this article.

b. a gallon of gas retains 100% of its chemical-kinetic-electrical energy potential throughout the entirety of its supply chain. This is extraordinarily effective when compared to electricity in either transmitted or battery-stored forms – which does not retain its potential and can lose from 15 to 45% of the generated kilowatt hours of electricity during the delivery and battery-charging/depletion/use processes. Think of it this way. If you introduce fuel into your car and get 25 miles to the gallon via a combustion engine, then switch that same vehicle to an electric version and charge that vehicle by means of a gasoline powered electric generator – that same car will drop to 15-18 miles to the gallon of gasoline consumed net-system. In other words, suddenly you are burning more fossil fuels not less (even net of fuel pipeline and last mile delivery impacts). Take note of this for later on when we examine the issue of ‘control’. Why would the fossil fuel industry oppose a solution which would end up consuming even more fossil fuels? Are they indeed the obstacle here as most presume?


Table B – Torque-to-Torque ‘Cost Carbon Control’ Value Chains

However, inside a value chain, cost efficiency is rarely the overarching or guiding factor which drives a decision. This is part of the future of markets of which I have spoken so often. We are killing ourselves, our middle class, our economy and our environment through this blinders-on obsession over efficiency, expense and ‘lean’ operations. If the first thing you do as a newly hired executive is to enact efficiency, productivity, and cost savings programs – then you are just one step above a low-competence administrator. You are an academically trained babysitter. Anyone can do this. American business demands more responsibility that just cooking up buzzword-shrouded cost savings to improve the profits diverted to offshore billionaire Cronies. Further then one can observe that

2. Our current push to move to electrical vehicles (purple arrow at center of Chart 1) will not only cost us more in terms of infrastructure and household monthly bills for transportation, but as well will significantly damage the environment in terms of climate change, at a rate which is 30% higher than even the current levels of carbon dioxide contribution into the atmosphere (green line as it moves to the left of the Chart 1 and green bars in Table B). The pounds of carbon dioxide delivered into the atmosphere increases from 33 to 44 lbs per gallon-equivalent energy in kWh, by moving to electric vehicles as a stand alone strategic climate change move. This because

a. while electrical vehicles emit less carbon themselves, 33% more energy must be generated at the source to cover the line, charging, storage, depletion, and use losses incurred in an electrical supply chain as compared to the same energy delivered, stored, and combusted in the form of gasoline. Yes we have to pipeline and truck our gasoline, but those mediums and their associated transactions do not involve energy line loss, which is a more significant issue.

b. battery full lifecycle and charging station infrastructure will itself create a carbon load on the atmosphere, competitive with the current gasoline delivery infrastructure carbon load. While alkanes such as octane do emit other volatiles and carbon-pollutants into the atmosphere, so do the exotic metals which must be mined, delivered, forged, ionized and incorporated into the battery manufacturing and disposal infrastructure. Fossil fuels do not require a massive core and recycling network and batteries cannot be delivered via pipeline and with no energy loss. These 3-C principles are measured inside the ‘transfer haul’, ‘last mile’, ‘vehicle introduction’, and ‘storage medium’ nodes of the value chains in Table A above.

As one can see, our current push towards the Pollyanna of simply rolling out more electric vehicles, as if we have accomplished a major climate victory, is more damaging to the environment in terms of excess carbon contribution than is the current fossil fuel vehicle fleet. Most people do not realize that our current push is premature and in desperate need of a sound deployment strategy in order to avoid this excess-carbon environmental impact (I could lead this, but we have too many cleverly concealed egos in political and academic circles to accept the unwashed into their elite ranks). Moreover,

3. As one may note in Chart 1, while electric vehicles certainly mandate that non-fossil fuel sources of energy be developed on a massive scale, there are limitations to the scale at which these alternative sources can be provided by traditional government authorized monopoly and oligarch industry energy providers. The reality is that household-based electricity generation will be a mandatory aspect of successfully deploying electric vehicles on a large scale. Conducting this power generation at the point of demand effectively avoids half of the line loss entailed in transmitting the power across the grid (actually only a short geographical distance, as power is displaced, not ‘shipped’) and into homes nationwide. (As a note and of course, ‘household and home’ includes apartments, parks and condos which generate power from shared grids)

Indeed if one examines Chart 1 closely, they may note that the green carbon contribution line (and alkanes, acid rain, sulfides, etc. as well) drops to a very low level when electric vehicles are matched with the requisite generation of power in the household. As well, charged batteries or canisters of hydrogen can be traded and managed effectively between households – thereby reducing value chain friction (as I call it). Consumer energy bartering, what a concept.

Tesla has grasped this, as exemplified by their product offering of a roof mounted solar grid being sold alongside their electric vehicle offering. The image above right is a Fair-Use extract from their site promoting these products (apologies E).12 Roof mounted solar panels (or solar roofs for that matter) are a mandatory aspect of electric vehicle deployment on a large/nationwide scale. The difference in LCOE for a kWh of energy used is negligible (see red LCOE bars/line in Table B or Chart 1) and the carbon contribution is one fifth to one quarter of the industrial version of that same energy generation method (see green line in Chart 1). Elon Musk gets this. (Please also note that we should not dismiss hydrogen as an alternative to batteries in this role – as its value chain is very competitive to a battery-centric one13).

The bottom line is that small-in-scale, proximal-to-demand, modular-storage energy generation
stands as the critical complement to a nationwide electric vehicle rollout strategy.
These are two wings of the same bird.

Anything short of this will be more damaging in terms of climate change than even the current fossil fuel fleet.

Control: The Rub and Mount Stupid

In-home/private vehicle power sourcing, while costly up front,14 will reduce both the cost to operate a vehicle as well as the overall petroleum and meter-fees/taxes paid by the average consumer. And therein lies the rub.

4. The fact that these technologies are expensive for the consumer to install is not the critical issue; instead, control of long-term expense flows and a market channel is what’s at stake. Generation of vehicle power in the household will not only displace channel-expenditures on fossil fuel technologies, and reduce overall petroleum taxes/revenues and potential kilowatt hours sold by power utilities, but as well will serve to reduce overall government control of these vehicle energy supply chains. Energy generation itself, barring discovery of some novel, low-cost, and bountiful renewable centralized source, will force the issue of decentralization (and potential loss of control, mandating even more draconian laws). Almost like we are being delivered a universal message. Choose in favor of your citizens or choose centralized control and punishment, but you must choose nonetheless – your choice being a lens into the soul of your species.

The blue bars on the right of Table B and blue line in Chart 1 indicate a quick estimate of degree of revenue-control lost (0 to 100% of vehicle energy revenue controlled) inside each comparative value chain – this is called ‘The Hump’ or our climate change version of Mount Stupid. A degree of control will be lost on the part of the government in terms of revenues and supply as compared to the robust fossil fuel revenue/supply chain currently in use. Please note that it is not the absolute tax dollar amount which I am discussing here (as tax incentives already exist for the installation of solar systems in the home), rather control of supply. These are slightly different issues.

Prospectively, our governing officials will need to license solar panels for consumer use, net-meter, and own their outputs by law, despite their being purchased for use on private property and by the property owner – outlawing private and pirate off-grid solar panels as ‘fomenting insurrection’ or ‘anti-science’ in some fashion. The trade/barter of grey market batteries or hydrogen cylinders will be prohibited. I can see this coming, especially if this movement extends further into the household energy chain.

5. Of course another issue of Mount Stupid control has involved homeowner associations. Right now, I am prohibited by my homeowner association restrictive covenants from installing solar panels on my own roof (even if out of sight from the roadway). The association threatens us with big-name law firms to ensure that homeowners comply (the use of which they bill us for, in advance). This version of Mount Stupid control also needs to change. Note that House Resolution 2454, which would have forbid such actions on the part of homeowner associations was never brought to the floor of the US Senate.15 For the most part it is conservative red states which have sought to outlaw such restrictions.16

Therefore the astute ethical skeptic, once arriving at this point in their analysis, should note that it is not the Cost and Carbon elements of the value chain 3 C’s which constitute the primary obstacles to sound strategic deployment of electrical vehicles or even climate change solutions for that matter, but rather the third ‘C’, Control. The blue line in Chart 1 above shows the principle that it is loss of vehicle energy revenue-control on the part of the government which is the greatest obstacle to tackling this facet of climate change strategy. It is not a technological obstacle at all, and never has been – but rather one of empire, hierarchy, and control of mankind. That same big government which leftists enlist to enforce climate change solutions upon us all, is in fact the chief obstacle to ethical deployment of these technologies to begin with. Unless we figure out a way to tax and control this energy chain, this change will not happen soon. The victims (conservatives and small business owners) will of course then be assigned the blame as well. This is how it works.

A healthy climate is not the first order of business at stake after all – rather taking a price out of the hide of mankind remains the preeminent objective. It is a form of penance for our original sin. The future involves removing this principle of human rights abuse, and its ensuing forms of hierarchical power.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Pitfalls of Electric Vehicles as Climate Change Panacea”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Jan 2021; Web,

The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)

Recent climate change may originate from structural and exothermic phase changes in the nickel-iron core of the Earth, and not primarily from man’s activity alone. Lattice structure (phase) changes in sloughed (shed) core material releases latent kinetic energy (heat) which flows to the asthenosphere and abyssal ocean depths, thereby becoming genesis of the majority of observed climate change and its long-associated geomagnetic dipole phenomena.

Synopsis – Exothermic (Cyclic) Core Theory of Climate Change

Exhibit AIPGP/CNRS conjectured simulation of measured heat flows inside Earth’s mantle.
1.  The Earth’s core undergoes extreme exothermic change – sloughing high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron from its H-layer and into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron plus kinetic energy (latent heat of phase transition). Core magnetic permeability weakens and its geomagnetic dipole wanders. Earth’s rotation slows from the mass exchange from core to mantle.
2.  The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches Earth’s asthenosphere. Deep crude acyclic alkane pockets are heated and accelerate methane release into atmosphere. Methane ppms far outpace model predictions. Carbon-12-rich oceans and now-warmer tundra each spring solar warming, both release proportionally more carbon.
3.  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 through oceanic advection and upwelling systems to the surface of the ocean. Abyssal ocean currents (and consequently surface ones as well) speed up from the discrete addition of kinetic energy. Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets melt from the bottom up.
4.  Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean. This exothermic core-to-mantle equilibrium is cyclic, and can and will eventually reverse.

32% of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) warming since 1995 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023. This is a paradigm falsifying event – and it MUST be addressed. We are fiddling while Rome burns.

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 assembled over the last ten years regarding climate change. My friend forwarded me the study because he was aware of my active research concerning the increase in thermal energy content of the world’s oceans. While the study and several associated headlines were interesting (CNN: “Oceans are warming at the same rate as if five Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second”), I found its conclusions premature, de rigueur, incomplete in critical scope, and unsound. Yes the Earth’s oceans are warming, but they are warming far too fast and asymmetrically at abyssal depths, to be explained by man’s activity alone. Such pluralistic ignorance and myopia epitomizes the entire coercive miasma surrounding current climate change science.

Yes, it is generally acknowledged by mainstream science and society at large that our planet’s oceans are heating very fast.1 2 3 4 The result of this warming is an increasingly unhealthy environment for our ocean’s flora, fishes, microbiota, mollusks, crustaceans, and fauna.5 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 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’ve worked more extensively than most inside efforts targeting mitigation of volatile organic compounds, alkanes, methane, and carbon monoxide/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. My firm’s capital plans and designs for energy systems/plants never fail to include emissions carbon-scrubbing technologies. I share in the grave concern over human contribution to the stark rise in global temperatures now obviously underway.

Second, 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 enforced hypothesis is based solely upon inductive inference, and as well has recently failed several critical confirmations.6 7

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 single theory’s petition for Ockham’s Razor plurality, and not any insistence (claim) as to a conclusive final 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.

Please note as well, the idea that ‘climate heat must be coming from under the ground’ alone is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis.8 This is the first actual qualified theory of this nature – much of its critical path being based upon two decades of original research on the part of its sponsor (me).

Climate change is an ACAN Problem, meaning it has pushed experts beyond their domain of competence in terms of problem definition. Consequently, they have doubled-down on a single premature conclusion that carries significant risk.

If climate scientists obtained the wrong answer or measures on some key real world model applications, for example carbon emissions concerning the ethanol value chain, marine terminating glacial current vectors and melt rates, and the net negative impact of electric vehicles – in some cases having to be corrected by ‘outsiders’ (actual value chain experts who craft systemic models as part of their profession) – then legitimate concern is raised regarding overall methodology and competence in the field.

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.9 This is the critical path issue at hand.

Part of The Heat May Indeed Be Coming from Beneath Our Feet

During some of my agricultural and green energy work a number of peripheral observations my teams have made have begun to linger in my mind over time. They have given me pause and convinced me of 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

Exhibit 1A – 1974 to 2018 average normalized annual northern hemisphere carbon ppm variation by season of year. The greening of the northern hemisphere aids in recovery, however there is a substantial vernal jump in carbon ppm each year from 15 Feb through 1 Apr when the sun increases its heat contribution upon northern hemisphere tundra latitudes, which then sympathetically release more carbon dioxide.

The chart I developed to the right in Exhibit 1A depicts the annual normalized Keeling Curve 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).10 11 12 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.13 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).

Exhibit 1B – Comparison of Winter versus Spring annual normalized carbon ppm increase, northern hemisphere.

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 Keeling Curve – and notice that this same parallel sympathetic trend is violated in the winter months for the northern hemisphere (see Exhibit 1B to the right). 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 – or what is identified in Exhibit 1A as the ‘vernal jump’. The slope in carbon ppm is clearly less, during a time when its magnitude should actually be higher. This mandates plurality on the subject.

Moreover, something in the northern latitudes of the globe responds in very sensitive ppm relationship with the rising of the sun’s geographic position across the equator moving north each northern hemisphere spring (vernal equinox jump 5 Feb – 1 Apr). A change in contribution which is significantly larger than the carbon effect imbued through man’s activity alone during that same period and the winter prior. Man does not suddenly increase his carbon output by a 2:1 ratio exactly the same week each spring (the vernal jump). One can bear witness to the strength of this natural vernal jump, which overcomes the carbon activities of mankind by far, in Exhibit 1C below. Understand that this ridiculous notion is a requisite foundational element of classic climate science. This assumption, along with a lack of addressing the winter pause, constitute flawed spades in a very tall house of cards.

Along these same lines, the Covid-19 pandemic afforded us a chance to test some of these flawed foundational notions of climate science. Two experiments in particular (1A and 1B below), offer up tantalizing observations.

   Experiment: 2020 CoV-SA2RS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1A

Exhibit 1C – 2019/2020 carbon ppm as compared to select 5-year annual variation profiles. 2020 record carbon ppm increase occurred simultaneous with a 47% shutdown of the global economy. This is a white crow falsification event.

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. Demand for fossil fuels was hardest hit during that time – especially oil, which plunged 8.6% and coal 4% (averaged across the entire period – see red line in Exhibit 1C).14

During that same time frame however, the Northern Hemisphere observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years of data.15 One can observe this by means of the red dotted-line slope in Exhibit 1C 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 Exhibit 1C (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 Exhibit 1C).16 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?17 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 –
right amidst the annual ‘vernal jump’.

   Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B

Exhibit 1D – 2018/19/20 reduced carbon ppms globally only served to produce record peak global temperatures at the same time. Climate models critically failed here.

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 Exhibit 1D to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe.18 As we saw in the previous Exhibit 1C 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 2020.19

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.”20 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 ad hoc and apologetic, not deductive 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, black body, and watt/m2 budget – the static metrics of a system – does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century enforcing the false notion 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. They had modeled the human body as being analogous to an input-output black box, and not the reality of its complex and delicate endocrine system balance. Especially when victim-blaming, cartel profit, and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘watts per square meter’ figures, as if demonstrating competence through recitation of static indices. Such constitutes 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

Exhibit 2A – CO2 levels are chasing temperatures by means of an unjustifiable acceleration function, which must be regression-adjusted every year to maintain the relationship. Is it possible that, rather than pulling linear temperatures up, this curve is being pushed (accelerated) by them instead?

In order to understand this correlation mismatch, one must understand what is occurring in Exhibit 2A above. 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 1958.21 22 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 power arrival function (acceleration). A power function suggests that either the underlying principle driving this CO2 increase also features a non-linear arrival or two impelling factors or more are underway, not just one: the primary carbon motive force itself and the mechanism of impetus behind its acceleration. This because,
  • Economic activity levels on the part of man are not increasing by a power law, but are linear – nor even this fast in slope. Moreover, there was no slowdown in carbon ppm trends attributable to the global economic depression from 2008 – 2012 – and there should have been one.
  • Global temperature increases are rising linearly, while carbon ppm mole fractions appear to be chasing (derivative of/dependent upon) this trend by means of a responsive acceleration (linear anthropocentric and unacknowledged natural acceleration serving a power law acceleration).
  • 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 until 2016 – yet carbon ppm are in continuous acceleration the entire time.
  • Therefore, the viable mechanism for CO2 increase is as a direct dependency, not independence as a model variable.

In other words – global temperature increases appear to be leading carbon ppm increases – and are not solely generated by them (A reader kindly sent me a derivation of this relationship, which can be found by clicking here or accessing this chart). 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

Exhibit 3A – Extract from Nikolov-Zeller albedo study.

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 Exhibit 3A to the right – rights held by and extracted from publications by Dr. Nikolov and Zeller.23 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 climate 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.24 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 heat-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 Ockham’s Razor plurality. Something is wrong in the epistemic sauce, and the 2020 Covid-19 experiment demonstrated this in spades. We need science now, not tantrums.

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

Exhibit 4A – Four NOAA stations show sea level increases; however, also show that mean sea level range is also increasing. The 25% increase in MSL Range indicates that ocean currents have sped up 15% since 1973. This requires a substantially larger amount of energy than climate models can attribute to Earth’s atmosphere alone.

I took a sample of five decades of NOAA Tidal Station mean sea level (MSL) data from the tidal stations at Annapolis, Maryland, Bar Harbor, Maine and Montauk, New York.25 As well I ran another analysis for 52 years at NOAA’s Lewisetta, Virginia station (The reader can observe this compiled data in Exhibit 4A’s two panels to the right). I chose four geographically proximal sea and temperature monitoring stations in order to observe any common signal inside their data. But four 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 in panel two, or yellow MSL Range trend line in panel one, of Exhibit 4A.

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 a mere five (nor even two) decades (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 Exhibit 4A that the variance range of the annual MSL for the four monitoring stations shown has increased by 25% over five decades, with most of this change occurring during the last 20 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 stark dilation in the viable range of annual Mean Sea Level comes a commensurate 15%+ rise over that same period of time, in the average speed of global ocean currents.26 27 Of course, it has been long established fact that the melt-off of polar ice causes ocean currents to slow, not speed up – thus the actual increase in motive energy is even higher than a 15% speed increase would suggest.28

Ostensibly therefore, 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.29 In addition, all ocean currents are increasing in speed, and not just surface currents in direct communication with atmospheric inertia.30 This increase in global wind speed pales in comparison to a 15% increase in ocean current speed in just half that time. Therefore, wind cannot be the driving factor in increased ocean current speed – in fact the inverse is true. This means that atmospheric winds could not possibly account for the increase in ocean current speeds, and even if they could, would only merit credit 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 confirmation bias 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

Exhibit 5A – Higher range of Schumann Resonance bands typical of the last few decades.

It is a well-established fact that the global Schumann Resonance range banding-power peak serves as a very precise indicator of global temperatures.31 32 Recent Schumann Resonance banding-power (not the frequencies themselves as has been errantly reported by some sources33) has ranged upwards through more of the higher frequencies inside the established eight resonance harmonics (six of which manifest in the Exhibit 5A example to the right); indicating a weakening in the Earth’s magnetic moment generated from its solid core.34

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.

Exhibit 5B – Acceleration and weakening of geomagnetic North Pole comes commensurate with global temperature increases. This is not a mere ‘correlation’, and bears direct mechanism.

The Earth’s geomagnetic north pole has wandered significantly in the last two to four decades. During this period, the geomagnetic north pole rate of drift accelerated to an average speed of 55 kilometers (34 miles) per year.35 36 One can observe this acceleration in the migration of the geomagnetic north pole in the yellow dots inside the top panel of Exhibit 5B to the right, obtained from the Nation Centers for Environmental Information of NOAA (click on image to see an enlarged version).37 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. As well, in the bottom panel of Exhibit 5B, one can observe how well this pole wandering matches the increase in northern hemisphere temperatures – with an inflection point for both data sets demarcated in 1973 – making this more than simply a ‘correlation’.38

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

Exhibit 6A1 – Annual time (leap seconds) added to a daily rotation of the Earth, by year. Red line shows cumulative rate of addition, approximately 3 to 4 times faster now than throughout Earth’s history. The period of rotational slowing matches the period of global temperature jump since 1973. However, please note the change in this trajectory starting in 2015.

Of course there has been a long-established link between Earth’s core dynamics and global temperatures.39 Regarding that, in one study, we had this relationship modeled to sufficiency/relevance/accuracy, science discarded core dynamics as contributory to climate change since a particular 1930’s inflection in the data. This is a mistake and grand under-appreciation of the true systemic impact of Earth core dynamics. The core bears latent material-phase energies and itself forces other carbon factors (methane, alkanes, carbon dioxide) to accelerate in their release. It cannot be simply modeled as a static black-body thermodynamic assumption, only to be then abandoned when measures feature an inflection we don’t understand (and we have anchoring bias and politics to serve). But that is exactly what science did – in one cursory assessment. This is akin to investigating a murder, but neglecting to determine the murder weapon, because we already knew the perpetrator a priori.

The researchers found that the uncorrected temperature data correlated strongly with data on movements of Earth’s core and Earth’s length of day until about 1930. They then began to diverge substantially: that is, global surface air temperatures continued to increase, but without corresponding changes in Earth’s length of day or movements of Earth’s core.”

~ 2011 NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights

The simple fact is, that the Earth’s core dynamics have changed substantially since 1930, and science abjectly refuses to examine or consider the alternative to any level of ethical diligence.

When one ignores an entire domain of systemic observation,
comprising a previously established and high-sensitivity causal mechanism,
one does not have a ‘science’.

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.40 In Exhibit 6A1 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.41 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.

Exhibit 6A2 – Progressing from an extended period of leap seconds to now, skip seconds. Open Ocean temperature progressions move in sync with changes in the speed of the Earth’s rotation. Notice how the temperature increases are plume-like and sudden, occurring in one single year for the most part. This is mechanical, and not ambient in the least. The most recent 4 year cooling period in terms of global open ocean temperatures coincides well with a transitional inflection point in the speeding up of the Earth’s rotation.

Earth’s 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. These slowing (heat) and speeding (cool) cycles take on the form of eigenoscillations in and out of the H-layer of the outer core of the Earth.42 From the cited S. I. Braginsky, 1993 article abstract:

Abstract: The dynamics of the stably stratified layer at the top of the core, which we call the H-layer or the hidden ocean of the core (HOC), is considered. It is shown that global axisymmetric eigenoscillations of the H-layer are possible that are similar to MAC-waves. These oscillations have periods of the order of a few decades (∼65 yr) if N ∼ 2Ω where N is the Brunt-Väisälä frequency of the H-layer and Ω is the frequency of the Earth’s rotation. H-layer oscillations can be excited by an instability mechanism that resembles baroclinic (sloping) instability, and they in turn can excite torsional oscillations (TO) in the bulk of the core. The joint action of these two oscillations provide a mechanism for the generation of the decade geomagnetic secular variations, and the associated variations in the length of day. Rough estimates of the physical parameters of the H-layer are obtained by comparison of the HOC-oscillation theory with observations. The existence of the H-layer has significant consequences for the Earth’s dynamo, that are briefly discussed.

~ S. I. Braginsky, MAC-Oscillations of the Hidden Ocean of the Core, Journal of geomagnetism and geoelectricity

Please note that the overall trend in accrual of leap seconds ended in 2015 and has regressed. Under our model here, potentially a slowing or reversal of ocean warming should follow within a year of this reversal. The Exothermic Core Theory of Climate Change hypothesis predicts that a cooling period should coincide with a speed up in the Earth’s Rotation.

Indeed, as one can see in Exhibit 6A2 above, our most recent 6 year long cooling period coincides with an exceptional speed up in Earth’s rotation. We anticipate that this cooling should begin its detection in the Antarctic – and be explained by strict conformists as resulting from ‘volcanic ash’.

Exhibit 6B – Ice skater effect. Mass moves from core to mantle and slows Earth’s outer body rotation.

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 Exhibit 6B 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.43 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, inside a series of Ultralow Velocity Zone (ULVZ) and Large Low-Velocity Province (LLVP) upwelled structures (core ‘sloughing mountains’) which become part of the separate outer rotational body.44 These zones are substantially more dense (HCP-NiFe) and hot (latent heat release) as compared to the surrounding mantle.

We find that the hottest lowermost mantle regions are commonly located well within the interiors of thermochemical piles (ULVZs and LLVPs) …attributed to ultradense, compositionally distinct material, melting (transitioning from HCP-NiFE to FCC-NiFE) in the hottest deep mantle [5 to 68 km above the Core Mantle Boundary].

~ McNamara, Garnero, et al.; Compositionally-distinct ultra-low velocity zones on Earth’s core-mantle boundary; Aug 201745

This added mass also serves 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 Earthquakes46

In spring 2023, an intriguing development occurred in the measurements of world ocean sea surface temperatures. While climate inference typically follows linear induction, a rare circumstance allowed for more powerful deductive inference that spring. Normally, when the sun crosses the equator, both air and ocean temperatures reach their peak due to the direct angle of sunlight and the associated higher air temperatures. By the 2023 vernal equinox, this usual seasonal temperature peak had already been reached. However, remarkably, an additional temperature surge emerged in the ocean surface measurements, beyond the solar contribution. Over a span of 14 weeks, ocean temperatures had risen by the expected 0.4 degrees Celsius. But starting in the first week of March, they experienced another jump of 0.225 degrees Celsius within a mere 3 weeks (Exhibit 6C below). This velocity of kinetic energy gain was 3.2 times faster than what the sun and atmosphere combined could account for.

As a result of this heat plume, 30% of the total surplus sea surface specific heat content above the 1982 – 2011 mean, arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023 ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) activity. As one may note in Exhibit 8C of Observation 8, these heat surges accrue on top of one another over time. This is a deductive-falsifying observation. The only option left, is to simply ignore it – as the average person can quickly grasp the entailed logical calculus.

The Earth’s exothermic core stood as the sole local energy source capable of generating such a large and rapid kinetic energy surge.

Exhibit 6C Falsifying Observation – The Spring 2023 Ocean SST Heat Plume – There is only one source which can impart such a 3.2-fold rush of kinetic energy into the oceans, without heating the atmosphere by 20 additional degrees (which did not occur) above and beyond the normal seasonal peak ocean warming from the solar crossing of the equator upon the northern hemisphere’s vernal equinox. That kinetic source is the Earth’s exothermic core.47

Such temperature and core mass shifts can happen very quickly (see 2006 x-Pole arcsecond shift), and precipitate rather substantial kinetic energy plumes (see March – May 2023) into the mantle, within a matter of weeks. Which of course segues well into our next topic, the increase in mantle-derived earthquake 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.48 Both of these phenomena, earthquakes and volcanic activity pertain to activity changes in the upper mantle and especially the asthenosphere. In ‘Figure 2’ 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 1979.49 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.
Exhibit 7A – Recent rise in global eruptions, matches rise in active volcanoes.

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 Exhibit 7A 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.50 This of course does not mean that volcanism is therefore on the increase. However, it is clear that our ignorance-gulf in understanding the overall contribution entailed therein, disqualifies climate science as a true science – because we assumed the answer before assessing the entire system.

Only 20% of the seafloor (an estimated 44,000 seamounts and volcanoes) has been mapped. Seamounts can also play an important role oceanographically and have a greater influence on circulation which can help scientists better understand the uptake of heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean. Ocean upwelling due to the presence of seamounts brings valuable nutrients from the deep water to the surface.

Gevorgia, Sandwell, et al.; Global distribution and morphology of small seamounts. Earth and Space Science51

However, I went ahead and ran my own graph on the only unbiased database I could find on the matter, which you may observe in Exhibit 7A.52 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.53 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/Ambient – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño/ULVZ/LLVP Thermohaline Currents

Exhibit 8A – Global heat waves form two consistent patterns, which are differentiated by latitude and flow in the same direction each cycle. This is mechanical, not ambient.

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.54 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.55 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 in Exhibit 8A above, 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 Exhibit 8A and the supporting video linked above 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 in Exhibit 8D 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.56 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 (ENSO) Conveyance Effect

As a case example, let’s examine the heat anomaly timing resulting from the abyssal ocean conveyance belts and touchpoints in the Arctic and Antarctic.57

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 the context employed by this article, is a system-wide cycling of a fluid’s property (kinetic energy in this case) inside an equilibrium. This definition comprises the motive energy of both vertical upwelling and downwelling, along with horizontal advection systems. The motive power of conveyance in deep, abyssal, upwelled, downwelled, and shallow ocean currents, while caused in part by convection-radiation-conduction heating and atmospheric winds, exists independent of that property (heat) which is being ‘conveyed’ (advected and upwelled/downwelled).58 59

Exhibit 8B – Thermohaline currents play the central role in distribution of abyssal and polar ocean heat (or reduced cooling) to the Earth’s atmosphere.

These deep ocean conveyance touchpoints serve to originate the El Niño and La Niña climatological phenomena specifically (aka El Niño southern oscillation system – ENSO). In Exhibit 8B 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.60 61

The perceptive reader can deduce from the video provided (Exhibit 8C) that 85% of significant and persistent changes in ocean sea surface temperatures over the past 41 years can be directly attributed to the effects of El Niño and La Niña, commonly known as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Specifically, temperature trends during this period showed little overall increase, excluding during the specific highlighted El Niño events (orange shading in Exhibit 8C). These impactful shifts in temperature occurred within a relatively short span of 28 weeks throughout the entire timeframe, and notably, sea surface temperatures actually fell during all other periods (and especially the part of the cycle known as La Niña) – indicative of no overriding contribution from the atmosphere at all. The feedback sensitivity to ENSO effects in the below dynamic is in excess of 85%. This goes beyond mere weather fluctuations therefore, and represents a key mechanism of observed climate change.

Exhibit 8C Video (Click Image to Play) – when examining the combined sea surface temperature dynamics between 60 degrees south and 60 degrees north, over a span of 41 years, it becomes evident that the increases in sea surface temperature associated with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are persistent and accumulate over time. In fact, these ENSO-related temperature rises account for more than 85% of the overall sea surface temperature increase during this period. It is remarkable that these temperature increases occurred within just 28 weeks of geothermal activity throughout the 41-year timeframe. From both a logical and geophysical standpoint, it is clear that the atmosphere alone cannot bring about such significant changes.62

One must develop a very complicated web of casuistry, assumption in lieu of measure, and linear-inductive analytics to get around the very obvious and deductive systemic dynamic outlined in the above video (each panel extracted from University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer).

These results clearly demonstrate that once the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted warming at all.

~ Wallace, Christy, et al; On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding63

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. As a necessity therefore, the ENSO system has been compartmentalized into its own subject and context, specifically to avoid the climatological implications therein. It is treated as analogous to ‘weather’ – even though it is a direct and major systemic contributor to climate change. Employing the ENSO system in such a compartmentalized context constitutes disinformation.

Importantly as well, this major heat-contribution sensitivity serves to falsify Gaussian-blind ‘watts per square meter’ stasis arguments.64 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’ (Exhibit 8D) 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.65 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.

It’s 70 degrees warmer than normal in eastern Antarctica. Scientists are flabbergasted

The coldest location on the planet has experienced an episode of warm weather this week unlike any ever observed, with temperatures over the eastern Antarctic ice sheet soaring 50 to 90 degrees above normal. The warmth has smashed records and shocked scientists.

This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system.

~ Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes,66 (see Durack, Gleckler, et al. Dec 2018 below)
This observed Antarctic heat plume is not ambient, chemical, greenhouse, nor convection, radiation, or conduction. This is mechanical – mantle-derived conveyance and cannot possibly be any other mechanism.

In support of this principle, an international group of researchers recently reconstructed the history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean, a transition called the Fram Strait, which is situated between Greenland and Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago. What they found was that the Arctic Ocean has been warming for much longer than earlier records have suggested.67 From the study:

Arctic Ocean Warming Began Already In Early 20th Century, Meaning Natural Factors Strongly At Play, Not CO2

When we looked at the whole 800-year timescale, our temperature and salinity records look pretty constant. But all of a sudden at the start of the 20th century, you get this marked change in [deep ocean current fed] temperature and salinity—it really sticks out. Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification.

~ Co-lead author Dr. Tesi Tommaso from the Institute of Polar Sciences of the National Research Council in Bologna

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 on the Thermohaline Circulation Map above. 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.

Exhibit 8D – El Niño (red) and La Niña (blue) effects demonstrated inside global temperature increases. Mechanically, not ambiently driven.

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 (Exshibit 8B), with red indicating a hot period and blue indicating a relative cold period. If you examine Exhibit 8D 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 Records68

~ Newsweek, Oct 2019

Warming at the poles will soon be felt globally in rising seas, extreme weather – Arctic is heating faster than Antarctic69

~ National Geographic, Dec 2019

The ice sheet covering Greenland is melting rapidly [from the bottom up] at its base and is injecting far more water and ice into the ocean than [climate models predicted], according to new research…70

~ CNN, Feb 2022

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 touchpoints 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 strongly necessitate plurality
or even falsification of many of our current paradigms.
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

Exhibit 9A – Climate science does not have a counter argument to the Exothermic Core Theory because it does not examine the data necessary to falsify it, nor expose its own theory to accountability. This constitutes a fatal exclusion bias.

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 in Exhibit 9A to the right, the well documented taper curve regarding ocean temperature progression versus ocean depth.71 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 Exhibit 9A 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.72 In Exhibit 9B 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.

Exhibit 9B – By deduction, the only way to mathematically derive abyssal ocean depth heat content observations, is by identifying a ‘hot’ deep (ocean bottom) layer.

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,73 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 Exhibit 9B 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).74 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,75 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 Exhibits 9B and 9C, those shallow ocean 250m bands have warmed substantially from 1993 through 2017, as expected from climate change impacts.76 This can be observed in the rightmost column in Exhibit 9B, 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).

Exhibit 9C – This ‘hot’ layer of abyssal ocean depth then conveys (advects through abyssal currents) and upwells this heat content to the polar ocean surface first, skipping around the deep ocean depths, and heating (or failing to cool as well as it once did) Earth’s atmosphere first. This could also be punctuated by thermobaric heat-capacitance effects containing the heat in the abyssal layer during certain salinity and density inversion conditions.

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,77 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 Exhibit 9B 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 left of Exhibit 9C.

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 (see Exhibit 9C). 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. The fact that we are ignorant of 80% of the ocean floor means that t
his factor must be examined first, before any consensus – 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.78 79

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 macroscopic cross-sectional transfers of
ambient heat (watts/m2 ‘budget’ as the Cheng-Abraham
study deems it), but rather one of the relative change
in layer-depth total heat content per cubic meter of ocean water (ΔT-gigajoules/m3).

In other words, the Earth is indeed a thermos bottle as they contend, but it is also a leaky one.

As a final note, I tend to 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 popularly decried ‘Mt. Stupid‘ arguments in my view. 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/advection’ 80 81 82 – and less by means of ambient averages and principles of high school physical science. Systems theory, feedback and incremental dynamics are not taught in high school nor even most university sciences.

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.

Exhibit Aone IPGP/CNRS conjectured simulation of measured heat flows inside Earth’s mantle.
1.  The Earth’s core undergoes extreme exothermic change – sloughing high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron from its H-layer and into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron plus kinetic energy (latent heat of phase transition). Core magnetic permeability weakens and its geomagnetic dipole wanders. Earth’s rotation slows from the mass exchange from core to mantle.
2.  The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches Earth’s asthenosphere. Deep crude acyclic alkane pockets are heated and accelerate methane release into atmosphere. Methane ppms far outpace model predictions. Carbon-12-rich oceans and now-warmer tundra each spring solar warming, both release proportionally more carbon.
3.  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 through oceanic advection and upwelling systems to the surface of the ocean. Abyssal ocean currents (and consequently surface ones as well) speed up from the discrete addition of kinetic energy. Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets melt from the bottom up.
4.  Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean. This exothermic core-to-mantle equilibrium is cyclic, and can and will eventually reverse.

Please note: I speculate under this construct that, once the core crosses the exothermic inflection point and begins to accrete HCP NiFe once again, mantle up-convection currents diminish significantly in their kinetic and heat potential and the inner core falls/snaps very rapidly back into a fully aligned macro-bravais (a large crystalline structure) and state of magnetic permeability. Earth’s rotation speeds up, the magnetic dipole increases in strength, and temperatures plummet accordingly, perhaps catastrophically.83

Exhibit B – Temperature increases convey to the atmosphere, not by Watts/m2 radiation, convection, or conduction – but rather through touch points, chemical potential, and conveyance. The Earth is not a Thermos bottle, as such constitutes a Pollyanna constraint of actual geophysics.

Because of the contribution of latent kinetic energy from former inner core 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. Our asthenosphere touchpoints and seamounts (80% unmapped to date) deliver heat content directly into upwelling currents to the ocean surface layer.

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).84

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 (thermal venting), to the surface by means of oceanic current advection and upwelling systems.85 86 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). These advective and shear-dominated current dynamics melt marine-terminating glaciers at rates which far exceed what atmospheric models can justify.87

E – Gas hydrate vents are heated and become more active. Heated oceans release their carbon more quickly.88

F – Permafrost/Tundra/Oceans are heated and release both carbon dioxide and methane (Henry’s Law). 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;

Exhibit 9D – For example: a natural methane plume detected by drone-based photogrammetry mapping on the east edge of Skinwalker Ranch is confused for something possibly anomalous or paranormal in a 2022 streaming series (The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch).

G – Historic atmospheric-ocean deep/abyssal belt cooling deep convection touchpoints (Weddell Sea effect) no longer cool the atmosphere as they once did, thereby resulting in an increase in overall atmospheric temperatures.90 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.

Exhibit C – Iron phase diagram shows break point between Earth’s core and mantle boundary, where the change from hexagonal closepack to face-centered cubic lattice is attained. Massive potential energy in the form of heat (ΔT) is released into the mantle here. A small portion of this temperature increase works its way into the Earth’s atmosphere.

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,91 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 Exhibit C above – 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)92. The simulation entailed demonstrates one conjectured flow of mantle generated by heat released from the Earth’s HCP Core, and how that dynamic might serve to convey observed 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.”

Key elements to note with regard to the 2017 IPGP/CNRS simulation depicted below:

  1. The mantle is not layered as many scientists continue to insist.
  2. Mantle heat plumes move much faster than we had assumed, with an estimated IPGP/CNRS Cycle of around as little as 2 years from core to asthenosphere (see Exhibit 6A2 in Observation 6). This equates to a virtual speed of 0.1 miles per hour, or 9 feet per minute for the fastest/hottest plumes. Slower for others.
  3. Heat is mechanically/physically transported to specific spots along the Earth’s crust. It is not evenly distributed.
  4. Heat plumes bear the potential of enormous variances in their ΔT content.
  5. Core released heat moves faster than does the physical mantle material.
  6. Heat content inside the mantle is fed by ‘geostrophic jets’ of HCP—>FCC energized NiFe materials being ejected from the outer core.
  7. This process will likely bear a cyclic nature to it, as it is constantly changing.
  8. The Schaeffer study cited that, as the magnetic field strength of the Earth weakens, the kinetic potential of the upwelling convection increases up to ten-fold.

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 in this simulation, 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 body93 – 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.

Exhibit D – Iron phase change at the boundary of the core and mantle serves to release heat into the mantle. At the same time the chaos which serves to produce this sloughing, also reduces the inner core’s permeability along with resulting geomagnetic pole moment.

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. This principle is depicted in Exhibit D to the right.

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). This heat transfer process takes about 2 years to unfold (IPGP/CNRS “Mantle Convection Delay”).

6. Asthenosphere heats ocean conveyance belts by volcanic vents, abyssal troughs, and other touchpoints 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, decay and crude methane (carbon-12 rich) and carbon dioxide (carbon-12 rich)94 than they did in the past. This produces the same carbon-13 to carbon-12 incrementally-reducing ratio as does the burning of fossil fuels on the part of mankind. This also resolves the mystery as to why methane increases are far outpacing what climate models have predicted.95

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.

Please note, this article has been modified since its original publication, along the following lines:
   1. Grammar and spelling
   2. Logical flow, communication, format, and clarity
   3. Addition of new relevant supporting argument/recitation/footnote
   4. Addition or update of analytical charts with new or most recent data, when of value to the original thesis
   5. Accommodation of WordPress engine changes/updates

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 16 Feb 2020; Web,

The Hypocrisy of the Socialist Anthropogenic Global Warming Agenda

global social warmingIt is indeed ironic that Big Socialism is manifesting at the forefront of the previously ethical movement over concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Ironic since history is clearly linking Big Socialism explicitly as the major cause of the carbon contribution problem in the first place. Our ‘oh so smart’ academic scholars have fallen for this sleight-of-hand yet again; demonstrating for an eighth consecutive decade that they not only fail to grasp economic principles and elements of sound business, but moreover fail to perceive when they are being manipulated by powerful global social forces who could care less about the Earth – only employing it as a battering ram in the war to enslave mankind under their voracious form of tyranny.

The Economist exposes why the most recent flurry of Social Skeptic push campaigns have hit the press:  Why Climate Change is Suddenly Back on the Agenda.

If you sound the alarm about Climate Change – yet do not seek action inside deforestation (which accounts for 80% of climate change) and physical goods trade imbalances (which accounts for the remainder) – you are a clueless socialist apparatchik.

This is not about Climate Change – This is about Political Change.

No solutions are ever proposed or discussed – only attacks on targeted people, and demands for lock step allegiance.

And the Earth is the innocent victim of Socialism in two ways: First at the hand of misleading and purposely polarizing politics, and second ironically through Big Socialism’s actual primary contribution as THE major cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming

They created the problem, and now purport to be its solution. Sound familiar?

Seven Ways in Which Global Socialism is THE Major Cause of AGW

1.  Highly Remote Untouchable Socialist Work Camps Cause Overproduction and Waste
global social warming 2

By enslaving the working class and selling their captured value as manufacturing slaves, we ensure that products can only be made in the most remote socialist slave labor countries. As a result, the products they produce must be shipped great distances in order to be consumed. These were products which formerly shipped an average distance of 200 miles in many cases within classic unit based capital business scenarios.  Products were produced by ethical family driven businesses which either by ethic or market nature valued local community and local community labor. This new remote aggregation of manufacturing results in the creation of massive trade agencies and shipping consolidation groups which ensure that the average consumer good ships over 7500 miles before it is consumed – and that the retail and wholesale buyers and ‘sales plan modeling packages’ which write the purchase orders are instructed to only buy from authorized Big Socialism shipping conglomerates.

When you buy all your margin perishable product, 7500 miles and 18 months in advance, you must buy 40% more than you need, and a 25% wider assortment in order to accommodate the increased uncertainty on sell through.  Yes you get it cheap – but you also way over-buy and over-produce, and then must dump the poorly performing excess (most of what you bought) onto your home economic turf – because socialist entities bear no risk/do not make mistakes, and do not take returned goods as a result.  This equates to resource wasting and product dumping, both of which destroy a consuming nation and deplete capital resources which otherwise could have been used to establish competing green manufacturing. 

I own and operate a retailer and a wholesale buyer. Because I am forced to buy from China, I must buy a full 60% more than what I want to buy, in order to keep my margin afloat. I have little input into the manufacturing process, nor can I work with them to correct their mistakes.  They just keep on pumping out product which I am required to buy – in order for me to have privileged access to their channels of sourcing. This is what occurs today – and stands as the largest single contributor to global warming.

“A-Level Vendors” they are called in the big software packages that drive manufacturing, SAP, Oracle and JDA. What are B-Level Vendors? Smaller local capital driven businesses which cannot produce enough cheap volume for you to put your competitors out of business. Oligarchs need an alliance with Big Socialism in order to eliminate the ethical employment of capital which could be employed to compete with them. That Oligarch/Big Socialism alliance of manufacturing is what drives AGW. That includes every 24 cent trinket and every $9 t-shirt ever worn, and a 30% overbuy on top of that. In fact, if you examine the world list of socialist states (, you will find that these states comprise in excess of 75% of the world’s consumer goods manufacturing.

2.  Aggregation of Slave Labor into MegaCommunities with Poor Green Infrastructure
global social warming 3

A natural outcome of aggregating work camps into highly remote slave labor centers, is that manufacturing centers are concentrated into regions of carbon unaccountability, where emissions are not only not monitored, but the remote aggregation of people employed in the workforce forces those in the community to resort to ancient methods of sheltering and food preparation.  I have spent time in Islamo-socialist and Neo-socialist countries where around the cities, every tree is dead, bereft of leaves in the winter of human ignorance and desire for a reclaimed ancient empire or dynasty. Hundreds of millions of families employing the domestic burning of wood, cow dung and coal (highly toxic fumigant sources) in order to provide energy for their homes.  Young people left without means of birth control, where schools cannot be powered by wood, with absent long shift dual-slave working parents.  All this creating an unsustainable severe drain on our environment, even independent of Climate Change. In fact, dollar for dollar, Socialist manufacturing countries produce 20+ times the carbon soot emissions as compared to the same size exporting non-socialist country (

3.  Aggregation of Carbon Intensive Business into the Most Unaccountable and Irresponsible Political Climates
socialism creates global warming

Socialism takes advantage of political structures with low levels of accountability, and seeks to dominate people who have lost their ability to stand on their own and hold their government accountable. In this environment, Big Socialism is able to more effectively hide the always incumbent royalty and pseudo-egalitarian elite groups who siphon the wealth out of the Big Socialism system.  But this same tendency to hide and retreat from global accountability bears manifest, problems with respect to accountability within the countries Big Socialism has seen fit to conquer and dominate.  It is solidly and unequivocally no coincidence, that the countries in the chart to the right which contribute the greatest contribution of carbon into the planet’s environment, all are Big Socialist countries.   As you may see in the graphic to the right, provided by the World Economic Forum, 10 of the top 15 carbon and soot emitting nations are members of Big Socialism. It is clear that Big Socialism only TALKS a lot about Climate Change.  Sound a lot like Social Skepticism and the scientific method? Social Skeptics remain the hapless pawns of this movement and its desire to influx its philosophies into western economic practices. See India and China Ignore UN Climate Change Summit.

4. Conversion of Lean Competitive Capital Business into Bloated Bureaucratic Oligarch Big Box and Monopoly Socialist Elite Dominated Industry
global social warming 4

AGW proponents have a nasty habit of trying to blame carbon contributions on the activity of capitalist and Western business.  But the sad fact remains, that as our businesses get more dominant, and cut out smaller competitors, resources tend to aggregated into the hands of a few, production centers are reduced, local labor is put out of work, and product must be dedicated to massive oligarch driven empires which generate carbon as a predatory way of using efficiency to put capital competitive businesses out of business. Ethical business owners must die off and give way to the detached and procedurally obedient workslave executive inhabiting a suit. Execubots trained by universities who only understand efficiency as a means-to-MEGA, and no longer grasp the heart of what values bolster ethical business or healthy economies. If you examine the official list of sweatshop labor practice countries, those where the state allows manufacturing to abuse its labor, and provide a totalitarian environment in which labor has no other choice of work, you will find the majority of these countries to be Big Socialist ( in their government, business and economics.

5.  An Ever Increasing Lust for Control Mandates that Each Year Must Surpass the Last (or Risk Collapse of the Empire)
global social warming 5

Box business, means that each year, the domination must increase – and the increase in revenue must come at any cost; or the slave enterprise risks losing control. Think of what will happen when China hits its first real depression. How will it survive the 5 largest insurrection dangers within its new dynasty? Big Socialism knows that China cannot survive a depression.  They will push for mega increases in revenue, even at the cost of ethical employment of resources, or in the face of over-production versus demand to mitigate the risk of long lead times between manufacturing and consumption.  This is the sad current reality of the China to US/Europe supply cycle under which we now suffer.  As well, we currently waste 40+% of the food we produce in socialist growing regions through post harvest perishment and non-consumption globally.  But the over production is part of the Socialist manifesto of business.  There is no LEAN process in Socialism.  There is efficiency, save for when it is needed to kill all competitors.  Then that efficiency ethic goes by the wayside as bureaucracy builds, and stands in lieu of efficiency in the need for mega revenues.  If you think that Nestlé, Blue Cross and Walmart are capitalist enterprises, you need to go apply for a refund from your graduate business university. These companies are not capitalist winners, they are the last losers. They are Big Box Socialism with a market equity mask. Indeed, the two top Socialist labor employing nations, rely upon a track record of slave labor to produce a smooth curve of growth without major recession, for the past 55 years.  This, rather than an effect of competent business practice, is indeed an outcome of being able to force more production/overproduction year after year and depend upon consuming countries to accept the incumbent product dumping, and not complain because they are getting ‘low cost manufacturing.” (

6.  The Polarization of Politics into an Environmentally Impotent Artifice Effective only at Absolute Control of the Population
global social warming 6

It is no secret that the majority of the Social Skepticism movement, the pawns who are cluelessly employed to further the goals of Big Socialism, possess a lock step disdain for certain politics and sectors of our society. Tweets from the SSkeptic community continue to be embarrassingly awash with latet misandry, hatred of Caucasians, hatred of stay at home mom’s, hatred of families and every disdained remnant of the America they were trained to defeat. I am a critic of both sides of the political aisle as it comes to the application of good science and good sound economic policy. But when I survey the landscape of political extremism and irrationality which inhabits the halls of US Academia and Big Socialism proponents in the Social Skepticism movement, it renders me, even as a moderate, a great dead repulsed.

When the government or monist oligarchy becomes the sole entity which provides for the people. Then that entity must be protected at all costs. Including violent oppression, class enslavement and nuclear war.

Climate change has become a useful political football – much like a bootlegging network which must switch to drug smuggling when alcohol is legalized – the value is in the mechanism and not its product. Proponents never gave a damn about climate change to begin with – as it was the advocacy network which held the value and power they sought. Therefore, climate change will never go away as an issue. Even after we stop deforestation and level the current extreme trade imbalances – even after we all are riding in electric vehicles supplied power by clean power sources – the global socialist forces will not allow climate change to drop. It is too power enabling and too politically and financially advantageous.

The net of this is polarization; a purposeful division which ensures that nothing will get done, except hate.  The Earth will be the victim, as conservative and moderates grow increasingly skeptical of the political agendas, and our elected representatives are emasculated of any ability to accomplish policy in western governments.  The Social Skepticism movement is led and chartered by Socialist and Big Party democrats who make it clear that they will gladly sell science based on politics.  A great example can be found here ( and here (  After all, power and political domination is the real goal. The Earth is simply a playing card in their game of political domination. You will notice that Steven Novella and Donald Prothero are exceedingly quiet about proposed solutions to AGW, and the need to divert carbon from our Value Chains. The solutions are there, solutions which do not entail the adoption of Socialism (not that Socialism will help in the least) but these guys just don’t seem to be able to talk about them much.

7.  The Destruction of the Human Problem Solving Spirit
enslavement of nihilism

The final nail in the coffin of mankind (and the Earth), through the deleterious effect of Big Socialism, is its insistence that only the Elite and their obedient cronies are allowed to possess meaningful lives.  Big Socialism has made it clear that it will gladly destroy the planet in its quest for domination.  But moreover, Big Socialism has another effect, probably the most damaging of all.  That of destroying our spirit, our ability to create, our ability to counter and strive for survival, our gumption to face a big problem and seek to win.  Big Socialism kills all within man that is driven by a ‘more than just me’ ethical boldness. Big Socialism kills our spirit as creative problems solvers and dreamers – just the kind of ethical people who can cure cancer, go to the moon, and help solve issues like Climate Change. The decline in American optimism is rising commensurate with the tyrranical obsession our Social Skeptics have placed onto destroying certain strength sectors of our society. They continue to ignore the alarms, fail to be circumspect about who is formulating their propaganda, and run through a process of denial when faced with any argument which runs counter to their form of Big Socialism and its decaying effect on a free society (

With Big Socialism, we lose our soul first, then we lose our lives.