Written by James E. Kamis on 06February2015
When faced with obvious conundrums that do not support the global warming consensus theory, science experts often retreat to the safety of “force-fitting” contradictory data.
Figure 1
Global warming advocates are in the midst of doing this very thing. Significant amounts of data, observations, and climate trends are just not fitting into their theory. For instance; polar ice mass is not decreasing, sea level is not rising at predicted rates, alpine glaciers are not melting at predicted rates, hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency, and the granddaddy of all global warming contradictions…”Earth’s Ocean’s are Warming / Earth’s Atmosphere is NOT Warming”.
Big problem!
Climate experts have handled this global warming conundrum by suggesting that excess man-made heat has somehow been mysteriously funneled into the oceans. OK, stop for a moment and think about what you are being asked to believe. Funneled how? The entire heat store of earth’s atmosphere suddenly gets scooped up by hitherto unrecognized unique winds and currents, and then transposed without a trace into the ocean.
Implied and perplexing aspects of this funneling process include: it is historically unique, heat energy is concentrated into a point source prior to ocean injection, and most importantly, the funneling process is an acceptable “adjustment” to the global warming theory…not a “Force Fit.”
The history of how climate science agencies have handled this ocean and atmospheric “force-fitting” process is very telling.
1995: Oceans have nothing to do with man-made atmospheric global warming.
2011: Deep oceans have absorbed all the man-made global warming heat.
2013: Deep oceans haven’t absorbed any man-made global warming heat.
2014: Shallow oceans have absorbed all man-made global warming heat.
Unnerving, curious, and confusing at best.
Another major ocean and atmospheric conundrum is that ocean temperatures have changed in a non-uniform fashion: varying dramatically from area to area, vertically within the ocean column, and throughout time.
These verified non-uniform changes show that certain portions of the ocean may actually cool for a time while other areas are warming. Yes, the ocean is generally getting warmer at expected post-ice age rates, however, not in a uniform fashion. Non-uniform ocean temperature changes do not fit well with absolutist statements by climate scientists that oceans will warm in a linear, continuous, and dramatic fashion.
Evidence supporting non-uniform ocean temperature change is abundant and diverse in nature. First, Western Pacific ocean surface temperatures were anomalously warm in late spring and early summer of 2014. So warm, Japan issued a formal El Niño Alert (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Japan Weather Bureau Declares First El Niño in Five Years
(Reuters) - Japan's weather bureau said on Wednesday that an El Niño weather pattern, which can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others, had emerged during the summer for the first time in five years and was likely to continue into winter. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-elnino-japan-idUSKBN0JO0I620141210)
Climate scientists in the U.S. notified the media that their climate models strongly indicated an El Niño of monumental proportions was clearly imminent by late summer 2014.
Well…it didn’t happen. There was no El Niño of monumental proportions, but rather Western Pacific sea surface temperatures were unexpectedly moderated during the late summer of 2015. These events are clear evidence that global warming / El Niño climate models cannot predict ocean-warming trends, even short-term trends.
Model credibility was severely damaged. Shocked and surprised, U.S.-based science agencies utilized the mainstream media to cover their scientific retreat by claiming “Natural Variation.” Sadly, many in the public bought the whole story, neither questioning what went wrong, nor wavering in their collective and passionate global warming beliefs.
Proof of non-uniform ocean temperature response extends far beyond just temperature readings, it can be observed in the non-uniform response of polar ice masses. Major portions of the polar ice masses lie directly above, or are in lateral contact with the ocean. Therefore, polar ice extent responses would presumably be tied to ocean warming responses, so say global warming experts.
Arctic Ice extent diminished rapidly from 2001 to 2007, then suddenly increased back to near normal during the 2012 to 2015 time period. These trends do not fit global warming climate models, which predicted continuous, uniform, and rapid Arctic ice extent decrease. Most climate models, and more importantly, climate science agencies, suggested the Arctic would be ice free, or nearly ice free by 2015. Again, it didn’t happen.
The ramifications of this model prediction failure are truly staggering.
Noted universities such as the NOAA-funded University of Colorado INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research) group have recently amended previous predictions by climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. INSTAAR now says Arctic ice extent is extremely variable and it may take decades to understand. (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2015/01/28/erratic-normal-arctic-sea-ice-loss-expected-be-bumpy-short-term). This is essentially an admission that Arctic ice extent decrease can no longer be used as the poster child for global warming. INSTAAR’s announcement also contradicts IPCC and U.S. government statements that the debate is settled and it’s time to take action. Gone is the pretense of a “consensus” theory, no more 97%.
Wow! Have to take a breath here to regain composure.
Ok…now on to modern Antarctic ice extent conundrums. Antarctic ice extent trends clearly don’t fit global warming climate models: ice extent has increased for thirty years, recent and very rapid local ice melting has occurred in glaciers above the geothermally active West Antarctic Rift System (West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting From Geothermal Heat Not Global Warming), and East Antarctic glacial ice mass is increasing.
So how can all of the above-mentioned ocean and atmospheric global-warming conundrums be placed into a more believable framework? The answer lies in giving strong consideration to a new and sound geologically based theory: Plate Climatology.
Plate Climatology Theory is a far more plausible explanation of many observed natural variations in ocean temperatures. Does it answer all ocean temperature variation questions? No. However, it does an excellent job of explaining many of them, especially prominent ones such as: El Niños, La Niñas, and rapid shifts in polar ice extents to name a few. One of the basic tenants of Plate Climatology Theory is that geologically induced heat flow from deep ocean faulted rift systems (figure1) act to warm the oceans from beneath much like a stove burner heats a pot of water.
Knowing this, ocean and atmospheric conundrums can be resolved.
If you heat the oceans from beneath they will warm, but will have little effect on the atmosphere. Non-uniform, lateral ocean-temperature variations are easily explained because the primary deep ocean heat sources are limited in geographical distribution: rift systems are limited to plate pull-a-part boundaries, and active volcanic areas are of limited extent. The time-variable element of non-uniform ocean temperature changes is caused by the proven on / off nature of these deep ocean heat sources. Many non-uniform polar ice and El Niño responses are a consequence of geologically induced ocean temperature changes.
By utilizing Plate Climatology Theory, many conundrums, questions, and odd trends are answered and clarified. Additionally, major variations in ocean and atmospheric temperatures can be “Naturally Fit” into a geological setting.