Written by James E. Kamis on 14January2015
A just-released study by MIT adds to the exponentially increasing amount of data and research that substantiates the most basic tenant of the Plate Climatology Theory: that natural geological forces have the power to dramatically affect our climate.
The MIT study theorizes that since the year 2000 natural aerosols emitted from active continental volcanoes have cooled the earth’s atmospheric temperature by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius. These emissions were primarily from numerous small, unmonitored volcanoes that spewed droplets of sulfur-rich aerosols into the upper atmosphere which then acted to reflect a significant amount of sunlight away from Earth.
The implications of this information are staggering!
First, it is an admission that natural variations in our climate are not all about human induced CO2 into the atmosphere, quite the contrary, it proves that powerful geological forces can override, if not reverse the impact of human CO2 emissions.
Next, the “97% consensus” notion is no longer applicable. Effectively the MIT scientists are agreeing with the “skeptics” who contend that the global warming theory is not proven. MIT states that it might regain a proven status in the future once the effect of natural geological forces on our climate is better understood and removed from the equation. However, it is no longer tenable to state that all respected scientists agree man-made global warming is proven.
If one geological force such as continental volcanic aerosols can be proven to have this much influence on climate, it follows that we should consider and monitor all geological forces: deep-ocean hydrothermal vents, deep-ocean volcanoes, deep-ocean rift systems, deep-ocean subduction zones, major continental rift systems, etc.
MIT researchers have suggested that we need a “more robust” monitoring system of geological forces. Totally agree! In fact, this is another basic premise of the Plate Climatology Theory:
Given that we should monitor geological forces it is very important to first design an accurate monitoring system. Why? It is not possible to accurately “model” the effect of these forces until we understand their intensity, frequency, and distribution. Once understood, it is theoretically possible to build a new climate model that removes the affects of these natural geological forces. According to MIT the adjusted climate model would then properly reflect the influence, if any, of human induced global warming.
What is the time table to complete this climate “remodeling” task?
Monitoring system design: 2 years
Contract, build, and install monitors: 3 years
Length of Monitoring time: varies because geological forces vary, likely 3 years
Model Rebuild: 2 years.
Total remodel: 10 years
If this time estimate is correct or even close to correct, it would clearly be rash and irresponsible to blindly follow IPCC’s latest mandate that we need “…ambitious, decisive and immediate action…", specifically immediate carbon taxes, emission reductions, and massive funding. Now is not the correct time to force-fit IPCC’s solution into a poorly defined problem.
The MIT Study highlights just one of many problems with the “consensus” Global Warming Theory, such as:
- The atmosphere has not been warming for over 18 years even though atmospheric CO2 content has been increasing.
- Ocean temperatures have risen during certain periods and in certain geographic regions during the atmospheric “warming pause”.
- Polar Ice mass is increasing, not decreasing.
- Limited portions of the Polar ice caps are proven to be melting from geologically induced geothermal heat flow.
- Sea level is not rising as predicted. In some interpretations of the sea level data, it has not been rising since 2004.
- Worldwide continental Alpine Glacier Ice mass is not decreasing at predicted rates.
- Global warming models are not working and in a constant state of readjustment.
- Atmospheric CO2 content increased after decade-long warming periods in the past, not before.
- Historic climate-related events such as the California drought are proven to not be related to atmospheric warming, rather local ocean warming.
- El Niño’s are not well explained by atmospheric warming.
- Sea surface high-temperature anomalies can sometimes be related to deep ocean Rift Systems.
To be perfectly clear, the incongruities listed above do not conclusively prove that the global warming theory is incorrect. It does, however, conclusively prove that it is long past time to consider alternative theories.
The Plate Climatology Theory does provide a plausible explanation for observed natural variations in climate and climate-related events. It just makes sense that if major geological plate boundaries (Rift Systems and Subduction Zones) have the power to move continents two to three centimeters per year, frequently create large tsunamis that mix thousands of feet of ocean column, support vast chemosynthesis communities, and contain 70% of the planets known active volcanoes, they can certainly and easily influence our climate in a dramatic fashion.
The reader is directed to previous posts that document, discuss, and detail other breakthrough research studies that have vaulted the Plate Climatology Theory into the “probable” status; El Niños Generated By Geological Heat Flow Not Global Warming, The Fallacies And Failings Of Consensus Science, Update on Geothermal Heat and Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Melt, and Greenland Ice Melt Geothermal, Not Man-made.
Embracing irony can be challenging, but rewarding. For example, the image atop this article that shows satellite views of a currently active Antarctic Continent volcano, Mount Erebus. Is it emitting sulfur-rich aerosols that according to MIT are cooling the planet, or is it emitting heat, which is melting glaciers? Ironically the answer to both questions is…yes.
The reward? Embracing this irony forces us to realize that climate science is a complex interaction of many forces, and therefore can best be understood by applying a multidisciplinary approach involving: Meteorologists, Geologists, Oceanographers, Climatologists, and Biologists. To date these disciplines are largely operated independently. There is a need to share ideas, data, and theories.
Finally, if we objectively review all relevant data and research it’s clearly time to consider alternative theories to global warming. MIT states that geological forces should be an important element of new climate theories, by inference the Plate Climatology Theory. Who am I to disagree?