Here at CO2isLife we have consistently maintained that to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans. The oceans, not CO2, is are the major drivers of global climate and temperatures. The oceans contain 2,000x more energy than the atmosphere, and CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is by thermalizing LWIR between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths don’t warm the oceans, and therefore CO2 can’t be the major contributor to climate change. It literally is that simple.
Here at CO2isLife we have also stated that we aren’t climate scientists, we are simply scientists that interpret what the data is telling us. Because we are not expert climate scientists we should not have a better ability to model the climate of forecast future outcomes. That is the definition used to differentiate between experts and amateurs.
Well, as documented in countless posts here on CO2isLife, the positions are taken and detailed on this blog are being validated by new research. In other words, CO2isLife reached the correct conclusion BEFORE the experts using simple common sense and the appropriate application of the scientific method. Sure enough, anyone with an ounce of common sense that reviewed the data and physics behind CO2 and climate change would look to the oceans. Once you look at the oceans you quickly rule out CO2 as a likely cause and are drawn to the sun and its impact on the oceans. You simply have to warm the oceans to warm the globe, and LWIR between 13 and 18µ won’t warm the oceans. Vast amounts of incoming visible radiation are needed to warm the oceans, and that is impacted by solar cycles and cloud cover, not CO2.
That simple and common sense model is being validated by recent research:
“The absence of the above periodic oscillations in CO2 fails to suggest its role on observed inter-hemispheric SST difference. The cross-plot analysis also revealed strong influence of solar activity on linear trend of NH- and SH-SST [Northern/Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature] in addition to small contribution from CO2. Our study concludes that (1) the long-term trends in northern and southern hemispheric SST variability show considerable synchronicity with cyclic warming and cooling phases and (2) the difference in cyclic forcing and non-linear modulations stemming from solar variability as a possible source of hemispheric SST differences. … The trend components of NH-SST and SH-SST show strong relationship with TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] trend variations and poor in relation with global CO2 trend.”
And another research report:
“Based on a complex analysis of hydrometeorological data, it has been shown that changes in the temperature of the troposphere and the World Ocean reflect a response both to individual helio-geophysical perturbations and to long-term changes (1854–2015) of solar and geomagnetic activity…For the last 1000 years, the world climate experienced changes that quite closely corresponded to variations in SA [solar activity]: in the 11th–13th centuries, when SA was high, there was a warm period (the “medieval climatic optimum”), and two distinct temperature drops in the small ice age (16th–17th centuries) correspond to the Maunder and Spörer minima.
“A general rise in the level of SA [solar activity] occurred after the completion of the Maunder minimum [1700s], and the world climate became warmer during most of this period… a significant positive trend in the level of geomagnetic activity that was maximal over the entire considered time interval (1868–2015) and coincided with enhanced meridional heat transfer in the North Atlantic.”
In reality, if climate science was a real science staffed by experts, the positions detailed on the CO2isLife blog would be discredited by new research, but that isn’t happening. New research is being published every day that seem to provide evidence that the experts are gravitating towards the positions taken on CO2isLife, not vise verse.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment