As a starting point to the discussion, a graph is shown with a correlation between seismic activity and temperature over the last 40+ years. The author’s closing comment: ‘So the oceans are “boiling” and apparently Al Gore has a magic co2 fairy that is doing it.’
– – –
I will be brief ( relatively), says meteorologist Joe Bastardi @ CFACT.
In a paper coming out, “Increased Mid-Ocean Seismic Activity: Fact or Artifact?” Dr. Arthur Viterito has confirmed my suspicions that geothermal input from the increased seismic activity is a leading cause of the warming, if not the almost total cause.
As much as the co2 crowd keeps pointing to the rise in temperature and increased emissions they ignore the fact that the air temperatures go virtually nowhere without the oceanic warming and the input of WV in the air.
The oceans are not warming via co2 feedback. Arguments about co2’s effect on the air ignore the oceanic warming.
So what is warming the ocean? Dr Viterito supplies the smoking gun to my suspicions.
Continued here.
– – –
Al Gore WEF Meltdown: ‘Boiling the Oceans,’ ‘Rain Bombs,’ a Billion ‘Climate Refugees’ — Breitbart News
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
2015 paper: Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve
Pulsing of seafloor volcanic activity may feed back into climate cycles
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL063015
Related article: Underwater Volcanoes Linked to Climate Change in New Study
“People have ignored seafloor volcanoes on the idea that their influence is small—but that’s because they are assumed to be in a steady state, which they’re not,” marine geophysicist Maya Tolstoy, the study’s author, said in a statement.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-global-warming
– – –
Some of the focus of the paper is on longer-term cycles.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Three of us discussed this in the summer, Wyss Yim, me and Arthur Viteritto. it just got edited into shape by theUS outfit Creative Society we did it for, they have different ideas, like saving humanity from natural disasters rather than saving the planet from Humans, but we stuck to the effects of volcanoes and how they match with or disagree with agendas.. In particular from Davy Jones ………. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oRMWpKFjKs&t=7s
Funny to see 2 of my (old) posts under “related” 😉
This subject stil has my attention, as I’m convinced that the very high avg temperatures on Earth (~288K vs 197K for our moon) are only explicable by accepting that our deep oceans are so hot (~275K) because they are “part” of Earths hot interior. Solar creates a warm top layer on the continents, the Geothermal Flux adapts to the avg surface temperature and is the cause of eg hot deep mines in South Africa. (GF ~65mW/m^2). Instead of a “solid” continental crust, the oceans water can move around, and thus don’t show the nice temperature profile of continental crust, but their heat content is almost completely of geothermal origin, except for the shallow solar heated surface layer.
To increase the temperature of all ocean water 1K it takes ~5000 year for the GF through the ocean floor of ~100 mW/m^2, and it takes ~1 million km^3 magma cooling in these oceans to do the same.
Magma erupting at the oceanic ridges accounts for maybe 20 km^3 magma each year.
Takes thus 50.000 year to increase the oceanic temperature 1K.
Not noticeable on human timescales.
Maybe this has something to do with it:
The Earth’s Core Stopped Rotating
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/the-earths-core-stopped-rotating/
‘our deep oceans are so hot (~275K) because they are “part” of Earths hot interior.’
2 Kelvin less and they would start to freeze…
https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-the-freezing-point-of-water-fahrenheit-celsius-and-kelvin/
oldbrew says: January 24, 2023 at 8:09 pm
Doesn’t change the fact that 275K is 20K above the infamous 255K and almost 80K above the average surface temperature on our moon, which reflects ~20% less solar than Earth.
How do you explain these high deep ocean temperatures?
‘NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center estimates that 321,003,271 cubic miles [of water] is in the ocean’.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html
How many active undersea volcanoes – 5000 maybe? If so, 64200 cubic miles per volcano. Hmmm. Maybe the volcano number is too low? But many active volcanoes on the surface are only occasionally or intermittently so. Assuming ocean ones are similar, not that much would happen per year?
Hydrothermal vents are another factor of course, and continuous while they last…
At approximately 400 °C (750 °F), the vent fluid of black smokers is hot enough to melt solid metal.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents
– – –
NASA’s so-called ‘factsheet’ has a black body temperature for the Moon of 270.4K
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Diviner data suggest 197K, so a gap of 73.4K – a bit awkward 🤔
Just out…
JANUARY 24, 2023
Solid Earth-atmosphere interaction forces during the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption that occurred on January 15, 2022, produced the highest plume of any prior volcanic eruption—due to the interactions between magma and water. The event produced a strong water vapor anomaly in the middle stratosphere due to the degree of magma-water interactions at the ocean surface, on account of the submarine volcanic eruption.
The process simultaneously produced almost 590,000 lightning strikes observed globally in the ionosphere and atmosphere, partially driven by an acoustic-gravity wave and via global seismic waves. The phenomenon was the largest eruption to occur since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-solid-earth-atmosphere-interaction-hunga-tonga-hunga.html
oldbrew says: January 25, 2023 at 9:11 am
It takes ~200 km^3 erupting each year to match the amount of energy the geothermal flux (GF) delivers to our oceans. Don’t see these volcanoes nor the spreading ridges do this. Pinatuba delivered some 10 km^3. Large deep sea volcanoes may have a local effect, but imo the GF is by far the largest “energy supplier” for the deep oceans.
But all this energy is only needed to maintain the ocean temperature (heat content). The initial warming has been done when the oceans developed on young Earth with a surface of (almost) bare magma.
Bit the same as a warmed swimming pool. Once it has a comfortable temperature you only have to compensate the energy loss to maintain that temperature. A pool cover especially during the night helps a lot. Same for the oceans, they are covered with a perfect cover: the solar heated surface layer.
Every drop of water warmed at the ocean floor has to rise to the surface before that energy can be released to the atmosphere. This is NOT possible where the solar heated surface layer prevents this. Mostly around Antarctica the surface temperatures are low enough to enable bottom warmed water to reach the surface.
This way the deep ocean temperatures can be explained, and is the sun able to warm the surface layer some degrees. No Greenhouse effect needed, only some reduction in the energy loss to space by the atmosphere.
Because you “don’t see” it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening per what we now know. The average output of a sea moiunt is c.28×10^6 m^3 pa. There are probably a minimum of 5,000 of these under the oecans, there are 1,500 on land which is 30% of the surface and where the crust is much thicker. This is an average rate. The heat per ton, including heat of crystalistion is 1.4×10^9 Joules per tonne. Do the maths. I did and have reported it several times here. Rgis conservative estimate produces an average of 140km^3 per pa, more during the interglacial warm peak and also the 41Ka and 23Ka MIlankivitch cycles, all co documented.
See above for a start, but also prior threads. And the pre pub paper linked below. Perhaps you can tel me what is wrong with my numbers, and the numbers and observations they are based upon?
And this is a VERY different heat from geothermal conduction. . Of intense;y peaky nature, with 1,000 deg differential, and under massive pressure, that heat will plume quickly to the surface in adiabatic convection and spread widely when it reaches the insulating atmosphere. It’s not gentle geothermal warming that will percolate slowly through the depths, mixing with the 5 deg water at depth. That sir of violent emitted heat is well capable of forming the warm blobs we see in the satellite images and affecting climate, very likely the interglacial events during the volcanic maximums hence the ice age cycle, possibly an El Nino cause if the emission rates have some short term drivers from orbital forcing, such as Lunar.
So I suggest you check the published facts of the last decade from those such as Scott White and Steffen Kutterolf as I did, rather than believe a fact free consensual belief in denial of what geology now knows? My paper is here, again….. perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with my simple calculations, not simple to arrive at, but simple to do once they were searched for and found. Also note, as also stated before, that the peak emissions value is likely to be three times the average, so that’s 420km^3 pa during interglacial warming events and into the interglacial optimum, until the impulse decines and the neo glacial begins. A lot of heat is coming from volcanoes under the ocean, very hot and sudden, but integrated by the oceanic heat sink across 5,000 volcanoes AT LEAST, so quite unlike geothermal effects. An considerably more heat at peak levels of seismic action/volcanicity. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
So what we’re looking at is, or could be, volcano effects on top of a geothermal background?
Btw I don’t have any prior *beliefs* here 🙂
Yes. As already detailed above the output of the likely number of large submarine volcanoes can now be estimated and is above the very different geothermally applied heat, and also that from divergent plates “gap filling”. We now have the data to estimate that, even the average and the highly variable frequency with gravitational forcing, so consensual wisdom of “experts” no lomger cuts it. THat’s the way of climate science, who deny such effects have any significance, also natural change of all sorts and clouds, etc. You can’t make it up, that’s their job. FOllowing the newest data is a better way to understand nature. IMO
brianrlcatt says: January 25, 2023 at 11:49 pm
The discussion I’m interested in is about what makes Earth so much warmer than the infamous 255K, or more relevant the avg surface temperature of our moon: 197K.
I’m convinced that the atmosphere alone does not explain our high temperatures.
The answer imo is: the oceans.
What makes the oceans so warm (275K and higher) is geothermal energy in all its forms. The ~100 mW/m^2 Geothermal Flux is in imo the biggest player, magma erupting into the deep oceans the other.
The temperature (heat content) of the deep oceans is the result of geothermal heating minus cooling at the surface, which takes place mostly around Antarctica.
Looking at the distant past we see high deep ocean temperatures related to enormous magma eruptions, probably caused by erupting mantle plumes.
Biggest event the creation of the Ontong-Java plateau, some 80-100 million km^3.
Since that time the deep oceans have been cooling almost continuously, resulting in the current Ice Age, that started some 30 mya.
Unless we have a large event like the OJ one going on, I’m afraid all other geothermal activity is unable to warm the deep oceans and pull us out of the current Ice Age.
Local eruptions may have a short term effect obviously.
The ices age series has only been runnig 2.8Ma or so, 1.8Ma at a 41Ka period and the most recent 1Ma at c.100Ka, both of these are a compound frequency, made up of components of the Milankovich cycle. This is well known from many observations. Its definitely not NOT 30Ma. Mantle plumes form Hawaii and also the Wais Ridge chain in the Atlantic, all this is well known. The roral submarine volcanism must substantially exceed the GF and also most of it will rise fast to the surface, i for a year or two, but the rate must be more than the GF by a large margin, on the simple numbers we now know. And that is enough to warm the oceans enough to cause the warmer precipitation to melt the ice sheets iver &Ka and keep the interglacial going for a few thousand years until it subsides and the neo glacial sets in, as it did 3Ka Bp.
I do not follow the scientific argument as regards the greenhouse effect, as there is no net heat flow effect between the surface and the tropopause, yet the gap in the TOA spectrum from space is real. TO ME THAT MEANS two things:
1. THAT SOME LWIR frequencies LOSE ENRGY IN THE SCATTERING, AND THIS MUST LEAVE THE TROPOPAUSE FOR SPACE AT A LOWER FREQUENCY. There will be some small effect of energy loss only a small proportion is heat, not all that is seen in the spectral gap.
2. Also, as regards the surface temperature, the atmosphere is clearly a natural insulator, planetary lagging between the SST and TOA temperatures. I view the TOA as the temperature that is the effective surface of the Earth, not the liquid or solid but rather the 0.1Bar atmospheric definition. So we exist on a hard or liquid layer beneath the surface at 1 Bar that is reflecting the incoming sunlight and also absorbing and re-radiating the solar energy as LWIR.
So the additional surface temperature, over and above the thermodynamic lapse rate given by the barometric formulae, will be the effect of this insulation on the SSTs, which must mean the surface stays warmer for a given incident hear rate, as we would inside a coat, because the atmospheric insulator’s conductivity is lowered more by the scattering of the GHE than the natural thermal lagging of the ideal gasses. THeir is more scattering hence lower conductivity by GH gasses than ideal gasses. So that makes a given thickness of insulator more effective and surface temperatures rise for a given heat input.
Bur what do I know. I just like that exlanation because it works like the thermal physics we learn, not a fairy tail that does not stand scrutiny, as i have hear to date. Its Feynman’s Moogles, a vague theory which can be proven neither right, nor wrong..
What I do know is this:
I do know CO2/humans have made no detectable difference to the historical cycles of changes geology has clearly observed in the record of the past. Well observed in the record of the Holocene period. These observations show no anomalous addition to the current change when compared with very similar past cyclic change, which has lost a degree or so of its warmest temperature each cycle since the neo glacial started 3K BP. . If there is a net positive CO2 effect there at all, after the natural Tropospheric cloud feedback the models ignore, then it’s too small to be concerned about. ON the observed facts. The only thing that matters in real science.
Another view, mine, is that the atmosphere is smart insulation, and this provides a barrier to heat loss which must raise the surface temperature, for a given TOA and heat input from the sun to the atmosphere and surface, because the increased scattering of the re-radiated LWIR by increased greenhouse gasses reduces the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere , by water vapour primarily, but also due to CO2. It makes it harder for the heat to get out so the ocean surface temperatures, primarily, must increase to achieve the heat flux required. to achieve heat balance at the equilibrium temperatures of both the SST and TOA, the differential across the Tropospheric atmosphere that is required to create the balancing act, in what must be a strongly fed-back control system.
What is wrong with this explanation? Am I totally confused? Is a tautology involved. MY brain hurts thinking about it all. If wrong, then WHERE? It must be in the way that increased scattering affects the rate of flow therough the atmosphere and normal to the surface, per unit area.
No GHE required on this, as advertised at least, it’s mostly the effect of the scattering gasses, not ideal gasses which don’t scatter LWIR. The greenhouse gasses make the lagging work better, thus needing a higher SST to return the energy from the incoming optical solar wavelengths arriving at the surface and leaving as IR to space at the TOA, in summary.
I may be confusing radiation and conduction here, but I base this explanation on the presumption that if its harder to get the heat through the atmosphere, the driving energy, AKA the SST here, needs to be higher??? And I=kt^4 has something to do with determining the SST required as well………….
nb: only natural proven realities were used in this explanation, the laws of physics and properties of matter, no models were harmed in its creation.
PS CO2 is overtly a very small perturbation to the much larger radiative and convective heat flows, so os a small factor within the dominant inputs and outputs of the system, and other much larger controls. S’obvious… ocean evaporation, tropospheric cloud formation hence albedo, many 10’s of Watts/M^2 each of variable negative feedback. GHE from AGW, claimed, 1.6W/m^2 = planet not bovered. I rest my case.
PPS I DO think the evidence suggests submarine volcanoes change at a level of energy necessary to change the balance from sub-tropical to a tropical equatorial climate every time there is a major MIlankovitch cyclic conjunction, currently at c.100Ka compound period, and that creates the short interglacial. Perhaps rather self evidently, by the way the waveform exhibits sudden impulsive warming, followed by slow exponential cooling to the glacial phase temperature floor for most iof 70Ka or so. THe self evident natural state without internal heat release is the glacial phase, that is perturbed for a short 10Ka by the extreme volcanism of the short period of interglacial maximum volcanism, which is an effect of the combined Milankovitch cycles, also seen during precession and obliquity maximums, but not so powerful as the 100Ka effect of eccentricity – which cannot be insolation change as it self cancels over a year.. so it must be gravitational. That is my theory, which is mine…. IMO
The author may be writing utter rubbish , not reviewed by a Peer or a Jetty. Discuss
Too many typos, sorry. Don’t see so well at the moment, but my meanings above are still clear, and the stated facts easy to check. Some comment on my go at the elevated SSTs above the supposedly expected 255 deg would be interesting, as to HOW scattering of LWIR by GReenhouse gasses actually requires an increased surface temperature to drive the necessary heat loss to maintain the heat balance …. which I have essentially suggested is due to the longer path to the TOA via mulitple scatterings. Is this rubbish? It works that way in regular thermal systems design…..
brianrlcatt says: January 26, 2023 at 8:51 pm
We are currently in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started 34,9 mya according to
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
You’re referring to the Glacial/Interglacial cycling.
The mantle plumes you refer to have not been able to prevent the deep oceans from cooling down since their peak temperatures some 80 mya.
At that time the Milankovitch cycles were also active, but no Glacials. Actually we had trees at the Antarctic coasts.
I use 2 ballpark numbers to make discussion easier.
Could you pse confirm them?
– the 100 mW/m^2 GF is enough energy to warm the avg oceanic column 1K every 5000 year.
– It takes 1 million km^3 magma erupting in the deep oceans to increase all ocean water temperature 1K.
I used 1300C magma cooling down to 0C delivering 2.180.000 J/kg, including the latent heat due the magma solidifying.
Addendum: the worst typo line says… “warmer preipiation tomelt the ice sheets iver &Ka andkeet the interglacial going for afew thusand tears until it sibsudes and the neo glacial sets in, as it did 3Ka Bp”. Did you see what it said yet?
It should say “….warmer precipitation to melt the ice sheets over 7Ka and keep the interglacial going for a few thousand years more, until it (the volcanism) subsides and the neo glacial sets in, as it did 3Ka BP.”. Top marks if you got it all unaided.
It isn’t that hard, unless you’re a “climate scientist” with no formation in the reality of the natural world, and the essential observational evidence and the conditions of its collection that actual science requires for any scientific theory to be tested and found real – AKA to be provable and proven.
And, finally, don’t forget the Eemian Hippos in Honiton, tropical at 50 deg North, because all three Milankovitch cycles were in phase and, I suggest, there was a lot more volcanic heat to lose to space. Obs. All three orbital forcing cycles in phase is enough to get some serious and sustained planetary twerking going. “Increased rates of multi cyclical solid gravitational tides in the visco elastic planetary body” to the those of a serious bent.
No typos this time? I hope. Love and Magma, B
This just appeared.
How temperature-dependent silicate weathering acts as earth’s geological thermostat
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
27-Jan-2023
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/977339
Phys.org version — https://phys.org/news/2023-01-weathering-conditions-globe-rate-limiting-factors.html
Abstract — https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add2922
JANUARY 27, 2023
The violence of the Tonga eruption is a wake-up call to watch other submarine volcanoes
This event has parallels only to the great 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia and has changed our perspective of the potential hazards from shallow submarine volcanoes.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/tonga-submarine-volcanoes/
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS VOLCANO OBSERVATORY WEEKLY UPDATE
U.S. Geological Survey
Friday, January 27, 2023, 8:44 AM ChST (Thursday, January 26, 2023, 22:44 UTC)
AHYI SEAMOUNT VOLCANO (VNUM #284141)
20°25’12” N 145°1’48” E, Summit Elevation -449 ft (-137 m)
Current Volcano Alert Level: ADVISORY
Current Aviation Color Code: YELLOW
Evidence for a possible submarine eruption of Ahyi Seamount continued over the past week. Underwater pressure sensors near Wake Island (1,410 miles east of Ahyi), detected possible explosion signals from the direction of Ahyi on Jan. 25.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hans2/view/notice/DOI-USGS-NMI-2023-01-26T14:37:06-08:00
– – –
Cloud-free satellite image of Nishinoshima volcano erupting, Japan
Monday, January 16, 2023
https://watchers.news/multimedia_gallery/cloud-free-satellite-image-of-nishinoshima-volcano-erupting-japan/
Who is looking for a surface heat Blob? Blob Alert! ……….
I have suggested, as a University research study, that it would be good to have an AI search of the satellite temperature data to detect oceanic thermal blobs, by temperature anomaly and size, say? But in fact it seems a better way would be to look for blobs where seismic signals are detected as coming from. as here, and as happened with Mayotte. Look for the detectable signals of an obvious likely cause ex ante, rather than the ex post effects. My money is on submarine sea mounts creating a lot of these blobs, once I realised that the sudden violence and sustained intensity of such events mean the surplus heat will rapidly by spread across the surface of the ocean by adiabatic convection to the surface interface with the relatively insulating atmosphere, where its must spread rapidly and thinly, so the excess heat will largely appear at the surface, and be thinly spread. Well within the isocline, not significantly lost in the deep. Discuss?
In 2019 around Spitsbergen 2 possible eruptions can be spotted at this link:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/22/0100Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=18.28,75.71,3206/loc=30.861,75.781
Hope it works.
You can play with the time to see when the eruptions started and ended.