The Clear Physical Model
When, Why, and How
Thinking back on why I ever got involved in researching climate change I think it inherently comes from my nature in that when people tell me something that is contrary to what I believe to be true I spend time finding out what I didn't know that lets me know if what they told me is actually true. If the matter is minor and I can't find an answer right away like within at most 1/2 hour of researching it I pretty much just ignore what was said and just make note that somebody said it. Of course this only applies to physical reality, I can never remember wasting my time researching a political or opinion piece.
So when global warming became an issue I was actually unsure of what I knew. And although employed full-time I still spent some time looking up things that were being said about global warming and at 1st my gut feeling was that it really was happening. My work had me outside 8 hours a day 5 days a week plus a lot of times on the weekends camping, vacationing, getting out of the house, etc. so not only were the scientists saying it was happening, over the years my own anecdotal evidence indicated to me that it was happening. There was also anecdotal evidence from my father and grandfather about their experiences in the past including the fact that in their lifetimes there were winters that they would have to wait until the spring thaw to have burials for people who have died simply because the frost was so deep that it was not practical to dig a grave in the winter. That and the fact that they remember the winters being much worse as far as how cold it got, how much snow they got, and how many cattle died every winter in the past. But then this was just their anecdotal memories and nobody had the data to say whether it was right or wrong.
As I listened to both sides it became painfully obvious that this was not just about science mainly because the politicians from many countries started chiming in with their conclusions long before the science had an opportunity to be properly addressed as to its severity and consequences. In addition, these politicians were pumping money into PROVING that global warming was happening, and not into finding out if it was happening, and not researching if the results of global warming were good or bad based on science and logic.
The final nail in the coffin that convinced me that there was much less of a scientific concern as it was of a political and psychological concern. This revelation came about one day when a politician speaking about global warming and the actions the government was taking was being justified because "sometimes politicians have to make decisions with incomplete information". I don't know how familiar everybody is with the "speak" of the stereotypical politician but this was just a dog whistle to that politicians base saying that government efforts would be directed to what they wanted done regardless of any facts or other opinions.
At this point I knew that as far as the government propaganda goes it was going to support global warming with or without evidence. I still believed in the scientists and the scientific method to eventually straighten things out as to if the politicians and their base were taking the right course. That naivety was nuked when the Met office destroyed all their original temperature readings in favor of keeping their adjusted temperature readings. Any true scientists would not do that! You do not do that because you cannot guarantee that you can reproduce the original data in the distant future. Yes you can probably reliably reproduce it for the short term but in the long term you can't guarantee that all the ifs ands and buts about the conversion will be preserved accurately, or that people will be aware that a conversion was done, and you have no data to check to see if your back conversion is proper. This told me that there were a significant number of scientists who would sell science down the drain for either ego or money or power or any combination thereof.
For these reasons I decided that the information being given to the public would be cherry picked to produce the results that the growing number of politicians and capitalist oligarchs in Big Green wanted, and not necessarily the truth according to science.
Realizing I needed a clear physical model to start with, and realizing that there are two sources of heat for the earth being the sun and geothermal heat from the core and that science had long ago proven that greenhouse gases, primarily H2O in the form of vapor and clouds are what holds the earth temperature at whatever it is at. Science has also shown that carbon dioxide, like H2O, absorbs infrared radiation at the energies emitted by the earth at the temperature it is at right now and the primary difference is that carbon dioxide has a narrower window than H2O which makes the H2O a much stronger greenhouse gas.
Initially I knew that the only contribution science was giving to geothermal heat was that coming through the solid part of the crust and was an extremely low value plus highly intermittent geothermal output from volcanoes as short term point sources for heat and a few low-energy thermal vents in various places on the earth.
That left me with no way to derive a clear physical model based on the fact that the CO2 has been as far as twenty times higher in the atmosphere as it is today all the while not making a significant difference in the average temperature of the earth so it's exact contribution was in severe question considering that the science of the time required that it be a primary source of additional heat or, more accurately, a primary source of feedback.
As things continued to advance nothing that the scientists produce could reproduce what has happened in the past or even come close to predicting the future. So they more or less went the same direction Dyson did as a young inexperienced mathematician, they started adding smaller and smaller components which they used as parameters to tune their models to make it match what the data said. And then they started changing the data because of this adjustment and that adjustment and looking at it from Enrico Fermi's point they have several elephants dancing on tables with their trunks and tails wagging. And unfortunately that continues into today.
Then one day I read a paper by Arthur Viterito(1) where he correlated HGFA (High Geothermal Flux Activity - continental plate boundary seismic activity in the 4 to 6 range on the Richter scale) from 1979 until 2015 indicating that roughly 62% of the Earth's temperature change in this time period was correlated to that activity. But this was a very short time period and thus under critical scrutiny could be considered as coincidence. The problem was there was very little of this HGFA data available, mostly just the thirty-six years he studied.
But then I also knew that the north magnetic pole had been, on a geological time scale, galloping from its position in Canada towards the North rotational pole and Russia. I also knew that the shape and location of Earth's geomagnetic pole is a result of the motion of some of the molten parts of the earth's core and the electrical current flow below the crust. I also knew that electricity flows in any material based on the resistance of the material and one of the factors involved is how hot the material is. The colder the material is the better it conducts electricity and the hotter it is the less it tends to conduct electricity. You can even control where electricity flows in a metal bar by controlling the temperature at certain spots on that bar.
Realizing that we had much more data on the position of the North Magnetic Dip Pole (NMDP which is where the north magnetic pole is vertical to the ground) than the HGFA, I looked into the correlation between the NMDP and the HGFA. Doing the research(2) it turns out that there is a 93.7% correlation (r2 = 0.873) between the two which means we can use it as a historical proxy for HGFA.
At this point I now had a clear physical model to work with. That model consisted of solar irradiation plus geothermal energy released from the core into either the ocean or the atmosphere in combination with a changing CO2 feedback should account for the changing temperature of the earth. My model only had 2 parameters. The first parameter is how many °C does doubling CO2 produce and the second parameter is how the quantized low-speed NMDP movement effects the heat release into the oceans. As far as the °C for a doubling of CO2 the final equation was tested for the full range that was presently understood to be possible to get the best result and the quantized low-speed heat release used a best fit linear trend line to calculate the expected influence of HGFA based on that particular HGFA rate for that year. In order to understand this second parameter in depth I would recommend reading my paper as noted in reference(3). (The paper is under a Creative Commons license and available free of charge)
Instead of addressing the temperature of the atmosphere, what we commonly call the climate, I addressed what the result would be to the sea surface temperature simply because the CO2 feedback in the atmosphere directly heats the sea surface, and the heat coming out of the HGFA activity directly heats the oceans, and the incoming solar irradiation directly heats the sea surface. The HGFA does not directly heat the sea surface as CO2 and Solar Irradiation but what it does do is raise the temperature of the bottom of the ocean which means the surface will not transfer its energy down as quickly based on the bottom being less cold (less of a difference of temperature).
After running the program to determine the proper equation the results produced a correlation r2 value of 79.61%. Of the total heat added during the study period of 1880 to 1975 inclusive it is shown that 51% of the heat increase was due to the NMDP motion heat addition to the oceans, 30% was from increased CO2, and 19% was from changes in SIrr (Solar Irradiation); indicating that CO2 is not the lone temperature driver nor is it the primary temperature driver at the present conditions of our climate with a certainty of ≈ 80%.
The resulting equation indicates that CO2 doubling will only raise the temperature 1.5°C which is on the low-end of the IPCC papers.
By using the same program to determine if using only CO2 and SIrr is a better solution you wind up with a very low 47% coefficient of determination and a "long" time period where the equation produces a result that rises when the measured sea surface temperature falls. With an 80% coefficient of determination we can say that the model using CO2, SIrr, and HGFA which has no time periods with opposing slopes is a strong physical model.
This disparity in the coefficient of determination from 47% in the presently accepted model versus 80% in the new model combined with the fact that the new model does not violate the laws of thermodynamics shows that the three source model is much more accurate than the two source model.
This information allows us to predict the past accurately and allows us a model to predict the future IF we know what the Solar Irradiation, CO2, and HGFA activity is going to be. And therein lies the problem, we can't accurately predict either the Solar Irradiation or the HGFA changes in the future and the HGFA activity prior to the 1800s is not accurately known and we do not know enough about the geology of plate tectonics to yet predict any future value. The same can be said about the Solar Irradiation other than in general long-term numbers. More about these in my next post.
Viterito A (2016) The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming. J Earth Sci Clim Change 7: 345.
Williams B (2016) The Correlation of North Magnetic Dip Pole Motion and Seismic Activity. J Geol Geophys 5: 262. doi: 10.4172/2381-8719.1000262
Williams B (2020) The Oceans Surface Heat Sources Allocation. J Geol Geosci 4(1): 001-007