Before we get to volcanoes I want to take you on a little history.

When this climate science was born by Jim Hansen the logic was simple.  The ice ages were a period of great temperature variation.  8C movement caused the Earth to move from iceball state to where we are today and back hundreds of times.  Why?

5myr temp change

Milankovic cycles were discovered to be small variations in Earths orbit around the sun.


Due to the effects of other planets gravitation the Earth moves in a a very small wobbling pattern that was discovered to be about the duration of 41,000 years or roughly the ice ages.

The total maximum variation in the suns impact on the earth generates no more than 10% of the energy needed to cause the ice age variation.   So, scientists for a long time have known there is a problem with why the ice ages show so much temperature change when the solar input change is so low.


Scientists have known that CO2 absorbs energy and raises the temperature of the mid-atmosphere. Evidence supported the idea that CO2 varied dramatically during ice ages.  This is because as the oceans warm they disgorge CO2 since the solubility of CO2 in water becomes less with higher temperatures.   So, CO2 went up after the temperatures went up and came down after the temperatures went down.  CO2 variation wasn’t causing the ice ages but was a result of the ice ages temperature fluctuations on the oceans. This is correlation but not cause.  Nonetheless we know CO2 does raise temperatures so as it went up for other reasons it does magnify the temperature response from the solar variation effectively.

Scientists were able to show that this CO2 effect was small but enough to account for another 20% of the energy required for the ice ages.

Even with solar radiation and CO2 there is 70% of the energy to make an ice happen missing!

Hansen and folks reasoned that CO2s effect could be multiplied by other factors like increasing humidity from increasing temperatures.  Water vapor is 10 times the power of CO2 in raising temperatures so a small change in water vapor would greatly impact temperature.  Water vapor was estimated would triple the effect of CO2 alone.  Right there with humidity you almost completely explain the ice ages.  So, for Hansen and some of these climate professionals the science was settled.  They explained why the temperature moved so much in the ice ages.  What they didn’t say is that this depended on this massive magnification of the CO2 effect which they hadn’t proved.  They created the other 70% out of thin air.

Over the last 20 years many people including myself have noticed that CO2 is not producing the effect it was supposed to produce.   The ice ages CO2 varied by 100ppm between 180 and 280PPM in the atmosphere.   We have already added 140PPM into the atmosphere today.  Even if we stopped putting any more CO2 into the atmosphere today we have already put in enough to basically be the equivalent of 1 to 1 1/2 ice ages of CO2 difference.  If we continued to pour in CO2 it seemed likely temperatures would rise 4, 6 or even 8 or more degrees centigrade worldwide according to this multiplicative theory.   That’s what happened in the ice ages.  So, it must happen today.

One caveat is that as you put more CO2 into the atmosphere it doesn’t go up linearly.  The CO2 molecules compete with each other in absorbing the radiation and so you have to double the amount of CO2 to get the same rise in heat but still even counting that the temperature rise from 140ppm should be huge. We have already as of 2015 put in 50% gain which is equal to the ice age rise in Co2 therefore we should see 4C.   Climate scientists claim 1C in the entire period from 1750 – 2015 which is far less and unfortunately as I’ve explained in other blogs they cannot claim all this heating is from CO2 because other things have been happening like the end of the LIA that obviously are part of that 1C.   So, the amount of change so far is already way less than they thought originally.  Original speculation was that climate sensitivity could raise temperatures by as much as 10C by 2100 because CO2 has been such a powerful force according to their theory.   CO2 alone is responsible for generating 90% of the ice ages temperature change according to them so we should be getting a massive response to the CO2 we’ve ALREADY put in let alone the amount from another 80 years of emissions.

However, we have NOT seen this high multiplier happening.  In the last 20 years we have poured in almost 50ppm or 1/2 an ice age of CO2 difference and temperatures haven’t moved an iota.  Not 4 degrees C you might expect and not even 0.4C, not even 0.04C.   How could that possibly be if this multiplicative effect was happening it should be generating massive heat!  There should be no need to adjust and hunt and explain away pauses!  They even said so.  They said CO2 would dominate temperature for the next century but for 20 years natural variability completely cancelled out CO2.  This was impossible!

The entire 1 1/2 Ice ages of CO2 we have deposited in the atmosphere has caused since 1945 about 0.3C not 12.0C, not even 1/10th 12C or 1.2C.  In fact satellites show 0.3C or 1/40th the amount one MIGHT expect and which some climate scientists thought.

ICE AGE CO2 CHANGE:  100ppm from 180 to 280ppm


1945-2015 CO2 change:  95ppm from 310 to 405.

1945-2015 TEMP CHANGE:  +0.3C 1/40th the effect seen in the ice ages

Do you see the problem.  Clearly CO2 is NOT WORKING LIKE THEY THOUGHT.

I believe the answer to this problem lay in 2 fundamental things the climate people like Hansen overlooked.

The biggest failure for client science to date is arguably the PDO/AMO.   This effect which is approximately 60 year cycle that raises and lowers temperatures worldwide by plus or minus 0.23C was discovered really in the last 10-15 years yet climate science is unable to explain it.   The fact is it is not surprising that such an effect might have existed.   The oceans are mostly unknown and they represent a huge variable that the IPCC and climate scientists said was pretty much static over these medium time periods.  They really had no basis to say that.  It was a convenient assumption.   They were wrong and it is causing major havoc because it means almost everything they said about what caused what in the past has to be revised and it puts all their theory and models into a big black hole of uncertainty.

The computer models did not know about PDO/AMO variability.  They don’t know how to model this PDO/AMO variability so they STILL have not modified models to accommodate the new reality.  PDO/AMO explains a great deal of the variability over the last 250 years up and down.   Since it turns out the PDO/AMO were in an upward cycle during the period 1975-2000 which is when the climate professionals thought CO2 was causing all the warming they now are in a position of having to backtrack on that claim.  CO2 COULDN”T have caused all the warming between 1975-2000 because PDO/AMO had to contribute close to half the heating in this period.

Here is a chart showing how the PDO/AMO has gone up and down and will continue to do so if it continues:


PDO/AMO is currently suppressing what would otherwise without them be continuing warming.   However, even taking that into account the underlying rate is vastly less than the rate they projected.

Here is what the Climate professionals thought would happen:


One of the first conclusions you should be shocked to find from all this is that:


  1. By the data above which shows a divergence that is too much to be explained
  2. By the discovery of the PDO/AMO which they didn’t know about and significantly changes everything about the models reasons for why everything happened and what will therefore happen in the future.


Today it is not scientifically possible to say what amount of heating will result from CO2 in computer models because the models don’t include fundamental factors that affect climate.

The climate professionals will say that  PDO/AMO is a short term phenomenon and that if you remove this 60 year variation you are still left with a monotonically increasing global warming that is the CO2 signal.  YES.  Absolutely.   What they don’t mention is that this remaining signal after removing PDO/AMO is less than HALF what they told us would happen.  So, forget 2 degrees C.  The models can’t be said to show we will get that.

You can see from the historical temperature chart above that unless something radical changes if we keep going as is the most natural thing would be a 0.3C rise by 2100.  It would seem incredibly improbable at this point that the curve of temperature will somehow rise up to meet the IPCC computer model forecasts.  In fact, it would be a miracle if they did without scientific basis.  There is no reason to believe that would happen from a scientific point of view.


“Well whatever the short term impacts of PDO/AMO and other things going on the long term must be huge because we see in the ice ages that CO2 causes massive change in temperature.”

So, they would be saying that they don’t know why CO2 isn’t causing this massive impact now but they expect but it will because it did before during these ice ages because we have no other explanation for how the temperature changed in the ice ages so much.

Now we come to the second HUGE missing piece that climate professionals overlooked.

Again this missing piece has to do with the oceans.  I consider this egregious error.   People will say they didn’t know about PDO/AMO.  Even though nobody knew about PDO/AMO we knew the ocean was likely to have MAJOR impact on climate and a source of major uncertainty.  WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE OCEAN.  It is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.  Therefore the oceans could explain all variation in earths atmospheric temperature without flinching.   A 0.01C change in the overall ocean temperature would mean 10C change in atmosphere possibly.  So, the ocean could with imperceptible changes completely erase CO2, add to it, turn us into an ice ball or anything in-between and they discounted it all along.  That is not simple oversight.  That is major error and is inexcusable.   They should have been a lot less certain.

But the basic logic of Hansen is still there.  Why does all that temperature change happen during the ice ages?

download (1)

Underwater Volcanoes have major impact on climate probably responsible for the ice ages and for life at all on this planet

Three separate articles have come out recently which hint at the degree to which the climate scientists got everything wrong.

These 3 studies are:


Kutterolf, S., M. Jegen, J. X. Mitrovica, T. Kwasnitschka, A. Freundt, P. J. Huybers (2012): A detection of Milankovitch frequencies in global volcanic activity. Geology, G33419.1,


They are each worth reading if you are at all interested in this topic.   There is another study related which describes how new ocean fissures are being discovered that dramatically increases this phenomenon that we have scant knowledge of before.

Climate Scientists considered undersea volcanoes as insignificant both now and in the past.  The IPCC ranked them as having minimal impact.  Unfortunately, like the ocean in general our actual understanding of undersea anything was practically zero.    Recent improvements in technology have shed a lot of light on this topic.  Satellites have recently allowed us to document a 10,000 fold increase in the amount and size of deep sea fissures from previously known amounts.  In short there are a lot more of these cracks in the earths crust than we thought.


From the beginning I have wondered why underwater volcanoes were discarded by climate scientists as insignificant.  Since over-water volcanoes have major impact on climate over years why would underwater volcanoes not have a similar effect, possibly delayed or an effect on the ocean that would be worth studying?  We actually at this time have no good way of determining how much heat is released by fissures in the undersea connection to the mantle which is a major flaw in our ability to understand what has happened or will happen.  For many years I saw nothing on this and couldn’t figure out why it was such a quiet area.

Even if you thought that heat escaping into the ocean from the mantle could case the rise and fall of the ice age why would they happen at 41,000 year intervals?

The 3rd paper above points out that such underwater volcanoes happen almost always during major stresses that occur from gravitational effects and certain times of the year corresponding to changes in orientation of the earth.  In other words a shifting earth and moon moves enough mass and deforms the planet enough to cause these volcanoes to occur.  We know the seas move feet in hours all over the earth from the moons gravity.  Annual variations in Earths orientation causes apparently sufficient disturbance in the Earths crust and distortion of the Earths mass to cause underwater fissures to open or close.  These fissures open up mainly during these gravitational effects yearly.  They happen during the first 6 months of the year and during certain times of the tidal cycle associated with the moons movement.   Therefore it is clear that distortions from these causes we know today already cause these things to erupt or not.
If you remember from some basic geography the Earth is actually kind of oval (obloid) with the middle distended a little because the rotation of the Earth causes the mass to flatten out a little.  The Earth is distorted by 13 MILES by this spinning.  13 miles of earth around the entire earth is a fantastical amount of mass of course.  As the Earths rotation changes the Earths shape will wobble.  Not much but it can easily vary many feet from one situation to another.   We know gravity from the moon moves massive quantities of water and the pressure of this shifting water is tremendous on the mantle and during the peak of these cycles is when the volcanoes under the ocean spurt out.   So, it is pretty well established now that these things are related.
It is therefore logical that the shifts from Milankovic cycles which occur on longer periods could cause similar large scale changes in the shape and disturb the earth.  When these wobblings of the Earth occur the shape deformations of the Earth could easily open up or close these fissures resulting in massively increased or decreased activity.


About 800 million years ago the Earth had settled into an Iceball.  Covered in ice 12 months of the year all over the surface for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS.   Wow.  That’s scary to me.   The planet almost was lifeless.
These undersea volcanoes can release quite a lot of energy into the ocean as well as chemicals.  Evidence of these eruptions is found during interesting periods of Earths history.  For instance 600 million years ago when the Earth was a solid ball of ice we find that massive undersea eruptions that seemed to have caused the emergence of Earth from a 200 million year iceball state.  Evidence of deposits of materials from these undersea volcanoes in a massive set of explosions deposited a huge layer of this material.
Again this is powerful evidence these undersea volcanoes have an enormous impact on the climate.    They ended iceball Earth possibly.

Why does this change the CO2 story?

When the Milankovic cycles happen we notice that only 10% of the energy to change the climate can possibly come from the changing solar radiation.  We have 20% that eventually comes from the CO2 that is released from the oceans.  That leaves 70% unexplained.
However, now we have another effect from Milankovic cycles we didn’t understand.  During these cycles the ocean fissures may undergo stress and open or close at different parts of the cycle.   This energy release or reduction can explain some of the temperature variation during the ice ages.   This relieves the need for CO2 to have a huge multiplier to account for the missing energy.
We don’t know yet how much this factor is.  It could be all the heat needed to cause the interglacial periods or it could be part and CO2 has some significant multiplier yet.  However, it gives doubt to the reasoning that CO2 must be multipleied by some high response factor simply because we have no other reason to explain the ice ages.

Another paper above looked at the cyclic nature of the shifting weight of glaciers

If you imagine how during the ice ages ice melts massively around the Earth.  During the cold period the glaciers are huge and pressing on some places of the mantle.   When the ice melts it disburses and spreads out in the oceans.  This causes a deformation in the Earths shape.  It is likely that when the ice reaches a peak concentration at the poles and size that the pressure bends the mantle and opens up the fissures resulting in a counter phenomenon of releasing heat from the mantle and starting to warm the planet again.

As the planet warms the glaciers melt and the pressure on the mantle changes.  It is more evenly distributed mass and this probably results in the mantle closing up or becoming more unformly shaped.  This would result in less heat release.  With less heat release the Earth would cool and the glaciers would start to build again.

Together these phenomenon provide significant contribution / explain the ice ages

What we know:
   1) Milankovic cycles increase solar radiation
   2) CO2 is released from the ocean
   3) Weight of glaciers at peak cold cause earth to bend and fissures to open
   4) Milankovic cycles also distort the Earths shape and cause fissures to widen
These things together provide a much more believable story of how the climate changed periodically than a huge multiplier.   Now that we’ve seen the huge multiplier doesn’t seem to be happening it requires another explanation for the ice ages.   Another ocean based phenomenon we didn’t know about seems to be a likely answer.

Another riddle possibly solved

 During the last 20 years the temperature of the bulk air of the Earth has not changed.
The red line above is the result of 14 satellites that circle the earth constantly measuring the bulk of the atmosphere temperature.   The blue line is what NASA claims is the temperature at the surface after extensive adjustments for lots of errors.   If you remove NASAs adjustments to the blue curve above it remarkably returns to the shape of the red curve.  This implies the adjustments are bogus.  Other data confirm that the satellite record is correct.  Balloons, Sea buoys and the best thermostats without adjustment also show the same record as the satellites.   The adjustments in blue are bogus.
At the same time climate professionals have reported that the deep sea buoys we put in place 15 years ago are showing a slight temperature rise below 1000 feet depth.
This temperature rise although small because the ocean is so large means a total energy EQUAL TO the entire amount of radiation absorbed by CO2 for 20 years.  It’s as if all the energy from the CO2 5000 feet above the ground and everywhere has been magically transmitted to the deep ocean under 1000 foot depth.
Remarkably the upper ocean is NOT changing temperature.  In fact, the upper ocean shows a DECREASE in temperature over 20 years.  So the climate professionals are trying to tell us that the energy from all the CO2 for the last 20 years has somehow managed to make itself into the deep ocean.  So far they have not explained the mechanism for this.  However, it has a number of puzzles.
What is this heat 1000 feet below the surface?  Where did it come from?
1) From CO2 somehow
2) From deep ocean fissures
3) From other parts of the ocean in a flow that we never observed before
The PDO increases and decreases the Earths temperature every 60 years.  For 30 years the Earth gets cooler and that energy has to go somewhere from the atmosphere.  For 30 years the temperature rises and that energy has to come from somewhere.   The amount of energy is huge of course because it heats the earth or cools it for 30 years each by a significant amount.   Where does that heat come from or go to?
Surprise!!   NOBODY KNOWS.   However, since PDO/AMO predates CO2 changes caused by man the recent CO2 is not likely a source.   The heat in the ocean below 1000 feet could be part of the answer to PDO/AMO.  It likely is part of the answer for sure.   We have no other explanation for this periodic behavior.  The source of the heat could be underwater mantle release or refreshing from the sun whose output might vary over periods, possibly an interaction with some creatures or chemistry we don’t understand.  It could be as simple as a overturning of ocean temperatures like happens in the atmosphere but at a much slower pace where this heat oscillates in the ocean up and down from the bottom of the ocean to the top over 60 years.
If heat is released by fissures it would take a while to progress to the surface.  The physics suggests that directly over the fissures would see significant temperature increase from such releases.  This might be an instantaneous change but over longer periods the warmth would spread laterally as well.  We don’t see such warm spots yet nor have we seen many ocean fissures.  Frankly, like so many things regarding the ocean we know virtually nothing.
Overall we have brought to light serious problems with climate science that is not surprising.   They said it was settled.   We don’t have the science settled in physics after hundreds of years of intense studying.  It is ludicrous to make a claim they have settled anything in climate science after 10 or 20 or 30 years.   That is just wrong.
I have shown several examples of how Climate Professionals were seriously wrong about what they knew or what was happening.  The sheer fact that
1) They didn’t know that temperatures would flatten out for 20 years
2) that the pdo/amo existed
3) that the energy could show up maybe in the deep ocean
4) that deep ocean fissures were so prevalent
5) that these were affected by gravitation
6) that shifting mass of glaciers would affect the shape of the earth
7) that earths shape during milankovic cycles might change and this might have something to do with the ice ages
All these things were unknown 20 years ago when Hansen said “It is settled”  “temperatures will go up 2C with 95% certainty.”  AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY OVERSTATED THE CASE.
1) They assumed the oceans were more static than they were
2) They assumed the cause of ice age variations had to be CO2
3) They calculated a multiplier and then made it so rather than accepting the science and letting it lead them to the multiplier
4) They said things they didn’t know
5) They discounted things that had huge uncertainty and magnitude
6) they have spent too much time and money trying to make the models work when they are based on the wrong things
7) they have held on to their preconceived beliefs LONGER than is justified by true scientists

A last point on Geography

Climate scientists for a long time have thought that the movement of pangia from polar region and breakup into continents that moved closer to the equator triggered the massive change in the Earths climate that ended iceball Earth 600 million years ago.     It could be a combination of these effects or maybe the movement was a result of the eruptions or the eruptions the result of the movement or they could be separate phenomenon.
Another riddle that has baffled climate professionals:  The period of the ice ages shifted 3 million years ago from once every 40,000 years to once every 100,000 years.   Why?
A similar theory that the isthmus of panama may have changed  the length of ice ages by making it harder for the oceans to equilibrate.   If undersea fissures in one ocean or another dominate and the isthmus prevents the heat from getting to the other ocean efficiently it could extend the time for the ice ages to happen which is what we’ve seen.  This could explain how this relatively small geographic change might have such a massive effect on the climate of a whole planet affecting the movement of 10 degrees C.
What i’ve observed is that the crust of the earth, the mantle plays a significant part of the story of the earths history combined with the ocean.   The science isn’t settled.   A lot of this stuff I have talked about needs to be turned into hard science.  Right now we have an outline that is more likely to be closer to the whole story than our simplistic CO2 and multiplier model from 20 years ago put out by Hansen.
I think it is fascinating.

Other Interesting Reading:

Are underwater volcanoes causing global warming? Oceanic eruptions may have a greater effect on climate than first thought

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook