Two Articles Who Further Feed The Notion That The (Man Made) Global Warming Nonsense Is An Orchestrated Deception By The “Green” Rent & Grant Seeking Criminals, Sorry: Activists

(Above Figure 1.) Volcanic gas emissions breakthrough overlying fractured and partially melted glacial ice sheet. (Image credits: Christina Neal, AVO/USGS)

Discovery Of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Discredits Global Warming Theory

By James Edward Kamis

Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory.

The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.

A warmed atmosphere that directly, or in some cases indirectly fuels anomalous environmental disasters such as ocean warming, alteration of ocean chemistry, polar ice sheet melting, global sea level rise, coral bleaching and most importantly dramatic changes in climate.

There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.

Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2

Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.

It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (see here).

This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).

Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers).

Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.

To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents.

By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.

Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value.

Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s Atmosphere

Recent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes.

Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere!

Researchers from the University of Leeds who studied the Katla Volcano said this.

“We discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in spite of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modeling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions. This is significant in the context of a growing awareness that natural CO2 sources have to be more accurately quantified in climate assessments and we recommend urgent investigations of other subglacial volcanoes worldwide.”(see here)

The Number of Volcanoes Emitting CO2 into the Atmosphere at Any One Time 

The calculation of the total yearly volume of volcanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is based on the presumption that very few volcanoes are erupting at any one time.

Scientists from various worldwide volcano research institutions, most notably the United States Geological Survey, have estimated this number to be 20.

This very low number has been challenged by many scientists including those at NASA.

A  multinational team led by NASA has initiated a high-resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project (see here). This project is focused on determining how many geological features are emitting CO2 at any one time.

This project may eventually give scientists a better idea of how many land volcanoes are emitting CO2 at any one time.

However, it is doubtful the project will properly record ocean CO2 emissions from Earth’s 900,000 deep ocean floor and very difficult to monitor volcanic features.

In any case, this project is certainly a step forward towards achieving a better understanding of the climate influence of volcanic CO2 emissions.

The Amount of CO2 and heat infused into Earth’s Oceans by Seafloor Geological Features

About 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans making it a water, not land, planet. For many years now, scientists have contended that the nearly one million geological features present in these vast ocean regions have played a minimal role in heating and chemically charging ocean seawater.

Instead of contending that man-made atmospheric CO2 was the root cause of changes to our oceans.

Figure 2.) An underwater volcanic erupts in the Pacific Ocean (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science—AP).

Recent research has proven that the contentions of these scientists are far from 100% proven. To the contrary, it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans.

One example is that geological features are warming Earth’s oceans and causing El Nino’s and La Nina’s (see herehere, and here). Warmed seawater is not capable of holding as much CO2 as cold water.

So, the geologically warming of seawater indirectly leads to a large amount of CO2 being released from oceans and emitted into the atmosphere.

Recent research shows that seafloor geological features also directly emit large amounts of CO2 into our oceans and atmosphere(see herehere, here, and Figure 2).

In summary, the volume of volcanic CO2 being emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere has not been accurately assessed.

Numerous research studies and articles conducted/written by qualified scientists concur with this contention (see herehere, and here).

In a geological time frame, Earth has gone through many periods of increased volcanism. These volcanic periods resulted in; major plant and animal extinction events (see here, here, and here), the end of glacial eras (see here) and the dramatic alteration of Earth’s climate (see here).

All indications are that Earth is currently experiencing another period of strong volcanic activity which is acting to infuse CO2 into our atmosphere thereby challenging the validity of the global warming theory.

Clearly, its time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted.


Alarmist Study On ‘Overheated Oceans’ Fails Scientific Scrutiny

By Nicholas Lewis

Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning  Nature, climate scientists, and the MSM are.

On November 1st there was extensive coverage in the mainstream media[i] and online[ii] of a paper just published in the prestigious journal Nature.

The article,[iii] by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and eight other authors, used a novel method to estimate heat uptake by the ocean over the period 1991–2016 and came up with an atypically high value.[iv]

The press release [v] accompanying the Resplandy et al. paper was entitled “Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat per year than previously thought”,[vi] and said that this suggested that Earth is more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than previously thought.

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release.

However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view.


The method used by Resplandy et al. was novel, and certainly worthy of publication. The authors start with observed changes in ‘atmospheric potential oxygen’ (ΔAPOOBS).[vii]

In their model, one component of this change (ΔAPOClimate) is due to warming of the oceans, and they derived an estimate of its value by calculating values for the other components.[viii]

A simple conversion factor then allows them to convert the trend in ΔAPOClimate into an estimate of ocean heat uptake (the trend in ocean heat content).

On page 1 they say:

From equation (1), we thereby find that ΔAPOClimate = 23.20 ± 12.20 per meg, corresponding to a least squares linear trend of +1.16 ± 0.15 per meg per year[ix]

A quick bit of mental arithmetic indicated that a change of 23.2 between 1991 and 2016 represented an annual rate of approximately 0.9, well below their 1.16 value.

As that seemed surprising, I extracted the annual ΔAPO best-estimate values and uncertainties from the paper’s Extended Data Table 4[x] and computed the 1991–2016 least squares linear fit trend in the ΔAPOClimate values.

The trend was 0.88, not 1.16, per meg per year, implying an ocean heat uptake estimate of 10.1 ZJ per year,[xi] well below the estimate in the paper of 13.3 ZJ per year.[xii]

Resplandy et al. derive ΔAPOClimate from estimates of ΔAPOOBS and of its other components, ΔAPOFF, ΔAPOCant, and ΔAPOAtmD, using – rearranging their equation (1):


I derived the same best estimate trend when I allowed for uncertainty in each of the components of ΔAPOOBS, in the way that Resplandy et al.’s Methods description appears to indicate,[xiii] so my simple initial method of trend estimation does not explain the discrepancy.

Figure 1 shows how my 0.88 per meg per year linear fit trend (blue line) and Resplandy et al.’s 1.16 per meg per year trend (red line) compare with the underlying ΔAPOClimate data values.

Figure 1. ΔAPOClimate data values (black), the least squares linear fit (blue line) to them, and the linear trend per Resplandy et al. (red line)

Assuming I am right that Resplandy et al. have miscalculated the trend in ΔAPOClimate, and hence the trend in ocean heat content (OHC), implied by their data, the corrected OHC trend estimate for 1991–2016 (Figure 2: lower horizontal red line) is about average compared with the other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993–2016.

Figure 2. An adaptation of Figure 1b from Resplandy et al. with the corrected estimate for the APOClimate derived ΔOHC trend added (lower horizontal red line; no error bar is shown)

I wanted to make sure that I had not overlooked something in my calculations, so later on November 1st I emailed Laure Resplandy querying the ΔAPOClimate trend figure in her paper and asking for her to look into the difference in our trend estimates as a matter of urgency, explaining that in view of the media coverage of the paper I was contemplating web-publishing a comment on it within a matter of days.

To date, I have had no substantive response from her, despite subsequently sending a further email containing the key analysis sections from a draft of this article.

How might Laure Resplandy [xiv] have miscalculated the ΔAPOClimate trend as 1.16 per meg per year?

One possibility is that the computer code for the trend computation somehow only deducted ΔAPOFF and ΔAPOCant from ΔAPOOBS when computing the 1991–2016 trend, thereby, in fact, obtaining the trend for {ΔAPOClimate + ΔAPOAtmD}, which is 1.16 per meg per year.[xv]


I now turn to the uncertainty analysis in the paper.[xvi]  Strangely, the Resplandy et al. paper has two different values for the uncertainty in the results.

On page 1 they give the ΔAPOClimate trend (in per meg per year) as 1.16 ± 0.15. But on page 2 they say it is 1.16 ± 0.18.

In the Methods section, they go back to 1.16 ± 0.15. Probably the ± 0.18 figure is a typographical error.[xvii]

More importantly, it seems to me that uncertainty in the ΔAPOClimate trend, and hence in the ocean heat uptake estimate, is greatly underestimated in Resplandy et al., because of two aspects of the way that they have treated trend and scale uncertainties affecting ΔAPOOBS.

First, they appear to have treated corrosion, leakage and desorption errors in ΔAPOOBS as fixed errors that have the same influence each year.[xviii] But these are annual trend errors, so their influence is proportional to the number of years elapsed since the 1991 base year.[xix]

Secondly, they appear to have treated both these trend errors and the scale systematic error in ΔAPOOBS as uncorrelated between years.[xx]

However, each year’s error from each of these sources is simply a multiple of a single random trend or scale systematic error, and is therefore perfectly correlated with the same type of error in all other years.

On a corrected basis, I calculate the ΔAPOClimate trend uncertainty as ± 0.56 per meg yr−1, more than three times as large as the ± 0.15 or ± 0.18 per meg yr−1values in the paper.[xxi]

This means that, while Resplandy et al.’s novel method of estimating ocean heat uptake is useful in providing an independent check on the reasonableness of estimates derived from in situ temperature measurements, the estimates their method provides are much more uncertain than in situ measurement-based estimates, and are consistent with all of them.


Resplandy et al. point out that a larger increase in ocean heat content (a higher ocean heat uptake) would affect estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity.

That is true where such sensitivity estimates are derived from observationally-based analysis of the Earth’s energy budget.

However, after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought.

In fact, using the corrected Resplandy et al. estimate of the change in ocean heat content over the relevant period (2007–2016) in the recent Lewis and Curry (2018)[xxii] energy budget study would slightly lower its main estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Moreover, a larger estimated increase in ocean heat content would principally affect the upper uncertainty bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate.

Contrary to what Resplandy et al. claim, the lower bound would be little affected and would remain well below 1.5°C, [xxiii] providing no support for increasing the lower bound of the IPCC’s range for equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2.0°C.

Resplandy et al. also make the bizarre claim that increasing the lower bound of the IPCC’s equilibrium climate sensitivity range from 1.5°C to 2.0°C would have the effect of “reducing maximum allowable cumulative CO2emissions by 25% to stay within the 2°C global warming target”.

In fact, that cumulative carbon emissions budget is very largely determined by a combination of carbon-cycle characteristics and the transient climate response.[xxiv]

Observational estimates of the transient climate response are unaffected by the level of ocean heat uptake.

Therefore, increasing the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range would have little or no impact on the cumulative carbon emissions budget to stay within 2°C global warming.


The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media.

Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.

Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for.

Read rest and footnotes at Climate Etc


While we’re at it, remember this video by Tony Heller where he document how the activists (criminals?) has counterfeited important temperature records (who would do that if the data actually did show a problem?):

Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?

In this video I make a detailed examination of the quality of the global temperature record, which all of climate science is dependent on. It is a long video, with lots of important historical information.


Video: Tony Heller

Rustled Cattle, Tropical Crop Losses Due to Cold & Electric Skies

Massive cold front from Canada to Mexico first week of November 2018, with colliding hot and cold air masses, electrical activity in Earths atmosphere, red sprites, roll clouds and a push of 25F below normal temperatures to the Gulf of Mexico. Cattle rustling in South Africa as crop production dwindles due to land confiscation. Cold weather crop losses in India, Peru, USA.


Video: Adapt 2030


Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!