Swedish Scientist Debunks Rising Sea Levels


 

Climate Change & Solar Minimum


COMMENT:

Hello Martin,

You’ve covered the topic of increasing seismic activity and the correlation with climate change extensively in your daily blog.

Since the solar activity started to decline (cycle 24) around +/- 2014-2015, it seems that the rate of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are increasing worldwide.

Below I have added some links as reference to very recent (violent) volcanic explosions. I have also included a link to an overview of actual active volcanoes on earth. It is predicted that solar cycle 24 will end around 2021-2022 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24#/media/File:Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_progression_and_prediction.gif) meaning that seismic activity will increase.

I cannot make the claim that there is an increase in seismic activity but there seems to be something brewing beneath our feet. The amount of volcanic ashes which is being propelled into the atmosphere at this moment must have an adverse effect on the global temperatures, and if the correlation holds up this is just the beginning.

Best regards,

SG

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/italy.html

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/popocatepetl/news/81709/Popocatepetl-volcano-Mexico-strong-explosion-yesterday-morning-sends-ash-to-32000-ft-10-km-altitude.html

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/fileadmin/maps/active-volcano-map.jpg

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/agung/news/81518/Agung-volcano-Bali-Indonesia-strong-explosion-this-morning-ash-to-30000-ft.html

REPLY: It is truly amazing to me how unprofessional the research has been. I do not know. In hedge fund management I always had to watch what was taking place around the world, so there were constantly multiple relations going on that the research I did was always global. It seems to be just a routine check to correlate everything and see what pops up. The climate change is cyclical and earthquakes and volcanic activity rise during a solar minimum. I fail to grasp why, if you really want to do research, you have to dig up the evidence.

Leonardo da Vinci left behind drawings of human body parts. He was curious as to how the body functioned. It was said that Leonardo would often dissect unclaimed bodies, such as drunks and vagrants. Those bodies were more likely to be male. It was definitely harder to get female bodies to dissect. Nevertheless, Leonardo found one dead pregnant woman to dissect to try to understand how everything worked. That is how research is done. You have to check all possibilities if you want to call it research rather than propaganda. As with the arguments for human-induced climate change (as distinguished from pollution), we cannot simply make assumptions and then assume something that has risen five years in a row will do so forever. That type of forecast in financial markets would be laughed at by everyone. Still, this is how the dire forecasts are being made in climate change and it seems to be simply to get money and fame.

Climate Emergency – The New Justification for New Taxes


Cities have begun using the term “climate emergency” to justify new taxation. This was the case in the Guelph City Council in Canada where they declared a climate emergency. They have admitted that they “already have an action plan. A very ambitious, robust and doable action plan. We don’t need to re-state that.” The spokesperson continued, “What we do need to state, in my opinion, is that we’re going to fund it. Because an action plan without funding has no meaning and it has no outcome and it won’t be successful.”

Here comes the new justification for more taxes — “climate emergency” — as if a local city can actually change the climate of the world.

Greenland Glacier is Growing, Not Melting


Greenland glacier reverses stunned scientists, according to the Weather Channel. This is illustrating that everything is subject to a cycle. Many argue it is only temporary. But the winters have been getting colder for the past three years. As I have stated previously, this could be just a reaction of up to three years. If we see another cold winter next year, then we should expect this colder climate change into 2024/2025.

Climate Change – the Elections Issue


In Australia, the polls said this would be  a climate change election because the voters were confronted by a drought that they were blaming on human causes. Tony Abbott, the former prime minister, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. There were a few other new candidates who used climate change and also won. Nevertheless, the people voted against the whole climate change argument and in a surprise victory, the conservatives won.

The US 2020 elections appear to be heading in the same direction. Climate change will be a major campaign issue in 2020. Climate change is the top issue among Democratic voters, according to a new national poll. A CNN poll found that 82% of registered voters who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents listed climate change as a “very important” top priority they’d like to see get the focus of a presidential candidate (see the Hill). During the 2016 general election, no journalist even asked the presidential candidates a debate question on the topic of climate change. As the 2020 race begins to take shape, it appears that the Democrats will rely on bashing Trump and climate change. What do climate-motivated voters really want? And how is the issue likely to change the race? Do they really want to end air traffic? Do they want to force people to have electric cars? Maybe — at least the USA.

 

Germany’s New Green Deal Has Failed – Energiewende


On March 11, 2011, when an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet held that nuclear power in Germany had to come to an end. It was a historic event and a historic decision (see Der Spiegel). The new green deal of Merkel quickly became bogged down in the details of German reality and the impracticability of the whole idea. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, was a major project that was up there with Germany’s reunification. After eight years, it is facing complete failure. Germany’s leaders in Berlin committed themselves to a project. They introduced laws, decrees, and guidelines with a complete lack of coordination, demonstrating once again that government is incapable of proper management skills.

With all the hype about pollution and greenhouse gases, Germany is still producing electricity by burning coal. German houses are still dependent on oil and natural gas furnaces, and the streets are still packed with the cars burning diesel when once upon a time they thought it was less polluting than gasoline-powered motors.

European carmakers are rolling out electric vehicles like the ones on view this week at the Paris Motor Show to burnish their reputations as technology leaders and compete with Tesla. But they are also doing this because EU regulations don’t leave them much choice. Europe’s automotive market is slowly getting charged. The drivers of electrification are EU regulatory agencies, which are imposing ever-stricter limits on carbon and nitrogen oxide pollution. The European Parliament has voted to mandate a 20% cut in CO2 emissions from new cars and vans in 2025, and a 40% reduction in 2030. The EU’s elected chamber rejected the European Commission’s more modest proposal of a 30% cut in 2030 compared to 2021 emission levels. The Parliament’s plan includes penalties for automakers that fail to meet sales targets, a key policy instrument the Commission had dropped from its proposal after lobbying by German carmakers.

With the bulk of electricity being produced by coal furnaces, it seems the lack of coordination and this drive for a new green deal is just far from organized and may have a tremendous impact upon the European economy as a whole. Nobody is addressing the heating of homes on top of this and the wind power that has failed to provide a viable alternative.

Pumped Dry: The Global Crisis of Vanishing Groundwater | USA TODAY


Published on Aug 14, 2018

In places around the world, supplies of groundwater are rapidly vanishing. As aquifers decline and wells begin to go dry, people are being forced to confront a growing crisis.

Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts


Published on Sep 17, 2012

Spencer Michels interviews one of the nations’s most read climate skeptics Anthony Watts. Watts believes much of the data used to support global warming theories is faulty. The big problem, as Watts sees it, is that the stations were temperatures are gathered are too close to urban developments where heat is soaked up and distorts the readings. So it looks like the earth is warming though it may not be.

California’s Renewable Energy Problem


Published on May 25, 2019

Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! https://brilliant.org/realengineering/ New vlog channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMet… Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=282505… Facebook: http://facebook.com/realengineering1 Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEngineer… Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brianjamesm… Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fiosracht Discord: https://discord.gg/s8BhkmN Get your Real Engineering shirts at: https://standard.tv/collections/real-…

Global Warming – Just Follow the Money


I just returned from New York City, the armpit of the world since I never saw an apple tree there yet, and I had a very interesting meeting behind the curtain. I thought I would share this subject which they agreed I could go public on without names of course. Besides the fact that there is an understanding that this entire Global Warming scenario is acknowledged nonsense for in real science you debate whereas this agenda seeks to shut down any debate whatsoever, there has been a geopolitical agenda that has been going on which is also why Trump has refused to join the club.

There are those who were using this movement for geopolitical reasons trying to oppress emerging markets which included China. When I was in Beijing back in 1997, 95% of the people were on bicycles. Today, perhaps 5% use bicycles that notice on the streets. There were far more people riding bicycles in Amsterdam than in Beijing based on just my observations on my last trip to both places. In just 5 years, China had poured more concrete in their infrastructure than the United States had poured since the Great Depression. Trying to ban coal was perhaps a covert move to try to keep China from expanding. But it had other problems. Angela Merkel banned nuclear power after the Japan nuclear disaster yet this meant that Germany would still be in a position to produce energy by coal. In Sweden, they used the Global Warming agenda to move to nuclear power.

The other covert agenda only required the simple task of following the money. From the very beginning, the movement to create nuclear power plants funded the agenda of Global Warming to clear the resistance to move to what they were calling a “cleaner” form of energy. The Trump administration has repeatedly vowed to help revitalize the nation’s nuclear power industry, which has struggled to compete with cheap renewables and natural gas. However, he has been unable to get that through Congress.

Meanwhile, the U.S. did agree to build six nuclear reactors in India, which has plans to massively scale up its nuclear-power program to meet the country’s growing energy demands as it reduces emissions. There is no doubt that the Global Warming agenda has also begun as a means to further the nuclear power industry in international markets.

The compelling argument used to convince that the world must turn to nuclear power plants centers on the fact that it is carbon-free energy to stave off global warming. It’s not at all clear that renewables can do the job alone and the dream of electric cars will never materialize without nuclear power on any grand scale. Nuclear is a proven technology, which already provides 11% of all electricity globally. They need the Global Warming propaganda to justify building nuclear power plants which are far more costly to construct – $5 billion to $10 billion a pop. Sometimes, it just helps to follow the money.