Global Warming is Undermined by New Discoveries


Nobody wants to listen to the evidence against Global Warming because the government doesn’t hand out money for research that fails to justify new taxes. Real scientists have just discovered a massive previously unknown source of nitrogen that could turn the Global Warming nonsense on its head. My bet is that it will be ignored. There is too much money on the table to just walk away.

This new discovery may dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that are now a religion. The findings were published in the prestigious Journal Science, whereby the previous eco-science assumed the only source of nitrogen was the atmosphere. Scientists recently discovered that the planet holds vast storehouses of nitrogen, which is essential for plant life, in its bedrock.

This new discovery alters the entire theory behind Global Warming caused by humans. The University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, said, “This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences.”

Now, pay very close attention to the word “paradigm” which he is using. Clearly, if Houlton’s discovery of a vast storehouse of nitrogen is correct, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions. Why?

Climate scientists have long known that plants offset some of the effects of climate change by absorbing and storing CO2. But climate scientists assumed that the ability for plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited.

A 2003 study published in the same science journal stated, “There will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios.” You see scientists who have NOT been on the payroll for Global Warming understand this is all nonsense. Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, publicly told Chemical and Engineering News that “If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think.”

Remember high school science class? Remember that with more nitrogen available, then plant life will still grow? And guess what, they absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating. That means the dire forecasts that we have 12 years to live being championed by AOC and the Democrats are completely inaccurate. The planet won’t warm as much with plant life absorbing the CO2 mankind pumps into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, because this field of research is not under global warming grants, we should not expect this information to ever make it to the mainstream media

Do We Face Global Cooling or an Ice Age?


QUESTION #1: You expect global cooling due to the decrease in solar energy. Why do glaciers melt?

MG

QUESTION #2: Now that the Greenland Glacier is growing, is this part of the shift back toward global cooling? Do you think we are headed to an ice age?

FH

ANSWER: There appears to be a 20-year cycle in the Arctic to begin with. The mere fact that at times the Northwest Passage has been ice-free and ice blocked proves there is a cycle to absolutely everything. The Arctic has not always been frozen. There are documented accounts from 1817 when the ice melted. The point is nature functions in a cyclical manner — hello, remember four seasons?

I do NOT believe we are heading into an “Ice Age” of such a dramatic duration. All the data clearly shows that we are in a declining trend with each warming peak being less than the former. Anyone who thinks humans have caused this last warming period just listens to propaganda and ignores all the historical evidence. There is ABSOLUTELY no period in history absent of a cycle — NONE!!!!

From an objective and unbiased view, yes, we will see a cooling period. However, this will most likely be just a retest of the last low of the Little Ice Age. I would not speculate on an Ice Age coming, just a swing downward in temperature enough to cause us a lot of inconveniences.

The Greenland Glacier is growing again at the edges because the water is colder. That seems to be in line with the downturn in the energy output of the sun since 2015. The global cooling puts food production at risk. Sure, there are those who just refuse to believe this since global warming has become a religion. The herd may be thinned for their propaganda will ensure they are unprepared for food shortages.

Constantly there are stories about how the data has been manipulated and outright forged. Now China’s scientists have come out and warned of global cooling, not warming. These scientists are not reliant on Western government grants and do not need to fix the data to support the global warming agenda.

The problem with the people who refuse to listen is a similar qualification for being the worst investor in history. You can claim you are right all you want, but when the market goes against you and you refuse the look at your assumptions, you end up dead broke. Perhaps literally after jumping from a window. That is the downside to bias. Always consider both sides.

Heatwaves Are Serious Only on a Sustained Basis


COMMENT: Hi Martin,
I thought you might be interested in some comments on Climate Change.
My wife has a dear friend 87 years old who lived (and still does) in Wellington County, Southern Ontario. She sent some comments on the current heatwave.
“The heatwave last week made me think of the many times my parents talked about the 1936 heatwave that went on for days. My sister was a baby of about 10 months and she would turn beet red. They kept her cool with wet clothes. I vaguely remember sleeping on mattresses on the front lawn. There was no electricity on the outlying farms. The fruit cooked on the vines and trees. The crops dried up. In Toronto, it was 103 and lasted for 8 days. It is not likely that too many people had fans, just coming out of the dirty depression. So I guess we should not complain.”
Thanks. Always enjoy your comments.

JC

REPLY: The environmentalists point to a weekend heatwave as proof of global warming, and therefore we all must stop driving cars. We are nowhere near historical records and your account of what took place back then is overlooked by the global warming crowd who are so desperate to end industrialization. A heatwave is dangerous when, as in the 1930s, there is a sustained period that lasts much longer than a weekend.

A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures, July 2019 Data


From the attached report on climate change for July 2019 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up a bit over 30.0% from 1958 to July of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.

The next chart is Chart 8a which is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2. Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius. This is what the data shows no matter what the reasons are, so I have no idea how the IPCC gets to predict that the world will end in ten or even twenty years.

The full 39 page report explains how these charts were developed and why using NASA and NOAA data that are used without change to prove that The New Green Deal is not required and any attempt to complete that plan will be a worldwide disaster.

Click on the link below for the full report that you can download.

BLACKBODY TEMPERATURE 2019-07

Climate Change is Part of the Corruption


 

Spotless Sun


Recently, NASA’s photo of the sun showed ZERO sunspots. The previous and current solar cycle has been declining significantly in solar activity beyond what has been known before. There still remains the risk that we will see a further decline in the next cycle that will begin in 2020. This may have a significant impact upon weather and could be a significant reason why the computer is projecting an inflationary cycle ahead that will be created by a cost-push effect rather than a speculative boom.

Of course, Global Warming advocates who support government raising taxes to prevent this fictional disaster they have created like AOC says we will all be dead in 12 years, refuse to ever do REALscientific research and backtest their theories before 1850. They simply ignore history and nature which just so happens to move in a cyclical fashion with everything. BTW, the reason we are born, live, and then die, just so happens to also be because of a cycle. OMG – cycles do exist? No way! According to their theories.

Climate Change Has Not Impacted Polar Bears


There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut that it is posing a risk to humans. Climate Change hasn’t yet affected polar bears and reports are to be released which defy the Global Warming agenda. As long as government funds only Global Warming research to support new tax schemes, we run the risk of a rise in disease and famine around various parts of the globe.

Climate Change is a reality. There is insufficient data to forecast that we are headed toward an ice age. It appears more that we will retest the former lows and then resume a warming trend after 2032. The Little Ice Age should be a major low based on our computer models.

Most people have no idea that it was Climate Change which began the entire investigation into cycles. I have called this the clash between catastrophe and uniformity. The idea that systems just collapse in a catastrophic manner can be disquieting, to say the least. For this reason, uniformitarianism (linear thinking) soothes the senses and brings order to the future dominated by uncertainty. Yet, these two clashing schools of thought that lie at the core of just about everything from the Big Bang to Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) Theory of Evolution, began with the discovery first in 1772 near Vilui, Siberia of a intact frozen woolly rhinoceros followed by the more famous discovery of a frozen mammoth in 1787.

You may be shocked, but these discoveries of frozen animals with grass still in their stomach, set in motion these two schools of thought since the evidence implied you could be eating lunch and suddenly find yourself frozen to be discovered by posterity.

This entire period of the late 1700s sparked a truly profound Intellectual Revolution that erupted in every field. In 1821, there was a Swiss engineer Ignaz Venetz who took a bold position also inspired by the Siberian discoveries, that there had been a former Alpine glaciation on a massive scale. His 38-page report was published posthumously in 1859. It was the birth of the idea of an Ice Agetheory. A Norwegian geologist Jens Esmarch also argued that the Norwegian glaciers had been much greater in size.

What was emerging was a view that history was in fact non-linear. The weather was not a static progression of uniformity. Just as there was a cycle to the seasons, the idea that cycles existed on a much larger scale began to emerge. The very idea of an ICE AGE implied a change in weather patterns. History was perhaps not linear even within the context of nature.

In 1832, Professor A. Bernhardi argued that the North Polar ice cap had extended into the plains of Germany. To support this theory, he pointed to the existence of huge boulders that have become known as “erratics” he suggested were pushed by the advancing ice. This was a shocking theory for it was certainly a nonlinear view of natural history. Bernhardi was thinking out of the box. However, in natural science people listen and review theory unlike in social science where theory is ignored if it challenges what people want to believe. In 1834, Johann von Charpentier (1786-1855) argued that there were deep grooves cut into the Alpine rock concluding, as did Karl Schimper, that they were caused by an advancing Ice Age.

The catastrophists could claim greater influence in the birth of the field of physics all based upon this idea of cycles. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) developed his laws of gravity and was inspired by his friend to publish the work who underwrote the project, Edmund Halley (1656-1742). This was the same Halley who discovered the cyclical nature of comets. Halley believed that the comet that carries his name was the same comet reappearing throughout history at regular intervals recorded by contemporary historians of all ages. Halley saw hidden within history, the same periodic intervals of a comet.

Why do these people insist that Climate Change is manmade when all the historical evidence shows it has always changed and there are cycles to it? The answer is simple. Money! They will sell out the human race to get their hand on money. They are not scientists for they distort the history for personal gain.

 

Big Govt Publishes New Cooling Standards: Thermostat Should Be Set to 82 Degrees When Sleeping…


Fresh from the same Dept. of Energy and EPA that gave us: toilets that don’t flush; light bulbs that don’t light; dishwashers that don’t wash; plant-based fuel that burns like carrots; and paper straws that dissolve in liquid….  Now we get this:

[…] Energy Star, the federal program from the DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, said the coolest you should keep your home is 78 degrees when you’re home.

When you’re at work or away, the program recommends setting it at 85 degrees. When you’re sleeping, Energy Star said to set the thermostat at 82 degrees. (link)

Setting the thermostat at 82° at night is well recognized grounds for divorce. I swear these administrative state progressives are going to have us force-fed sustainable algae cakes if this keeps up.

Some journalist-type person published these new cooling standards on twitter, and the responses are quite funny.

“I see we’ve decided to give up on sleeping. Or going home for that matter. Or having pets that aren’t native to the rain forest.” (link)

“I’ve already embraced a dying Earth, so I keep my central air between 67-72 at all times.” (link)

“I’d be laying there making a giant sweat angel in my bed” (link)

“New report shows these as the recommended temps for smelling like an onion.” (link)

I have no idea how my ancestors survived deserts. If the thermostat in my house showed a number that started with an 8 I would call the police” (link)

But seriously…. given the track record for current energy efficient standards and how they end up being actually applied to life (toilets, dishwashers, lightbulbs etc.) it’s darned frightening to think the Feds believe 78° (when home), 85° (when away) and 82° (when sleeping) is a reasonable cooling standard.

Insta-misery; aka living in hell.

Watch out California….  Pretty soon you might not have options when the proletariat mandates the installation of compliance regulators inside the A/C system.

 

Finland & Japan Confirm Global Warming Data is not Supported


COMMENT:

Hi Martin,

Being 100% in agreement with you about Climate Change I thought you might be interested in 2 newly released research projects one from Finland and one from Japan: The Finnish researchers conducted by Turku University, state in one among a series of papers, see: (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)

“During the last hundred years, the temperature increased by about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”. This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just-published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

These findings are extremely significant in that both groups have identified the ‘umbrella effect’ as the prime driver of climate warming rather than anthropogenic (human) factors.

I look forward to this information reaching your blog so that other readers can be informed.

Many thanks for all your work which you so generously share and for the huge body of work you have put into Socrates, which is of inestimable value to all those involved in finance and investment.

Thank you.
SF

REPLY: I have spoken with many in the field and all say the same thing. The data is altered and there is just no evidence that human activity has changed the cyclical nature of climate. Pollution is a separate issue which they use to confuse the weak-minded. We all want clean air and water. I lived in London when the busses were still diesel. It was horrible in the summer. I would have to hold my breath when walking near a bus. That does not equate to altering the climate cycles. They cleaned up the air and that no longer is the case. But then stench from the busses back in the ’80s is not responsible for the natural cycles in the climate that date back millions of years.

1177 BC – The Year Civilization Collapsed


QUESTION: I do not believe you have ever commented on Eric Cline’s book 1177BC, the year civilization collapsed. Do you think this is likely what we face or is this different?

WL

ANSWER: There were about eight civilizations that all collapsed with the exception of Egypt post-1250 BC. It was caused by a major shift in climate that led to droughts which resulted in the widespread famine which inspired migrations/invasions. This event of 1177BC was the Bronze Age equivalent to the fall of Rome, for they both were followed by a Dark Age.

Many have attributed this collapse of the Bronze Age to the Sea Peoples, which were most likely northern Mediterranean mass migrants due to the climate getting colder in Europe. Cline has put together a nice assembly of sources, but he missed the climate change. He assumed there was a migration southward. However, we can see the first dip to cold came about 1,800 years ago. We can see that the all-time high temperature was about 3,300 years ago.

The collapse of the Bronze Age was mostly complete by about 1100-1000 BC. Our computer has identified a 1720-year cycle beginning in the Dark Ages with the fall of Rome in 476 AD when the last pretend Emperor reigned (Romulus Augustus (575-476AD)). Our model highlighted the cycle between the Dark Ages of 1720 years which brings us to 1244 BC — right on target for the beginning of the collapse of civilization.

How Civilization Collapses
1) Collapse in centralized government
2) The rich flee and economic growth declines
3) The economy implodes without investment
4) Birth rates decline with population
5) People migrate and abandon urbanization

There were clearly natural disasters and invasions as well as civil unrest. But climate change was probably the primary cause of mass migration. The danger we have today is once again the mass migrations into Europe and the United States. However, if the climate turns sharply colder, we will have famine and that undermines the social structure. We already have the centralization of government & central banks on the ropes. The hunt for taxes will result in the hoarding of wealth and the decline in investment.

The birth rate has been collapsing and the final stage will be abandoning cities because of taxation like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, etc. Keep in mind the collapse will unfold over the course of probably 51.6 years before you reach rock bottom. It all depends upon the climate looking forward.