Greta’s Nightmare

Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate Re-Posted Mar 3, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks. “What’s this?” she asked.
“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.
“What happened to the carpet?” she asked.
“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.
Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles.
“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”
“Where’s the water?” asked Greta.
“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it”
“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.
“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .
“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.
“Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”
“How so, raw?” inquired Greta.
“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.
“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.
“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.”
“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”
“Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing – being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.”
This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet.
Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.

Spinning Turbines, or Not!

Tony Heller Feb 17, 2021

The wind turbines have shut down in Texas, and now green energy scamsters are spinning the truth to place the blame on somebody else. YouTube shut me down for two weeks and has made it clear to me that they intend to silence me. Please subscribe to​​ or

How to Think about Climate Change

William Happer speaks at Hillsdale College’s National Leadership Seminar on February 19, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.

How to Think About Climate Change | William Happer William Happer Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University. has published many papers on the subject of the physics of green house gases in the earth’s atmosphere. In my option he is one of the world’s most knowledgeable scientists is the world on this subject.

Tony Heller Explains what Happened in Texas in February comes directly from Miss-Information on Climate Propagated by Bill Gates

Tony Heller99.3K subscribersSUBSCRIBEThe core problem is that we have a few very rich people controlling the flow of information, which is leading to very bad policy. YouTube shut me down for two weeks and has made it clear to me that they intend to silence me. Please subscribe to​​ or

Climate Change & the Dollar

Armstrong Economics Blog/USD $ Re-Posted Mar 1, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, at first I was not sure why you were focusing on the climate change issue. I now understand that climate is the main driving force behind this Great Reset which is out to undermine capitalism. Looking at the dollar through a global view I can see that cash is not trash.

Thank you for broadening my perspective.


ANSWER: Yes, perhaps my biggest mistake is I see things globally but do not always fully express them in a simple manner. Despite the increase in the money supply, the demand for dollars is escalating dramatically around the world. The Fed has been increasing the paper money supply for the demand is rising exponentially. Of course, those who keep preaching the collapse of the dollar because of the increase in the money supply,  fail to ever look beyond the shore of the United States. Even Canada has one of the highest debts among sovereign nations.

The problem is that other nations, including Canada, have the authority to simply cancel their currency. The US paper money is the only one still valid from 1861. Consequently, for hoarding purposes, the dollar is still the #1 choice for it is the safe place to keep the cash. Also, the USA is not part of the reporting practices. So foreigners can open accounts in the USA and they are not reported back to their own country. As a result, the demand for dollars is rising and it is simply the prettiest of the three ugly sisters as they say.

Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases

Excellent Physics Written by W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer Published on June 8, 2020

The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s ve most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space. Over 1/3 million lines having strengths as low as 10􀀀27 cm of the HITRAN database were used to evaluate the dependence of the forcing on the gas concentrations. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10􀀀22 W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O and CH4, than those of H2O or CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few per cent. These forcing results are close to previously published values even though the calculations did not utilize either a CO2 or H2O continuum. The change in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling is estimated taking into account radiative-convective equilibrium of the atmosphere as well as water feedback for the cases of xed absolute and relative humidities as well as the eect of using a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate to model the troposphere temperature. Satellite spectral measurements at various latitudes are in excellent quantitative agreement with modelled intensities.

A sample from Page 6 in the paper

A sample from page 35 in the Paper

Click on the Download box below to get the full 37 page paper it is worth reading if you are a serious researcher on climate physics.

A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures, January 2021 Data

Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not making “ANY” dangerous changes to the global temperature!

From the attached report on climate change for January 2021 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 by 32.0% from 1958 to January of 2021. 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 .40%; while CO2 has increased by 32.0% which is 80 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 a bit over 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 40 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.

Climate Change, the Story

OK here is the deal Looking back 4 or 5 thousand years there appears to be a cycle of ups and downs ranging around 900 to 1,100 years with a swing in temperatures of around 1.3 to 1.4 degrees C. Then there is a shorter cycle of 60 to 70 years with a swing of temperature of .3 to .4 degrees C. Lastly there is warming from CO2 which when modeled properly using a logistics curve (sensitivity value of around .7 to .9 C per doubling of CO2 will give an increase in temperature of between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees C from a base of 270 ppm We are now at 415 ppm so we have already realized about a 76.9% of that amount so CO2 can only add .18 additional degrees C from CO2 even at CO2 levels well over 1000 ppm.

The primary determinant of global temperature is the “observed” ~1,000 year cycle which started moving up in 1650 and which will peak around 2150 +/- at around 16.0 to 16.5 degrees C; at that point no matter what level CO2 reaches we will see a drop of global temperatures for the next 500 years. I can speculate why this seems to be true but, at this point, there is no science to prove this is true. However the geological temperatures are what they are even if we don’t know why.

When these three items are properly aliened, based on historic data going back 2,000 years, a model that matches NASA-GISS month values using a running 12 month average very closely can be  constructed and it shows there will be a slight pause that will last until 2035 when a different alignment of the cycles will again cause temperature to go up.  The model uses 1650 AD as the base year with a world temperature estimated to be around 13.5 degrees C back then. The model works because it correctly uses the three observed movements in global temperature. Unfortunately since these movements greatly exceed human life times they can be ignored by politicians that use the hysteria that they generate to get laws that give them power over the people.

Is the Earth getting warmer or colder?

The Politicians, the IPCC, along with NASA and NOAA like to tell us that the earth is getting warmer and warmer and will soon be ice free. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, tells us its so bad that we only have 8 years to live. If this is true then it seems to me that this is actually a very easy thing to prove or disprove. The reason I say this is because of the proven concept of conservation of energy, in this case angular momentum. This is the same principle that is shown in ice skating when a skater starts a spin with their arms out and then they bring them in and up over their head.  The result is that their spin increases directly to how tight they can make their body; and we have all seen this many times over the years so there is no possible debate on this concept. 

So how does this relate to the earth getting warmer? Well it’s actually very simple the earth is spinning at one revolution every 24 hours, once a day, and we have the ability, today, to measure this 24 hours very, very accurately. Therefore if the poles are getting warmer, as we are being told, the ice there would be melting and contributing to the sea levels rising. According to the believers views this will flood low lying coastal cities and cause much disruption to humans. They give us a plurality of reports on how much the sea levels have risen since we started to use lots of fossil based fuels mostly in the past 100 years.

Well if this is true that the ice at the poles, on the land only, is in fact melting then the resulting water will enter the planets oceans and because of the spinning earth that a portion of that water will quickly migrate to the equator. As it does so and because of the conservation of angular momentum the planets rotation will slow down; and this will be in direct relationship to the amount of ice above the Arctic and Antarctic circles on land that is there or not there. More ice at the poles will speed up the spin and less ice at the poles will slow down the spin there can be no debate about this principle the only issue would be do we have the technology to measure this.

If we do, and I think we do, then there is a very simple way to determine whether the planet is warming or not — we just measure this spin

How to drive fossil fuels out of the US economy, quickly

According to a Vox posting the US has everything it needs to decarbonize by 2035. Article written By David Roberts and published on Aug 6, 2020

Roberts starts the article with the US industrial build up to arm the world during WW II which by any measure was massive and impressive.He then goes on to say we need a similar effort for the US to De-carbonize the us to as close to 100% as possible before 2050 or it will be too late for us as we will have reached a point of no return. He then goes on that Saul Griffith who is a physicist, engineering, researcher, inventor and serial entrepreneur has developed a planning tool do dhow that 70% to 80% of the reduction required could be completed by 2035. His plan is simple we just go 100% electric.

“The report reinforces a key finding,” says Leah Stokes, an environmental policy expert at the University of California Santa Barbara. “Cleaning up the electricity system solves the lion’s share of the problem. It allows us to electrify our transportation and building sectors and parts of heavy industry, which would address more than 70 percent of total emissions.”

Griffith states that despite the massive effort that it would take to De-carbonize there is no new technology required not does it require some kind of major reduction in life style. All it needs according to Griffith, is a serious effort to replace everything that uses fossilize fuels with identical ones that uses electricity. Obviously a government policy and regulatory structure would be required.

The following video explains the plan.

The full Vox article is provided below just click on the Vox article

Vox on De-Carbonizing the United States

The problem with plans like this is the people that plan them have no clue how the real world works. Or how complex it really is to do that he suggests in only 14 years. I’ll just discus one item the us electric power grid. The are 5 separate grids comprising 120,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines and in addition all the local transmission line which are probably a 1,000 time that number. I’ll just look at the main power transmission line. The graphic below so the source and destination of all the energy used in the US in 2018

There are two sources of power on the graphic we are only going to look at the net delivered here. The first is electric power shown in orange at 12.95 Quads. The other is everything else (that we want to get ride of) shown in pink at 63.00 Quads. The grand total delivered is 75.95 Quads. 12.96 Quads is equal to 2,809.6 Terawatts and 75.95 Quads is equal to 22,273.4 Terawatts. In round numbers if we convert the 22,273.4 Terawatts to electricity power the US power grid would need to be expanded by 5 times to handle the new load.The Grid does not normally have much excess capacity. So the 120,000 miles would need to be 600,000 or the wires would need to be each 5 times the present capacity. that is 42,857 miles per year for 14 years. But it gets worse since that is the first ting that needs to be done so maybe there is only 10 years to complete and that would be 60,000 miles or the equivalent. Below is a simple diagram of the Grid

The other problem we have is hydroelectric and nuclear that are not realist options so that leaves Solar PV and Wind to male up that 22,273.4 Terawatts that are being eliminated. So the question is how many wind farms and solar farms will we need? A relatively quick review will put us in the ball park. These numbers assume no storage of power, but do assume that they are spread out to mitigate outages.

The following assumptions are for wind turbines: a 20 megawatt wind farm containing 4 5 megawatt turbines and 32 acres of land. To produce 22,273.4 Terawatts would require 442,138 wind farms and a total of 1,764550 wind turbines. I t would take about 22,057 square miles of land.

The following assumptions are for solar PV panels: 20 megawatt solar PV farm containing 40,0000 500 watt panels. To produce 22,273.4 Terawatts would require 610,806 solar PV farms and a total of 24,432,239,240 500 watt solar PV panels (each panel is 7′ 6″ by 4′ 3″. It would take about 76,351 square miles of land.

Obviously some combination of the two would be better but its very unrealistic to think that any combination of these two options could be done before 2050. Keep in mind that you can’t close a carbon based plant until the grid and the wind or solar options was in place. There are other considerations as well like is there enough raw materials to do this and is there the production capacity to make the panels. keep in mind that other countries are also trying to this.

Clarifying Wind Turbines

Armstrong Economics Blog/Basic Concepts Re-Posted Feb 21, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

It is possible to include heating elements in wind turbines to prevent freezing. They never took that into consideration in Texas where the wind turbines probably supply as much as 10% of the power. The same problem took place in Germany. Nobody seems to have done their research into historic weather patterns.

I have said many times that in school, I was confronted with a real conflict between Physics class and Economics. The first said nothing is random and the latter said everything was so the government can manipulate the economy i.e. Marxism.


The Father of Chaos Theory is Edward Norton Lorenz (1917–2008) who was an American mathematician and meteorologist. Lorenz was certainly THE pioneer in Chaos Theory. A professor at MIT, Lorenz was the first to recognize what is now called chaotic behavior in the mathematical modeling of weather systems.

During the 1950s, Lorenz observed that there was a cyclical non-linear nature to weather yet the field relied upon linear statistical models in meteorology to do weather forecasting. It was like trying to measure the circumference of a circle with a straight edge ruler. His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paper Deterministic Non-periodic Flow in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation of chaos theory. During the early 1960s, Lorenz had access to early computers. He was running what he thought would be random numbers and began to observe there was a duality of a hidden repetitive nature. He graphed the numbers that were derived from his study of convection rolls in the atmosphere. What emerged has been perhaps one of the most important discoveries in modern time.


This illustration of the Lorenz Strange Attractor, is incredibly important and was first reported in 1963. Lorenz’s discovery of a strange attractor was made during an attempt to create a model of weather patterns. The actual experiment was an attempt to model atmospheric dynamics of the planet. It involved a truncated model of the Navier-Stokes equations. It is a visual example of a non-linear dynamic system corresponding to the long-term behavior in a cyclical manner revealing a hidden order we cannot otherwise observe.


In the coming Geometry of Time (soon to be published), I show the evolution of cycle theory and all the people who have contributed. I listened to a presentation of Sallie Baliunas and her finding of weather cycles from ice core samples. To my astonishment, the 300-year cycle she determined from the ice core samples aligned with the 309.6-year wave fairly closely of the Economic Confidence Model.  Where my research had been derived from studying the history of the monetary system and the global economy, I did not conclude as to a direct cause behind the cycle other than its existence. When I saw her work, I went up to tell her what this really meant. It was the rise and fall of civilization over the course of 6000 years.

Clearly, one of the most significant factors driving the weather is the energy output of the sun and that means our entire universe is part of the cycle. I have explained how the type of energy wave differ between solar maximum and solar minimum which also correlate to when earthquakes take place with the rising belief that the gamma rays penetrate the surface of the earth during solar minimum and may be part of the cause behind earthquakes and volcanos which also correspond to cyclical waves.

We have input all the weather data for it has been extremely critical as a driving force in the long-term direction of the world economy. These forecasts are by no means my opinion. That is no way to forecast anything. We are all human and we will be right and wrong because we do not consider all the variables in a complex world.

Wind turbines need to be protected against cold. This is a regular event of Arctic Oscillations that have a clearly defined cyclical pattern.