# A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the October, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data

From the attached report on climate change for October 2022 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 in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a 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 about 32.4% from 1958 to October of 2022. 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 also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at less than .4%.

As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% 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 32.4% 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?

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.

## Changes in the planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

# Climate Change = Military Strategy

## Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Oct 28, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
As always, thank you so much for your incredible insight to what is happening in the world. You are the first news source I read in the morning because I know your site is always two steps ahead of everyone else! I wished to ask you about something you often reference: that many of these globalists are trying to destroy fossil fuels for “climate change”.

However, going by their actual behavior, it seems that they don’t *genuinely* believe in climate change, otherwise they wouldn’t be flying around in private jets, owning ocean-front property, or creating more carbon emissions than many small countries. Do you think they actually believe the earth is in danger or are they trying to force the majority of humanity back into a third world state because without the ability to travel, or heat/cool homes, communicate with one another, or have access to clean water, meat and nutritious food, etc., we not only will lose much of the population to sickness and starvation, but those who are left would become much more dependent on the state (them) and therefore easier to control?

Depopulation and crushing humanity into a smaller, weaker, more controllable feudal-system peasantry seems more like the actual reason for destroying fossil fuels, food security, and private ownership, with “climate change” merely being their flimsy excuse to do so. Do you think any of those pulling the strings on all this really believes what they’re saying about climate change?

ED

REPLY: The elite could care less about climate change. They know it is laughable. Even John McCain was pushing it only because it was to hurt Russia cutting off its resources and he was pushing nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels only as a strategic chess move against Russia – his eternal enemy.

These ELITE people do not care about the climate. They all travel to Davos in private jets. Al Gore and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at Davos in 2019 told delegates that humanity is “losing the race” against climate change. Al Gore conspires with Greenpeace and used Greta for their publicity stunts. I would say he is a believer, but do not count on his intelligence. He has never questioned the limited data.

The Elite have used climate change as the spearhead for the Great Reset, which is all about coming up with propaganda to cover up the Sovereign Debt default. Trust me. Many at the top are laughing their ass off at how they have sold this nonsense to people who just eat it up. John McCain was preaching nuclear energy back in the 2008 election to end dependency on foreign oil purely for military purposes – not the environment. They have brainwashed many and they just repeat the nonsense without the slightest investigation on their own. Oh, there is a drought, and skeletons are now revealed in Hoover Dam so that is proof of climate change! But they fail to take the next step and ask if that has that taken place before. There are natural cycles to climate so it always changes.

The Elite used Greta, and once they managed to get the press selling their BS and believing this changed the planet, they discarded her. They use people to achieve their goals and that is all this war is really about. To destroy the economy of Russia. Occupy the country and end fossil fuels so that Russia will be reduced to a vassal state. They have not probably reduced the population by 50% ANYHOW. The real powers do not care about Climate Change. They know this is all nonsense.

# Climate Change War – US v Russia

## Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Oct 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

As senior U.S. military officers deployed to NATO’s front line against Russia on the border with Ukraine have boasted that they are ready to join the fight. This provoked a response from Russia’s ambassador to the United States told Newsweek that such a move would bring about catastrophic ramifications. The commanders of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division who are now stationed just a few miles from the Romanian border with Ukraine are also making comments that they were ready to cross over in response to any escalation or attack on NATO.

This is all calling into question who the hell is the real commander and chief? President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated he was not going to send U.S. soldiers into Ukraine itself. The US has NOT sent troops to the borders of NATO since World War II. The National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby rushed to then say that “nothing has changed about the commander-in-chief’s decision that there will be no American troops fighting inside Ukraine.” This is raising serious concerns about who is really in charge and do we have a military so eager to jump in that we end up in WWIII because of all of this nonsense.

Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said, “we have already officially pointed out to high-ranking members of the US Government that such bravura statements by the U.S. Army commanders are inadmissible.” He further warned that Moscow would take these comments seriously. Behind the curtain, there is serious concern that Biden is just a puppet and has no idea that his administration is pushing the world to WWIII.

Antonov added: “We are not going to tolerate a situation where military threats are mounting on Russian borders… Direct participation of the U.S. military in the fighting will lead to disastrous consequences. I am convinced that further aggravation of the situation is not in Washington’s interests.”

There is absolutely no reason for the US to have troops stationed on the border. Russia is not interested in invading NATO and they too realize what that would mean. Stationing the Hard Rock Company, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), only increases the chance of war just like in Vietnam. This has been the first time in nearly 80 years that troops have been sent in this manner.

The Russian ambassador Antonov warned that “Washington is becoming increasingly involved in the conflict in Ukraine, turning the country’s territory into a battlefield with Russia.” If Russia sent nukes to Venezuela or stationed troops in Mexico, I seriously doubt the US would stand by silently.

Our War Model globally turned up in 2014 as I laid out at the 2011 World Economic Conference. I have warned that history will call this the Climate Change War. The Biden Administration is being run by climate zealots telling us our pets have to eat bugs along with us and they want to impose a federal tax to even have a pet of several thousand dollars to reoccur annually no less. These zealots want to wipe out Russia because they produce energy and that is 50% of the GDP. Having Ukrainians die for climate change is no problem – there are too many people anyway.

Even the Cuban Missile Crisis on a 51.6-year calculation turned back up on May 4th, 2014. The next 8.6-year wave will be 2023.008 which will be January 3rd, 2023. The peak of that wave will then be 2027.308  which is April 9th, 2027. These people have reignited the U.S.-Russia rivalry intensifying to levels not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Zelensky is sacrificing his country for money. You do not put your entire nation at risk for a strip of land that has always been occupied by Russians for centuries. He takes his orders from the Biden Administration and it is public knowledge that he was told not to negotiate for peace.

These Climate Change Zealots are bringing the world to complete disaster over total nonsense when Climate Change has been a natural cycle for millions of years. They ignore the history of the planet past 1850 because they want to simply blame everything on the Industrial Revolution. They have confused pollution with climate change and will not address that there have been warming periods and ice ages without people driving their SUVs.

The military always wants war. They get to play with all their cool stuff. They have been using Ukraine to study Russia’s tactics and weapons. This has been a fantastic learning experience for the military. The problem this time, one Russian nuclear sub can surface offshore and fire 60 nukes and we will not be able to shoot them all down.

# A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the September, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data

From the attached report on climate change for September 2022 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 in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a 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 about 32.4% from 1958 to September of 2022. 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 also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at only .4%.

As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% 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 32.4% 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?

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.

## Changes in the planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

<object class="wp-block-file__embed" data="https://centinel2012.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/blackbody-temperature-2022-09.pdf&quot; type="application/pdf" style="width:100%;height:600px" aria-label="<strong>blackbody-temperature-2022-09blackbody-temperature-2022-09

# Sweden Will Not Meet Agenda 2030

## Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate Re-Posted Oct 24, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

New Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is not heeding to the Green agenda. He promptly eliminated the entire Ministry of Climate and Environment, marking the first time in 35 years that Sweden does not have a specific climate ministry. People are crying that the world will crumble without funding bureaucrats who pretend they have the ability to alter the weather cycle with enough funding.

Klaus Schwab’s plans for Agenda 2030 are in jeopardy. “Environmental issues are going to be given a disadvantage at the same time when we have a huge challenge in Sweden when it comes to biodiversity and forestry,” stated Stockholm University professor Karin Bäckstrand. “We won’t meet the Agenda 2030 goals on biodiversity.”

Democratic leader Ebba Busch will serve as the new Minister for Energy, and 26-year-old Liberal Romina Pourmokhtari will serve as the Minister of Climate and Environment, The Nationalist Sweden Democrats do not support the goal of achieving net zero emissions.

Instead, the new government is prioritizing nuclear power initiatives that will make it increasingly difficult to shut down existing plants while using €36 billion to build new nuclear power stations. The new government is also considering reopening two nuclear power plants that discontinued operations in recent years. Yet another example of how Agenda 2030 and Schwab’s plan to alter the world will fail.

# New England Power Officials Warn of Pending Winter Crisis as Natual Gas Prices Skyrocket and Electricity is Likely to be Rationed

### Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 18, 2022 | Sundance

New England consists of six states in the US Northeast, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  The states have been warned by regional ISO electricity providers for several years about their vulnerability if the winter weather is harsh and there is a significant increase in demand for home heating.  Those warnings are now multiplied by the massive price increases for natural gas.

Keep in mind as all these natural gas and LNG issues surface, the U.S. has been exporting natural gas to Europe as part of the Biden effort to subsidize the NATO effort against Russia.  Prices for natural gas have skyrocketed, and now shortages of the fuel source for energy production may create even bigger problems for New England.

[Via Zero Hedge] – […] The region’s power mix changes have left it increasingly reliant on international NatGas spot markets. State governors have asked US Energy Secretary Jennifer Graholm to waive the Jones Act and allow foreign-owned tankers to ship LNG from the US Gulf region.

All of this has led to New England residents facing some of the highest electricity bills in years. Heating season is already underway.

New England ISO expects the grid will be stable if there’s a mild-to-moderate winter. However, if there’s an extreme cold spell across the Northeast, then grid chaos could unfold: “The grid overall is in a much tighter position.

“If we get a sustained cold period in New England this winter, we’ll be in a very similar position as California was this summer,” Nathan Hanson, a senior vice president of energy and commercial management of LS Power Development LLC, which has two NatGas power plants in New England, warned. (more)

According to the U.S. Energy Information Association (IEA), U.S. storage of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is 12% below the five-year average (LINK).  Additionally, the IEA is expecting the U.S. to export 11.7 billion cubic feet of LNG per day during the fourth quarter of 2022 — up 17% from the third quarter. The destination of that export is Europe.

Consider that 43% of U.S. households use natural gas for home heating, and power suppliers use natural gas to create electricity.  With the massive 2022 exports of LNG to Europe (+17% in fourth quarter alone), that means lower domestic supplies and increased prices here in the United States for electricity and home heating.  We are seeing and feeling these massive price increases right now.

Barrons – […]  If you need more evidence of the impact of natural gas exports on prices, just compare supply and demand fundamentals for the year leading up to February 2020 (the last pre-pandemic month) versus the year leading up to this May (the most recent month with full federal data). Annualized production rose over the period, while domestic consumption remained roughly flat. Yet LNG exports almost doubled—a surge that tightened U.S. gas markets and doubled the price that U.S. consumers pay for the fuel.

The growth of global demand for U.S. LNG can be tied to many market forces, including the shortfalls in Europe due to Russia’s manipulation of European Union gas markets. Sustained high demand in wealthy Asian nations has contributed to export growth as well. And so has the U.S. gas industry’s dogged determination to ship its wares to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic.

Russia’s role has been particularly critical in the rise of global LNG demand. As Russia choked off gas shipments to Europe, EU buyers have turned to global LNG markets to make up the shortfall. Global LNG prices rose in response, and U.S. LNG companies ramped up output, shipping more cargoes to Europe. But Russia responded by further clamping down on gas supplies to the EU—a vicious circle that has hurt Europe’s economy even more severely than it has harmed America’s.

There’s little sign that U.S. gas prices will ease in the coming years. Freeport’s demand will be back online soon enough, and there are three other massive LNG export projects under construction, with more than a dozen of others waiting for financing.

[…] Curiously, federal regulators have consistently found that the gas export projects are in the public interest—meaning they were in the economic interest of LNG companies and gas drillers. But now, exports are creating sky-high costs for U.S. consumers, and drillers are reluctant to boost gas output lest prices fall back to earth. So, it’s high time to consider whether soaring U.S. LNG exports are actually in America’s interest—or if, instead, runaway LNG exports are fueling energy inflation and undermining the nation’s economic competitiveness. (read more)

Not only are U.S. taxpayers directly paying for the majority of costs in Ukraine, but we are also subsidizing the European Union by exporting LNG and driving up the price for energy here at home.  Here’s the Wall Street Journal talking about the risks to New England:

[Via Wall Street Journal] – New England power producers are preparing for potential strain on the grid this winter as a surge in natural-gas demand abroad threatens to reduce supplies they need to generate electricity.

New England, which relies on natural-gas imports to bridge winter supply gaps, is now competing with European countries for shipments of liquefied natural gas, following Russia’s halt of most pipeline gas to the continent. Severe cold spells in the Northeast could reduce the amount of gas available to generate electricity as more of it is burned to heat homes.

The region’s power-grid operator, ISO New England Inc., has warned that an extremely cold winter could strain the reliability of the grid and potentially result in the need for rolling blackouts to keep electricity supply and demand in balance. The warning comes as executives and analysts predict power producers could have to pay as much as several times more than last year for gas deliveries if severe weather creates urgent need for spot-market purchases.

“The most challenging aspect of this winter is what’s happening around the world and the extreme volatility in the markets,” said Vamsi Chadalavada, the grid operator’s chief operating officer. “If you are in the commercial sector, at what point do you buy fuel?”

Power producers in New England are limited in their ability to store fuel on site and face challenges in contracting for gas supplies, as most pipeline capacity is reserved by gas utilities serving homes and businesses. Most generators tend to procure only a portion of imports with fixed-price agreements and instead rely on the spot market, where gas prices have been volatile, to fill shortfalls. (more)

.