Tag Archives: Russia

Aug 3 2018

The German Government Pays for 3 Week Vacation for Refugees to Go Home


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted Aug 3, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

You really cannot make up a story like this, because it sounds just so unbelievable. I am in Germany on business and did not see the place overrun with refugees as on my last trip. So I made some inquiries. To my complete astonishment, the German government is actually giving refugees three weeks paid vacations INCLUDING airfare BACK to the very countries that claim they are fleeing because it is unsafe.

So in other words, despite claiming their lives would be at risk if they were forced to return home, the government is paying them for a vacation to the very place they claim to be fleeing. You just cannot make up such a completely insane government policy. I know someone who works with the refugees and they confirm they are on vacation back home. Therefore, asylum seekers are nonetheless returning to their homeland for a “short time”.

I searched to see if I could find any article on the subject. I found how most are trying to cover the practice up. reported that a German Federal Employment Office spokesman said: “There are such cases.” Some stories are trying to deny the issue which was first reported by the leading German newspaper Die Welt am Sonntag, Refugees go on vacation, where they are allegedly persecuted which reinforces the growing problem caused by the fact refugees are allowed to leave the country for 21 days a year but are not obliged to say where they are going. Migrants are protected and are entitled to “privacy”.

My sources in Switzerland have confirmed the same problem, Dozens of asylum seekers who had apparently turned up penniless after fleeing what they said was a war zone were found to have flown home on holiday.

Die Welt reported just how screwed up the government is. There is no communication between government agencies. If an advisor in the Employment Agency gets wind that someone wants to go to Syria, for example, Die Welt reported they are not supposed to pass this information along due to data protection issues.

There is no actual proof that people a person is really persecuted in the home country. Syria was at least a war zone. People have been pouring in from all over North Africa which is not in a state of war. If someone is taking a vacation for 21 days at government expence back to the place they fled, common sense dictates they are not refugees. Government incompetent is just off the charts.

Aug 1 2018

Another Volcano Erupts in the Pacific


Armstrong Economics Blog/Nature

Re-Posted Aug 1, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

We have another volcano erupting in the Pacific and this time the entire island of  Vanuatu island is being completely evacuated for a second time as its volcano erupts again. The Manaro Voui volcano began spewing ash in recent days, prompting officials to order thousands of residents on tiny Ambae island to leave immediately. All crops appear to have been destroyed by the ash.

The volcano began rumbling in September last year, which led to the island’s first full evacuation. This time, officials in the South Pacific nation have made the evacuation  compulsory where all residents are being moved to neighboring islands.

The more volcanoes that keep erupting the greater the chance of increasing the cooling trend

Aug 1 2018

EU Regulation Leads to Wholesale Slaughter of Sheep


Armstrong Economics Blog/Regulation

Re-Posted Aug 1, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

In Bulgaria, a farmer had one sheep that died unexpectedly and another which grew sick but survived. Both animals returned negative test results for a disease known as ovine rinderpest. The Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry slaughtered the entire herd and paid the farmer below replacement cost to save money for the state and then banned them from having livestock for six months. The government explained in a statement that as an EU member state, Bulgaria can legally institute animal vaccines by FORCE if it is in the essential interests of the community it is affecting. However, if Bulgaria adopts that policy, then the EU automatically imposes a ban on live animal trade and the exportation of meat and dairy products for at least two years following such a decision. Therefore, simply because of an EU regulation, animals are just slaughtered on a wholesale basis even if they do not test positive for a disease but might.

Jul 30 2018

Magnitsky Act & the Strange Backdrop


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption

Re-Posted Jul 30, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong – thanks for your efforts on providing us with links to the Magnitski video. I began watching the video last night and then came back to it this morning and was truly amazed that the link was no longer active.

I’m curious. Was Magnitski ever charged with anything and or why were they holding him? Yes, you are living proof that one can be held without a charge, but in your case, they wanted something. What is it that they wanted from Magnitski? Perhaps it’s obvious and I’m hoping you can fill in that void.

Again, thanks for the efforts to provide us with a different ways to look and understand our world!

Best regards,

Steve
ANSWER: The director of the film, Andrei Lvovich Nekrasov, obviously began the film believing Browder. The more he dug into the film, the more the alibi of Browder did not make any sense. What he failed to do was actually investigate Hermitage Capital beyond 2000. If he did, he would discover that Browder was a MINORITY shareholder and Edmond Safra was the MAJORITY through Republic National Bank. Only after Safra was murdered, probably by Putin for allegedly blackmailing Yeltsin, then in the takeover of Republic National Bank, HSBC did not want to have anything to do with Hermitage Capital from an ownership perspective. They became the manager & trustee of the fund, which was very unusual to wear two hats if not unethical. That is when Browder gained his MAJORITY shareholding.

I believe Magnitsky was being held not just simply because of tax fraud in Russia by Hermitage Capital, but also for its involvement in the blackmail of Russia which ended up involving the Bank of New York $7 billion money-laundering case. CNN Money reported on September 1st, 1999 before everyone removed the theft from the IMF: “[They] funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.” Nekrasov has had his hands full just trying to get the film shown. He is up against tremendous obstacles to shutting it down by Browder. (let’s see how long it takes them to remove the CNN story which states what I have been saying for years, they got Yeltsin to take funds from the IMF)

This is just the tip of the truth behind the entire case. I believe Magnitsky was being held in hopes that he would give evidence against the entire affair and that went beyond just tax evasion. What is really strange is that Browder resigned his American citizenship to escape worldwide taxation, yet he is able to get John McCain to sponsor his Magnitsky Act trying to get his money back from Russia. The US government has used the Magnitsky Act to demonize Russia and Putin and it has kept adding people to the list who cannot come to the USA even though they have NEVER been tried, charged, and had no connection with Magnitsky whatsoever. There is obviously duel purposes being served here and those in Congress just overlook Browder and his history

Jul 30 2018

Refugees Storming Ceuta Border to Get Free Welfare


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

RE-Posted Jul 30, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

The rush to get into Europe for free welfare has led to a land invasion of Spanish territory in Africa. Around 400 African refugees stormed the beautiful Spanish exclave Ceuta on the border with Morocco just on the African side of the Pillars of Hercules. They have climbed over the double barbed wire fence which are over 18 ft tall (6 meters). They attacked guards throwing corrosive Quicklime at them, which of course burns. Quicklime is not a very stable material. Due to lime being an alkaline product, contact with skin can cause full scale burning. Attacking the border guard to get in is certainly not the type of person you want to offer shelter to under these circumstances.

Ceuta and Melilla, also a Spanish exclave, are effectively the only EU external borders on the African continent. Therefore refugees are simply invading like barbarians but want handouts. More than 850 refugees had crossed the border to Ceuta in a single month. Spain has recently overtaken Italy in becoming the number destination for newly arrived boat people. Almost 19,600 people arrived in Spain since the start of 2018, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Categories: Refugees
Jul 30 2018

The Refugee Crisis – Germany Can’t Find 50% of those They Now Want to Deport


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted Jul 30, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Merkel’s nightmare is simply beyond description. Now that Europe is trying to at least deport some of these pretend “refugee” migrants from North Africa, the shocking reality is starting to surface. Now 50% of the “refugee” migrants cannot be deported from Germany because nobody can find them. According to a report, every second person to be deported is simply not found. By the end of May, of the about 23,900 announced repatriations, Germany could only find about 11,100 who were actually deported. Around 12,800 deportations that the government attempted could not be completed because the people could not be found. They have permanently infiltrated Europe and are not embedded deeply in the underground economy.

The entire movement in Britain where they called anyone who was against allowing wholesale “refugee” migrants into Britain were labeled “racists” and horrible people. There is now absolutely no way to even deport half of the migrants when the governments are absolutely clueless as to their whereabouts. These can be more than just rapists, now you have within this group the clear distinction of possible terrorists just waiting for the right moment.

The images of cute children were used to open the doors to Europe. But more than 70% were not families, but young men. Photos of boats from North Africa of migrants clearly show the lack of women and children. You would think that if this was a legitimate refugee operation, the people would have been limited to Syria and that ONLY families should have been allowed to enter. Was it really that hard to use a little common sense?

Jul 29 2018

D’oh Canada…


RE-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on July 29, 2018 by

Canada is on the cusp of instituting a national carbon tax.  Against push-back from normal Canadians in Ontario who are against the insufferable proposal, Liberal Minister of Environment Catherine McKenna explains how it will work.  WATCH:

 

[Data Link]

 

Jul 28 2018

Australian Drought Getting Really Bad & the Tilt of the Earth


Armstrong Economics Blog/Nature

Re-Posted Jul 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Farmers in South Australia have been forced to feed sheep with onions that were rejected for commercial sale due to a shortage of feed. Besides the energy output of the sun declining, we also have the changes in the earth’s wobble to contend with. The Northern Hemisphere’s last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, and most evidence had indicated that the ice age in the Southern Hemisphere ended about 2,000 years later.

There have been new findings come from a detailed examination of an ice core sample taken from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide for the first time. Previously, the ice cores were taken from the East where the ice is thickest. This new area of the ice is more than 2 miles deep and covers 68,000 years. They have only completed about half so far in the analysis. One meter of ice covers one year, but at greater depths, the annual layers are compressed to centimeters. Evidence of greater warming periods was revealed in layers associated with 18,000 to 22,000 years ago. This is known as the “deglaciation” period and corresponds to the last big climate change. Obviously, that is well before civilization. This real science reveals how our climate system actually functions and it is cyclical in accordance with the laws of physics. Changes in Earth’s orbit changes on the scale of thousands of years. Nevertheless, as the Earth changes its tilt, some regions that were cold become warm and others that were warm become cold. This tends to be a more consistent process that is emerging.

West Antarctica is separated from East Antarctica by a major mountain range. East Antarctica has a substantially higher elevation and tends to be much colder, though there is recent evidence that it too is warming rather rapidly. There is clear warming in Western Antarctica in the past decades. The new data obtained from the ice cores confirm that Western Antarctica’s climate is more strongly influenced by regional conditions in the Southern Ocean than East Antarctica has been. The warming in Western Antarctica 20,000 years ago is not explained by a change in the sun’s intensity. What appears to impact the poles more so has been the wobble of the Earth. It is the wobble which changes how the sun’s energy is distributed over the planet. As the Earth tilts, it not merely warms the ice sheet, but also warms the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica.

Currently, the axial tilt is in the middle of its range. The third and final of the Milankovitch Cycles is Earth’s precession. Precession is the Earth’s slow wobble as it spins on an axis. Nonetheless, the axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth’s axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Therefore, the oscillations in the degree of Earth’s axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years. The tilt does not sound like much moving from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees. However, at this time the Earth’s axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees. As a result, this provides us with our seasons. Interestingly enough, since there are periodic variations of this angle, the severity of the Earth’s seasons changes dramatically. When we have less of an axial tilt, then the Sun’s solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

The Earth appears to react significantly to a very small degree shift of axial tilt. This will promote the growth of ice sheets. There is a response due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and thus produce a greater amount of snowfall building up the glaciers. Additionally, summer temperatures would be cooler which in turn results in less melting of the winter’s accumulation.

Therefore, we do not have a single source that we can attribute to climate change. It appears to emerge as a combination of the energy output of the sun, the wobble of the earth, and the sudden rise in volcanic activity. The problem gets really back when all three converge

Jul 26 2018

Climate Change is Real – Do Droughts Last 8.6 Years?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Jul 26, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

It is time to begin to really investigate Climate Change for what our computer is forecasting is like a dramatic rise in volatility or a Panic Cycle to be more accurate. What does that mean? We are going to experience extremes on both sides. You will see record temperature in the summer of 100+ F and in the winter, bitterly cold freezing. The admixture of these types of trend plays hell with crops. We are looking at severe droughts. In Australia, we are looking at drought conditions that match the ‘Federation drought‘ which took place during the late 1880s and early 1890s. This also contributed to the rise in socialism. There was a major drought in the outback areas of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia killed many animals. There was a major loss of vegetative cover that led to erosion and a dust bowl. Many native edible plant species vanished with devastating consequences. Between 1895 and 1903 there was a major drought that impacted most of the country. They came to name it the ‘Federation drought‘ which lasted interestingly 8.6 years.

The American Dust Bowl also became known as “the Dirty Thirties” which began in 1930. Regular rainfall did not return to the region until the end of 1939, which finally brought the Dust Bowl years to a close. The severe drought hit the Midwest and Southern Great Plains during 1930. This resulted in major dust storms that began the following year in 1931 coinciding with the Sovereign Debt Crisis. By 1934, an estimated 35 million acres of formerly cultivated land had been rendered completely useless for farming.  Another 125 million acres was rapidly losing its topsoil. Once again, we have a period of 8.6 years.

Again, the next drought which began in late 1949 continued into late 1957 to early 1958 covering once more a duration of 8.6 years. This was also a severe drought in the United States. It did begin during the late 1940s in the Southwestern United States, which expanded into New Mexico and Texas during 1950 and 1951. The drought hit very hard in the Central Plains, Midwest and certain of the Rocky Mountain States, particularly between the years 1953 and 1957.  During 1956, it spread to parts of central Nebraska. From 1950 to 1957, Texas experienced the most severe drought in recorded history. By the time the drought ended, 244 of Texas’s 254 counties had been declared federal disaster areas. California was also hit very hard with some natural lakes drying up completely in 1953. It was Southern California that has been hit hard very hard by the drought during 1958-1959. There was also a widespread dust storm as was the case during the Dust Bowl which impacted the Plains with winds of up to 100 mph (161 km) that reached some 3 feet in depth (a meter).

From a cyclical perspective, the drought cycle has turned up in 2017. We do not expect this to peak until 2025

Jul 21 2018

Global Temperatures Changes June, 2018, Man Made or Not?


We have been schooled over the past 40 years that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is rising to levels never seen before on this planet and as a result the world’s average temperature is rising to levels that will, if nothing else, destroy large areas of the planet. The latest UN predictions indicate a major Catastrophe will happen by 2040 unless we do something drastic right now. This destruction will be from two factors; one, ocean levels raising and flooding all worlds coastal areas forcing the world population to higher ground; and two, even if those moves are accomplished the increased temperatures will bring massive storms that will ravage the areas not flooded. The only solution to prevent this from happening is, stop using carbon based fuels; petroleum, natural gas, and coal which, all, generate large amount of water and carbon dioxide and replacing them with wind or solar energy.

These dire projections are based on the belief that CO2 is the “primary” driver of global temperature changes; i.e. more CO2 in the atmosphere is very bad. This view is severally distorted and more likely entirely false.  One can argue the reasons for these lies but it really doesn’t matter whether they are innocent or malicious in their construct; either way promoting something that is tearing up the worlds civilizations by miss allocation of resources is very misguided.

Basic facts:

  • The planets global temperature is directly related to the energy arriving here from our sun
  • That energy manifests itself in a form which we call temperature
  • Temperature is a measure of the amount of heat (energy) that an object holds
  • The planets temperature is directly related to the amount of water in the atmosphere
  • Without water in the atmosphere the earth would be 330 Celsius colder and frozen solid
  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a requirement for life to exist on this planet
  • More Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is better as planets grow faster, less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is bad
  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) only indirectly affects temperature probably less than 5% that of water
  • Climate is a measure of the average of all the factors that produce a stable environment
  • Weather is a measure of local factors that may make large changes in daily or seasonal conditions
  • The planets temperature in geological times ranged from170 Celsius +/- 60 Celsius
  • 12,000 or so years ago the last ice age ended for no reason we can determine

 

The first thing that needs to be done when developing a theory is to identify and define the issue or problem. The issue was that after WW II there was a large buildup of industry required to rebuild the devastated planet and that rapid uncontrolled growth created real environmental problems. Much good resulted from the original environmental emphasis such as the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, however, others in the 90’s saw a way to gain power and wealth by exaggerating aspects of the movement. During the 80’s and the 90’s global temperatures were going up so these people saw a way to increase the size and scope of government to their advantage with a carbon tax.  They picked increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as the strawman argument and funneled large amounts of research money into universities to study how bad the increases were.

Unfortunately, federal grant money is “directed” money so it was given to find out how bad the issue was, not to find out if it was even bad or even real. Therein was the problem as this is a very complex math and physics study in a subject that had not been previously studied in detail such that 30 years later the key variables and relationship are still not known with specify. The mistake that was made in the attempt to quantify the apparent increase in global temperatures was that increased CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere was that CO2 was the ONLY REASON the global temperatures were increasing.  Unfortunately this assumption was not true as there had been several warm and cold periods in history going back thousands of years. The previous little ice age in the seventeenth century was one of these and the warming we now have, about 10 Celsius, is partly from the northern hemisphere still coming out from that cold period.

Next we’ll review some important information on temperatures and how it’s measured. We need to understand the details before we can draw conclusions. The problem, intentional or not, goes back to physics and how we show information. It’s critical that when we talk to nonscientists that information is properly displayed. And nowhere is this more important than when we are discussing global temperature in relationship to anthropogenic climate change.

When we talk about climate (long term changes; centuries) or weather (short term changes; decades) local temperatures are going be in Celsius (C) in the EU and science, or degrees Fahrenheit (F) in America. The base temperature for the earth that NASA established is 14.00 C or 57.20 F; but these are both relative measures and do not tell us how much heat (thermal energy) is there. To know that we must use Kelvin (K) or Rankin (R) and that would be 287.150 K and 516.870 R all four of those numbers 14.00 C, 287.150 K 57.20 F, and 516.870 R are exactly the same temperature, just using a different base. But if the current temperature went from 14.00 C, to 14.860 C that is a 6.14% increase in C, an increase of 2.71% in F and an increase of .30% in K and R; so which one is real? The answer is .30% because Kelvin and Rankin are the only ones that measure the total increase in energy! Table One shows these relationships that we just discussed.

The next step is to plot Carbon Diode (CO2) from NOAA-ESRL and the estimated global temperature as published by NASS-GISS each month.  As can be seen in Table One It doesn’t really matter whether we would use Kelvin and Rankin since the increase in thermal energy is exactly the same either way; but we’ll use Kelvin as that is the accepted norm in the scientific community for determining the amount thermal energy in any object especially when looking at changes in temperature or measuring the thermal energy in any object.  There are other less known temperature scales that have specific purposes but they don’t really apply here in this subject.

The important thing is how much has the temperature 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 about 30.0% from 1958 to May of 2018. 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, we find that the changes in global temperature are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 5 times (the range is 20 % 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?

Chart 8 and all the rest of what is shown here in this paper are based on the following two data series. First NASA-GISS estimates of a global temperature shown as an anomaly (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and shown in Chart 1 as the red plot labeled NASA the scale for the temperatures is on the left. The NASA LOTI temperatures are shown as a 12 month moving average because of the very large monthly variations. Second NOAA-ESRL CO2 values in Parts per Million (PPM) which are shown in Chart 1 as a black plot labeled NOAA the scale for CO2 is shown on the right no change is required to the NOAA data set it is ready to use as is.

NASA published data is shown as an anomaly, but what is a temperature anomaly?  An anomaly is a deviation from some base value normally an average that is fixed. There were two problems with the system that NASA picked which were number one there is no “actual” global temperature and two since climate is a variable and always has been so there cannot be a real base to measure from. NASA known for its science and engineering expertise back in the day thought it could get around these issues and created a system to do so. First they developed a computer model which took the readings from all over the planet and made adjustments to them in software which they called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values found in that period and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base.  Lastly they took the calculated monthly temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly and multiplied the result by 100.

The problem is that both are arbitrary. Why pick 1950 to 1980 as the base period? Is there something special about that time frame? And as to a global temperature there is no such thing for many reasons like the earth faces the sun so one side is cool and onside it warm. Higher latitudes are cooler than the equator and higher elevations are cooler than lower. And finally there are many areas where there are no measurements taken. Therefore there is no one temperature only an artificial artifact solely dependent on the soundness of the software used to create that one temperature!

Chart 1 below is 100% accurate and based only on NASA and NOAA data as published.

Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to Chart 1 three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is according to the government through NASA and NOAA the entire basis for climate change. That plot is superimposed over the black plot of the actual NOAA CO2 values as the cyan line labeled as the CO2 model and one can see there is a very good fit to the actual NOAA values so there should be no dispute about its validity, and it’s historically accurate.  This plot allows us to make projections to future global temperatures according to the projected level of CO2The second added item is James E. Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius per doubling of CO2. This plot is shown here in lavender and is from a presentation that Hansen showed congress in 1988 to help support the UN in setting up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This plot is labeled as Hansen Scenario B which Hansen stated was the most likely to happen based on his 1979 climate theories’.  The third item is the current plot of the most likely temperature of the planet based on the growth of CO2 published by the IPCC. This plot is shown in Red and is labeled as IPCC AR5 A2 as that is the table where the data was found. This plot is a GCM computer projection of the planets temperature based on the complex relationships developed by the IPCC primarily though NASA and NOAA.

It can be seen in Chart 2 that the lavender plot and the Hansen plot are very close from 1965 to around 2000. However there isn’t a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature, as shown in Chart 8. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the temperature was going up until 2000 then it plateaued from 2000 until 2014 where there was a mysterious spike up of .5 degrees Celsius just in time for COP21 in Paris. Then after CP21 was over the unexplained change in temperature started to come back down. The climate doesn’t make changes like what the NSA/NOAA data shows that would be weather if it even was real.

Chart 7 looks at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see where a change in CO2 of only a few ppm has caused a major change in the global temperature way beyond anything previously shown in any published NASA data. There are three ovals on Chart 7 one at the top of Chart 7 which is a black oval around the CO2 levels from 2010 to 2018 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 3 ppm a year Then at the bottom of Chart 7 is dark red oval around the NASA global temperature levels from 2013 to 2018 and its very obvious that there has been a sudden large change, almost .50 degrees Celsius in 3 years. There has never been such a large increase in temperature from such a small increase in CO2. By contrast the previous comparable period of the last part of 2010 through 2013 Blue oval shows about the same increase per year for CO2 but global temperature decreased.

An explanation is needed here as the NASA temperature plot in Chart 7 seems to show the jump in temperature in 2016 not 2015; this is a result of the very large jump in temperature shown by NASA. Since we are using a 12 month moving average and the increase occurred in only a few months it actually shifted the curve into 2016. The raw data for December 2012 was at a low of 14.44 degrees Celsius but by February 2016 the temperature was at a record high of 15.35 degrees Celsius a .91 degree Celsius increase, Red arrow. With the global temperature over 15.0 Celsius at COP21 in December 2015 at the Paris COP21 conference the climate accord was approved and the manipulation was a success. After COP21 the Fake Warming was no longer needed so we are now seeing a downward trend developing. The current temperature for June 2018 is 14.88 degrees Celsius.

In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate  move in much longer cycles of centuries which can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those actual geological trends and focusing only on CO2 the Global Climate Models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed. Also the temperature data from 1850 to 1880 was dropped for some reason as it showed a lower temperature than would be expected. The lower temperatures’ in that period would have shown a shorter cycle they didn’t want shown.

A decade ago when I started looking at “climate” change the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that 53 years ago in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964. The next paragraph explains currently observed patterns in climate related to this subject and is historical accurate.

Ignoring the last Ice Age which ended some 11,000 years ago when a good portion of the Northern hemisphere was under miles of ice the following observations give a starting point to any serious study on the subject of climate. First, there is a clear movement up and down in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit of about 20,000 years for a complete cycle. About every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed again. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. These are known as the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillations (AMO) in the Atlantic and as La Nina and El Nino in the Pacific. Thirdly, we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that can affect global temperatures. Lastly the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0O Celsius plus or minus 1.5O Celsius in 1979 when there were only two studies available and one for sure and maybe both were not peer reviewed.

The result of looking objectively at the three possible sources of global temperature changes was a series of equations based on these observations that when added together produced a sinusoidal curve that seemed to follow NASA published temperatures very closely when first developed in 2007, and modified a few years later when it was found the short and long cycles were related to multiples of Pi.  Since this curve was based on observed temperature patterns it was called a Pattern Climate Model (PCM) which has been described in previous papers and posts on my blog and since it is generated by “equations” many assume it is some form of least squares curve fitting, which it is not. It does seem to be related to ocean currents where the bulk of the planet’s surface heat is stored and cloud formation.

Chart 5 shows the PCM a composite of two cycles and CO2. There is a long trend, 1036.7 years with an up and down of 1.65O Celsius (.00396O C per year) we in the up portion of that trend. Then  there is a 69.1 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of 0.29O Celsius and we are now in the downward portion of that trend (-.01491O C per year), which will continue until around ~2035. Lastly, there is CO2 currently adding about .0079O Celsius per year so together they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matches the current holding pattern we were experiencing until 2014. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again duplicating what was observed in the 1980’s.  Note: the values shown here are only representative from what is in the model.

When using a 12 month running average for global temperatures up until 2014 the PCM model was within +/- .01 degrees of what NASA was publishing in their LOTI table since the early 1960’s as shown in Chart 5. Further the back projection of the PCM plot matched historical records and global temperatures going back past the time of Christ. It should also be considered that geologically CO2 levels have reached levels many times that of the current 400 ppm without destroying the planet so the current hysteria over the current very small numbers can only be explained by political science not real science.

Lastly, Chart 9 shows what a plot of the PCM model, in yellow, would look like from the year 1400 to the year 2900. This plot matches reasonably well with recorded history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI data, in red, very closely, despite homogenization.  I do understand that this PCM model is not based on physics but it is also not some statistical curve fitting. It’s based on two observed reoccurring patterns in the climate and a factor for CO2. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the real conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm then this model will work well into the foreseeable future.  150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.750 to 16.000 C and then they will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next ~500 years.

The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be about 1.50 C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.  The Green plot on Chart 9 shows the observed pattern with no change in CO2 from the pre-industrial era of ~280 ppm. CO2 cannot affect global temperatures more than 1.500 C +/- no matter what the ppm level of CO2 is. The reason being that the CO2 sensitivity value is not 3.00 per doubling of CO2 but less than 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work and it’s a logistics curve not a log curve.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO2 reductions in Europe and America was achieved as predicted at the COP12 conference in Paris in December 2015. To support this endeavor NASA was forced to show ever increasing global temperatures that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored.  Within a few years the manipulation will be obvious even to those without knowledge in the subject, but by then it will be to late the damage to the reputation of science will have been done. Fortunately President Trump pulled us out of the bad agreement.

In closing keep this in mind. The current panic generated by the government using political science is that the current global temperature of around 15.0O Celsius is an increase of 7.14% from the 1960’s when the global temperature was 14.0O Celsius; and that does seem like a lot. However those views would be in error as the actual increase in thermal energy, as measured by temperature, would be only .35% because we must use Kelvin not Celsius when working with heat energy. When we use kelvin the temperature goes from 287.15O K to 288.15O K which is only .35% not 7.14% about 1/20 of what is implied by the IPCC. What the IPCC shows is not technically wrong as much as it is extremely misleading to anyone without a science background.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers for science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.