COMMENT:

Hello Martin,

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

SG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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