Climate Crisis Contradictions?
How much makes sense?
Assume, for a second, that the man-made climate change narrative is accurate and correct enough i.e. humans are largely responsible for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) such that a form of global catastrophe will occur in a near time frame of 10 - 30 years (2030 - 2050).
This is what the WEF and its agents throughout the G3P are telling everyone and all their actions are couched inside that narrative.
Fundamental to AGW is the heating effect of CO2 from human activities/emission. Take away that human activity and the problem stops, stabilizes and maybe naturally reverses over time. That is the core, basic narrative.
That narrative expressly excludes the effects of the dynamics of the Earth-Sun relationship.
NASA and other major AGW proponents state the these dynamics are nothing to do with AGW to an extent that is greater than human activity.
According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.
For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
So:
Changes in solar activity do not affect Earth’s climate in a way that could be reflected in datasets that these proponents label AGW.
Cyclical changes in the net distance between the Sun and the Earth have nothing to do with Earth’s climate.
Primary policies around climate change are not to do with apportioning solar activity to climate change and therefore don’t account for its contribution to AGW, within the common lay narrative.
However, there are researchers who claim that the dynamics and cyclicality of the Earth-Sun relationship, including the Sun’s own dynamics do have an effect on Earth’s climate, yet their research is excluded from the AGW narrative.
So, let us now accept that the Earth-Sun relationship and the Sun’s immediate output and cyclical dynamics do not affect Earth’s climate such that it contributes to climate change.
Carbon Dioxide - John Dee’s Observation
We don’t even have to resort to our trusty hand-held calculators to realise a shift of +120ppm CO2 is associated with a warming rate of ~1° per century. In percentage terms a 43% increase (400ppm/280ppm) in atmospheric CO2 has generated an 8% increase (14°C/13°C) in the mean global absolute surface temperature assuming, of course, that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a real and genuine thing and not some imagined garden path to globalism with fat grants along the way.
This means atmospheric CO2 has an awful lot more work to do if it is to push the global mean temperature to a level that could get uncomfortable. On this basis we’d need to see CO2 reach 520ppm (400ppm + 120ppm) for the globe to hit an anomaly of +2.0°C and 760ppm (400ppm + 360ppm) for the globe to hit an anomaly of +4.0°C, though this crude calc assumes a linear relationship, which it is not. I’ll be discussing the log-linear relationship between CO2 and temperature anomaly in a future newsletter, meanwhile have a squizz at this introduction and cogitate on the fact that a log-linear relationship means CO2 is becoming less effective over time.
That’s awkward. According to his analysis CO2 increasing by 43% has raised global surface temperatures by 1 degree to date. That’s not in the narrative. Nor is his crude observation about how much more would have to be consistently produced to get another degree’s worth of increase.
If most countries are roughly stable or decreasing their CO2 output, how’s the world going to double CO2 in the next ten years? How does that compare with the narrative?
If CO2 is plant food and we all agree that tree planting and ecosystem protection is key to the carbon cycle, why are corporations deforesting the world at a rate of knots?
If the Sun is not a cause of climate variation, why is geoengineering pursued?
"Geoengineering" is the umbrella term for a bunch of different propositions that involve physically manipulating the climate to cool the planet. "Dimming the sun" (spraying sulfates into the air to reflect sunlight back into space) is actually one of those proposed options. Another is "cloud brightening," spraying saltwater to make clouds more reflective for the same reason. And there's also "ocean fertilization," encouraging algae blooms to soak up carbon.
A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
Set the above in big picture context and break down the logic.
If we don’t sufficiently curtail human emissions and activity that drives AGW, we need a plan B to compensate.
That plan B includes:
Dimming the sun by way of a global experiment of emitting chemicals into the upper atmosphere, with unknown effects on the entire global system i.e. “the climate”, the energy costs of which are not even publicly discussed, before one looks at the science and the risks.
Spraying salt water into the sky to achieve “cloud brightening” with unknown energy costs and effects.
That plan B comes from an ultra minority yet it seeks to wield power over the globe.
This plan B inherently hinges on the Sun having an effect on Earth’s climate, otherwise one would not seek to interfere with the energy pathway from the Sun to Earth.
Easy and Hard - Solar Physics
Easy option: watch Valentia Zharkova on the Jerm Warfare podcast and listen to her take on the Sun’s contribution to climate change. Intro chat runs to about 8 minutes, then there’s stuff on sunspots, then Zharkova starts getting into solar activity and temperature from about 16:30.
https://jermwarfare.com/podcast/valentina-zharkova-on-the-sun-driving-climate-change
Hard option: read Zharkova’s papers around solar activities effects on Earth and climate and the dig into the topic. Relate the refutations of the Sun’s effects to the activities and ideas of the rich in “combatting climate change” and how they affect the masses. Then try to resolve or balance AGW with Solar climate change.
Here’s a brief taste of some of her research statements:
In the paper by Vasilieva and Zharkova, 2022 https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/vasilieva_zharkova_volcanos.pdf, which will appear soon in the Astrophysical Journal, the authors demonstrated …that there is a strong correlation between the eruptions of volcanos in the last two centuries and 22 year activity cycles of the solar background magnetic field… We demonstrate that the largest number of volcanic eruptions occurs during 11-year cycles when the solar background magnetic field has a southern polarity. The maxima of eruptions in years 1868-1950 correlate closely (the correlation coefficient of 0.84) with the maxima of magnetic field of southern polarity. The next anticipated maximum of volcanic eruptions is expected during cycle 26 (2031-2042), when SBMF will have a southern magnetic polarity that can affect solar radiation input to Earth in the current Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) (2020-2053) (Zharkova et al, 2015 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689).
This finding becomes essential in the light of the Grand Solar Minimum the Sun entered in its magnetic activity in cycles 25-27, or 2020-2053. The solar activity already has shown the signs of reduction of sunspot numbers and formation of active regions https://www.sidc.be/silso/spotless, the further 60-70% reduction of solar activity is expected in cycle 26 owing to the GSM that can lead to a decrease of solar radiation deposited to Earth.
Therefore, in cycle 26 (2031-2042) when the solar background magnetic field will have southern polarity this can cause the increase of volcanic eruptions. This can lead to further reduction of the terrestrial temperature caused by the GSM that can temporarily offset any temperature increases occurred of the last few centuries known as global warming.
NOTE: Why does Zharkova’s timeframes on the above happen to coincide with the Agenda 2030 and 2050 dates?
If her theories are correct, we would get to 2030 and start seeing a reduction in global temperatures due to solar activity changes. That reduction could be claimed to be due to Agenda 2030 and 2050, which could be false if Zharkova’s theories are correct and solar activity is the dominant force in climate change.
Two forms of geoengineering means what for solar influence on climate?
If solar geoengineering is proposed by Bill Gates et al, then he must believe that solar activity has an effect on climate change. It must have enough significant effect to be worth a global experiment at untold cost and risk to be worth pursuing, otherwise it is useless as a Plan B because it requires massive energy production, expenditure and pollution generation on a global scale in the upper atmosphere.
We have already conducted major solar geoengineering, and maybe we will again.
Nuclear weapon detonations achieve exactly the same outcome through the diffusion of particles throughout the atmosphere.
(Nuclear) conflict is geoengineering
War is bad for AGW. It’s polluting, toxic, energy consuming and a waste of effort and resources, not to mention life.
Any modern nuclear conflict will be great for curtailing climate change.
What is the basic difference between global sun dimming and cloud brightening by artificial means and a nuclear detonation? The radiation and circumstances, obviously.
But, via perverse logic, one can arrive at the conclusion that a limited nuclear conflict could be net good for the planet because:
It will achieve geoengineering goals of Gates et al in an extremely short time frame.
It will rapidly reduce population numbers at the detonation sites.
It will reduce population over a longer time frame due to the secondary effects of the detonations, including the nuclear fall out and winter.
Not all of the human race and life on Earth will die, depending upon the scale of the detonations.
“You see a crisis in every part of the world,” Vucic told the Serbian state broadcaster RTS.
“I think realistic predictions ought to be even darker,” he added.
“Our position is even worse, since the UN has been weakened and the great powers have taken over and practically destroyed the UN order over the past several decades.”
“I assume that we’re leaving the phase of the special military operation and approaching a major armed conflict, and now the question becomes where is the line, and whether after a certain time – maybe a month or two, even – we will enter a great world conflict not seen since the Second World War,” he said.
Vucic’s concerns (based on the selective quote above) stem in part from a weakening of the UN-based order.
Who is advocating a return to UN Security Charter and a Law-based order that relates to it?
Russia and China.
Who doesn’t want that kind of order? The West, who works on the rules-based order, which is order based on the whim of the US.
Human behaviour doesn’t make sense
Although the above is lacking and simplistic, it is a deliberate juxtaposition of concepts to demonstrate inherent contradictions in the macro behaviour of the human race, which is determined by the ruling and rich minorities.
As far as I can tell, none of that macro behaviour makes sense.
The narrative doesn’t make sense when you start looking at the scale of the claims and their complexity versus our ability and means of dealing with macro complexity, not to mention who ends up dealing with it and how.
We spend more time, effort and resources on the actual pursuit of conflict and attendant mass destruction than we do on mass basic creation to improve people’s experience of life. This is why huge amounts of the world are poor.
What is the Belt and Road Initiative? Why is the West trying to stop it in Africa? What are the funding arrangements that are provided by Russia and China to BRI work in Africa compared to the funding models of the IMF, World Bank and other US models?
Why is the EU trying to scupper Uganda’s sovereign oil projects, when Uganda is a sovereign state and its natural resources are its to do with as it wishes?
Why is the Eastern alliance around Russia and China based on trade relationships, within which the BRI is a key part?
The Crisis Label
Label something a “crisis” and you can justify action on it. But if everything gets labelled a crisis, the label is devalued and nothing is an actual crisis on a relative basis.
Then, if you are the ruling class, you can do what you want and when you meet opposition, you label what you’re doing as an attempt to avert a crisis. See Covid, the war on terror, war on drugs etc etc etc.
The Climate Crisis is only so called because…?
Richard Attenborough has previously predicted that the Australian Coral Reef would die from Global Warming - it has not happened, the Coral Reef refuses to comply with Attenborough and in fact is more enthusiastic in expanding and being more luxurious than ever before and Attenborough has said that Global Warming would cause the ice caps to melt, the seas to reverse and the Earth go into a global winter, a solid ball of ice - which has not happened either, the icecaps have even more ice than previously, this year and he and Bill Gates have said we humans and the animals on this planet cause all of the Methane Gas which is warming the planet, which is why the depopulation now, but in fact non of us are responsible for that - the Methane is released from the ground and from the seas and from volcanoes and indirectly, I suppose from Industry and pollution which made the Globalists wealthy, in the first place, using us weeds, vermin, landfill or human garbage to create their wealth for them - soon forgotten.
So when "we' have all been exterminated, it won't make a blind bit of difference for the Globalists, because our world will continue to heat up, with or without us, as that is the natural process our world automatically goes though over millions of years, bearing in mind that the polar caps were once lush, warm and green and where the Dinosaurs used to live, amongst areas which now, do not support human life, because they are too cold, or arid and dry
WRONG!!
Thomas Sowell observation: the word "crisis" is simply a synonym for "situation" at this point.
If I was into conspiracy theories, I’d highly suspect the “usual suspects” (psychopathic bankers) were behind the climate agenda.
https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-tells-you-which-carbon-credits-are-the-real-deal
If people don’t pay attention, they’ll have the children eating bugs during school lunches and teaching them how to reduce their household’s CO2 emissions by occasionally covering their parents faces with a pillow while they sleep. Indoctrinating the youth through public education has a history of success. Too recent to forget or deny - Pol Pot and Hitler’s Youth.
New Jersey, another poorly run blue state. New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy spoke of their public school students being the first in the country required to learn about climate change.
https://abcn.ws/3fdpSJ9