The Economic Collapse: Look At This Map – It Shows Devastating Crop Losses Are Literally Happening All Over The Globe
Let me warn you right up front – the information in this article might freak you out. If what some experts are telling us is true, a global food crisis appears to be inevitable. Even during good years we have a really difficult time feeding everyone on the planet, and now a major climate shift appears to be happening. Our sun has become exceedingly quiet, and many experts believe that this is a sign that a solar minimum is now upon us. Of course we have seen solar minimums happen quite regularly in the past, and if this is just a normal solar minimum then conditions should begin to return to normal after a couple of years. Unfortunately, evidence continues to mount that we have entered what is known as a “grand solar minimum”. In fact, Professor Valentina Zharkova says that what we are facing is a “super grand solar minimum”, and if that is true we are going to be facing climate chaos like we have never seen before. During previous “grand solar minimums” the globe was gripped by devastating famines and vast numbers of people died. Could a similar scenario potentially be in our future?
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Those who believe in man-made global warming/climate change feel confident that it is man who is responsible for these extreme weather events. But one thing that I have consistently noticed in the science and data that they use to support their claim is their belief that the sun has a minimal impact on these climatic events. Are they right? Are they wrong? My gut tells me that if history is any indication, coupled with the sun's role in it, we may be missing a very important component in the discussion, and we may be making policy decisions that are outright wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe impact of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic not a linear. Temperature does not measure enthalpy or total heat content.
It isn't a stretch that climate Kassandra's minimize the influence of the Sun given their ridiculous belief that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Generations were taught that CO2 makes life on earth possible and it's an amazing molecule because atmospheric CO2 comprises right now about .04%, 4 parts in 10,000, of the earths atmosphere. That's bang for the buck! Anyone who can believe CO2 is bad can believe the Sun doesn't affect the earths climate.
ReplyDeleteOf course the Sun has a dominate affect on the Earths climate. Of course CO2 is not a pollutant, if plants could speak, they'd ask for "More Please".
The climate change crazies are the most dangerous group of fanatics since the Nazi's!
ReplyDeleteAndy
ReplyDeleteThe UN climate people state it
98% climate science people stae it
our Pentagon states it
the Union of Concerned Science states it
but you know better? What are your credentials? What do you offer to refute scientists?
THE IMPACT OF THE SUN, SOLAR IMPACT, IS HERE STUDIED WITH ITS CONNECTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACTIVITY
ReplyDeleteFor those not believing in climate change, why is the Pentagon 100% sure it is taking place and represents a security issue?
it is 97% of 'scientists' not 98%. If you are going to tell a lie, at least get your lie straight.
ReplyDeleteMany of those 97% were not climate scientists. What happened is that they used a 'big number Dogbert argument. Go read a post mortem on who those scientist are.
The Pentagon is political. Anyone who makes O6 is a political animal. They have to be. They might be fine officers and good tacticians, but they have to know the political ropes or someone like a congressman squishes them.
Union of Concerned Scientists. Can you say concern trolling. Why did you not list the SPLC or NARAL while you were at it?
The predictions made by the IPCC have not come true. It still snows, the Arctic still has ice, etc.
Of course the difference of a logarithmic scale and a non-logarithmic scale went right over your head like so much does.
I agree with WNU editor. I'd add that the sun is not the only shortfall in the theory. There is also:
ReplyDeleteUnreliability of historical temperature records and measuring stations.
Dubious efforts to revise the temperature record (by NOAA) in a way that seems to better fit the narrative.
The role of CO2 as a fertilizer and how that affects the ecosystem by creating more food sources.
A sketchy understanding of the overall carbon cycle of the earth.
The unpredictability of the biggest greenhouse gas, by far, water vapor.
The role of sun spots and their high energy emissions in the formation of the precursors of clouds.
The radiative absorption bands of CO2 which when saturated probably render additional CO2 less potent.
The role of politics and government funding on scientific research, what can be researched and still receive funding.
The assumed utility of a crisis as a path to political power.
"The role of CO2 as a fertilizer and how that affects the ecosystem by creating more food sources."
ReplyDeleteMore CO2 does not always equal more plant growth. You have to consider the constraints of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and water in the equation (i.e. Liebig's Law of Minimum).
Still more CO2 in general seems to be producing more plant growth. People with greenhouse use it all the time.
Dear Fred: the Pentagon thinks it's a good idea to put worthless females in infantry units , this makes them morons! I do not listen to morons!! As a former Marine I know they can't do the training!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRodents and insects eat tons of harvested and stored foods. Spoilage is a huge factor.
The downside....there may be more dim-oh-crats surviving.