Bitcoin Forum

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888&cpage=1#comment-333148). You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

5427
Blog/Uncategorized
Posted Apr 25, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

New-York-Under-Water

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have read your thesis on global warming and that this is only part of a natural cycle. I admit that you have persuaded me whereas the claims are false especially that New York City should have been under water by now according Al Gore. You mentioned that there was global warming which enabled the Vikings to reach America because the ice melted. My question is rather blunt. If we are headed now into a global cooling period, what is the historical evidence that society also declines?

Thank you in advance

PD

ANSWER: I have reported that the peat fires in Borneo and Sumatra (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/indonesias-peat-fires-exceed-emissions-from-the-entire-u-s-economy/) have now exceeded all the emissions from the entire U.S. economy. This whole movement is simply to raise taxes on the bogus theory of global warming. We are not so powerful to alter the course of cyclical movement of the planet. Bouts of global cooling (ice ages) as well as warming periods predate the combustion engine and mankind. It is rather questionable analysis to claim we have altered the climate. We are capable of polluting things, true. But actually altering the climate is something beyond our power.

Volcanoes are a major issue in climate change. Yes, studies reveal that the Hawaiian Kilauea volcanoe eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day, which has been going on for more than 20 years. However, gas studies worldwide by volcanologists have calculated that global volcanic CO2 production on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. But this is really in the absence of any real catastrophic eruptions.  Volcanoes (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html) emit also Sulfur dioxide  SO2 which automobiles emit very little. When Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18th, 1980, it produced 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide on that one day and about 2 million metric tons for the entire event far more than automobiles.

Moreover, volcanic production of CO2 is by far not really the issue in climate change. Instead of global warming from  CO2, it is the plume of ash in the sky which actually blocks the sun and reverses the climate from warm to cold like sitting under an umbrella at the beach. I have discussed Mount Tambora (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/1816-global-cooling-from-volcanoes/)  which erupted  in 1815 and threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer of 1816 in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. I have shown the correlation of that eruption to wheat prices.

I have also written about the Maunder Minimum (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/maunder-minimum-petri-dish-of-political-change/) (<--- returning again in 2030!) which sent the Earth into a cold period 300 years ago from the perspective of the cycle energy output from the Sun. I have also gone into the evolution of science which has been set in motion by the very discovery of a frozen woolly rhinoceros which altered science in many fields. I have explain how the temperature at the time of the American Revolution (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/global-warmingalternately-climate-change-guide-for-dummies/) was at its lowest point in the cycle.

All of that said, the ice core samples have revealed that there were two major volcanic eruptions in 536 and 540 AD which sent Europe into an ice age and wiped out the Roman civilization. Flavius Odoacer (433–493) was a soldier who in 476 became the first King of Italy (476–493) after deposing Romulus Augustus, the last official Roman emperor in the West.

Odoacer was overthrown by Theodoric the Great (454-526), the Ostrogoth. He was followed by Athalaric (526-534), and a few others then finally Baduila (541-552). So while Rome officially ends in the West with Romulus Augustus in 476AD, the Ostrogoths fade out after 552 due to the climate changes. In the East, the change in climate appears to have also possibly been linked to the Plague of Justinian (541–542) which was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially its capital Constantinople, the Sassanid Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. I have written about the political turmoil there in Byzantium which preceded the plague during the Nika Revolt (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/nika-riots/) of 532AD. I have also written about how empires die (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/2012-2/where-do-empires-go-to-die-and-when-they-do-die-how-do-empires-die/). It does seem that when temperatures decline, civil unrest rises and this increases the risk of revolutions.

When Thera erupted around 1645-1650BC, this created a climate change and marked the end of the Minoan civilization. They were conquered by the Mycenae who also captured Troy. As the weather turned cold, Greece goes into a Dark Age. The Greeks migrated and other places called them the “sea people” since they did not know where they came from as the invaded Northern Africa. Homer wrote about the period before the Dark Age known as the Heroic Period. Scholars thought this was fiction about Troy and Mycenae until Heinrich Schliemann (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/heinrich-schliemann/) (1822 – 1890) set out and discovered what Homer wrote about was history.

The historical evidence (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1648-7) is rather extensive. It does appear that as we enter into a global cooling period, governments will fall, disease will increase, and the risk of Western Civilization declining sharply all become historically possible.

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.


However, moggie presents a different type of issue.  He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness."  Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever.  Think of how wonderful this is.  There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey.

I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

The beginnings of science was not with a rigid caste system in which only some could voice an opinion on a problem.  Quite the contrary.  Look at Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Kepler. 

I may have overstated it slightly,

but the point about volcanic activity producing more greenhouse gasses than humans is quite legitimate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l5A_E3CA1
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change.

So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. ...

Armstrong's supercomputer and $billion of historical data has correlated that in fact it is a more permanent change or inflection juncture (perhaps not climate but societal). Science (data) trumps guesswork.

It must kick off a cascade of effects.

Follow-up by Armstrong with charts:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/we-are-headed-into-a-new-ice-age-but-when/


Correlate with the scientists' recent discovery of a backtested predictive computer model for the sun's emission Maunder Minimum which predicts Mini Ice Age starting again 2030ish:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+maunder+minimum

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. Then they studied a volcano. Then they just made an estimation of the CO2 emited by the whole volcanoes. What's so hard to understand?
Of course they're not precise! They can't be! But you're arguing they're wrong by a 10 000 order? ^^

Oh and btw I'm not your comrade, you surely don't deserve my friendship ;)

No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement.

They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate.

You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath.

P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.

I am not obliged to faithfully believe Armstrong's "Supercomputer."  Just show persuasive arguments backed with facts.

THanks.

No one demanded you to do so. You retain your free will and can lose or gain from your decisions. You are welcome to compile the data yourself and build your own model. In the meantime, I make judgements based on discernment.

I believe if you challenge MA in email, he will provide the raw data to you and some direction on his methodology.

I believe the charts he showed are displaying generally available data.

As for the backtested predictability of the correlation of societal change, I think you need $billion to compile the data Armstrong claims to have compiled and multi-dimensionally cross-correlated.

The cited backtested model for the Maunder Minimum 2030 prediction has 95+% backtested accuracy and is an open sourced scientific discovery. It doesn't come from Armstrong's database and computer.

While there is a body of scientific literature discussing the probability of a coming mini ice age, this is credited as existing by Armstrong, and is not predicted by him or his computers.

As for the rest of your comments, it's up to him (or you) to back the claims made with proof.  Not my job.

Sorry they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years, but as an eruptive volcano releases more than 500 times the amount of CO2 the not eruptive one release, unless there is more than 5000 times more unerupting volcanoes than eruptive ones it's enough to make an excellent estimation.
Where do you take that from? They simply estimate the amount of CO2 released on average by active volcanoes everyday since 2011! How is that not precise? And I answered you above concerning the number of volcanoes.
Nothing is precise in science. Everything has some kind of innacuracy that's the very point of Quantum Physics.
Difference is you're actually claiming they're not wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude of more than 10 000. That's how wrong they should be in order to make your claim true (claim that you absolutely didn't prove btw).
I'm no more communist that you're "educated". It's not because your limited brain can only separate the world into two parts, the red evil communists and the blue good capitalists that the world is actually divided that way ::)

So you are telling me they track every erupting volcano on earth, even those deep under the ocean? Sure that sounds realistic  ::)

The amount of greenhouse gasses released from volcanoes varies greatly depending on the surrounding geology, therefore wide scale estimates based on a small number of inaccurate samples is not anything near precise. If you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know this. I wouldn't call that anything at all near an "excellent estimation".

estimate = not precise, because it is an ESTIMATE ie a GUESS, a guess that is wide open to manipulation and bias BTW because there is NO PROOF, just a tiny sample. I got that from science. You should try it.

Plenty of things are accurate in science, its called EMPIRICAL DATA, of which the global warming alarmist crowd consistently lacks. You sure do have plenty of theories though wide open to being molded by your biases that you can pretend are scientific.  Speaking of proof, why don't you source your claim that "they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years".

I am not sure which document I am supposed to use to source the fact that we DON'T know about and track all erupting volcanoes. Maybe I should look it up in the "Things We Don't Know Encyclopedia". Instead of demanding I prove a negative, why don't you try proving any of your claims about data you claim exists. Any evidence I present to you about the data not existing will simply be ignored because there is no way to prove with 100% certainty to you that it does NOT exist, short of you learning how science and empirical data works in reality. Again if you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know that knowing every fucking erupting volcano on earth is impossible with current technology and resources. BTW I call you a communist because you espouse communist values regardless of how conscious you are of it or not. Based on your previous posts I would guess you aren't conscious of much.

Incorrect. A man without discernment is lost. You'll never have absolute proof for every decision and judgement you need to make in life. The scientific method is not absolute proof.

Your taxonomy is too strict and out of touch with reality.

I did not have a copy of the gold report from last year, but someone I communicate with did. He told me the benchmarks indicated that gold would "most likely" still make lower lows (e.g. < $1050, with the first target for a bottom of $850), and that the first possible timeframe for the low was end of Q1 2016 (contrary to what I was thinking was just after 2015.75). Upon learning that, I stopped thinking Bitcoin would move lower than the mid $200s before then.

The benchmarks stated that the USA dollar and and USA stocks had to start moving in unison as another criteria and if this wasn't the case, then the benchmark low would be pushed out in time until they do.

Thus none of his predictions have failed. Those who expect him to say "this will happen on this date" are building a strawman illogic, because MA never predicts such. His method is to provide a "if this, then that" analysis of the computer model's outputs. As I explained my post yesterday upthread, since the Euro has made MONTHLY BULLISH reversals, this indicates a move back into the Euro by the speculation markes with a potential top 117 to 125+. Thus this indicates that the USA dollar will not just break out to the upside yet (i.e. that the world's capital is not yet fleeing to seek safe haven in the USA dollar which will come eventually). And the USA stock market has been up recently, so still out-of-sync with the USA dollar. So the interpretation of this appears to be that prediction markets are expect a "No" result for the upcoming BREXIT vote this June 23, 2016. Thus USA dollar down, and if USA stocks also follow the USA dollar down, then this would be the FALSE MOVE (moving in unison) that would load the SLINGSHOT move to the upside for the newly aligned safe haven assets of the dollar, USA stocks, gold, Bitcoin, collectibles, tangibles (e.g. land), etc.. Thus the earliest date (which is also confirmed by the computer model) is the May/June followed by August, etc..

What appears to be the most likely outcome is that the EU will experience a resurgence of hot money inflows due to the "Remain" result for the BREXIT referendum. This will be a deadcat bounce extremis while the fundamentals will grow worse (fiscal, debt, migrant crises). If the USA dollar and USA stocks both decline at the same time due to this shift of the movement of hot money to the EU, Euro, UK pound, Europe stocks, then it means the world will become less risk adverse for that brief period, which will send gold down also since gold is a hedge against government failure. Whether Bitcoin also follows down is not stated by MA's model, because he isn't tracking it. But the USA dollar and USA stocks coming into alignment, would mean all safe haven assets go down. The likely event triggering such for Bitcoin is the exhale for the priced in expectation of price rise on the July halving, and also the realization that Blockstream's SegWit scaling solution is inadequate without more "soft version forks' later, but the realization that inserting this "soft fork versioning" in Bitcoin's protocol along with Blockstream cooperating with China's 65+% share (to increase on the halving as marginal miners fall away) of mining control means that Bitcoin is no longer a decentralized currency and thus Bitcoin has failed. But later the markets will rebound when they realize "nevermind" just use Bitcoin any way (and besides Bitcoin's true main market and use case is not for ideological perfect decentralized currency but rather as the unit-of-account for decentralized crypto-gambling (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg14699521#msg14699521)).

Edit: this video explanation from MA (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/video-update-may-1st-2016/), seems to indicate the FALSE MOVE described above, is expected to continue until 2017.95! Again this is really wow! So USD, USA stocks, gold, and Bitcoin could decline from this June or August until the end of 2017! Wow! The years 2018 and 2019 are going to hell on earth. We will see massive economic collapse, as well a global pandemic might resurface during this period (according to MA's cyclic models of pandemics).

MA's model provides key dates and it provides indications such as "Panic Cycle", "Directional Change", etc. on each asset analyzed. His model also provides "if this, then that" benchmarks on price reversals in both directions.

From this, the speculator can watch the market and try to interpret how the real world is matching the model and then infer decisions with a much better than 50% probability.

Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:

1. On March 13/14 2016, the deadcat bounce of Baltic Sea index (measure of the world's trade activity) rolled over and started to decline again.

2. On 2015.75, was precisely the event that began WW3 and the stage of the conflict that sent the migrants invading Europe (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/the-european-refugee-crisis-changing-the-face-of-europe/):


3. From my March, 2009 essay:

WTF, climate change and communism??? 

What the lady the video is talking about is a systemic change in the way we protect our environment. 
Nothing to do with your socialism/communism paranoia.

If you think the environment does not need protection, you are a moron.

If you knew anything about communism, you would not be using it in this context.
Communist regimes were (and still are) the worse polluters of all time.

WTF, climate change and communism??? 

What the lady the video is talking about is a systemic change in the way we protect our environment. 
Nothing to do with your socialism/communism paranoia.

If you think the environment does not need protection, you are a moron.

If you knew anything about communism, you would not be using it in this context.
Communist regimes were (and still are) the worse polluters of all time.