“The polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”
“This is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of
politics into their science.”
Mr. Art Krugler, a leading geothermal engineer and author, along with Vijay Jayaraj, a Climate Researcher who graduated from the University of East Anglia, proposes an interesting perspective into the current phase of the climatic system based around uranium ore deposits.
The authors note, “The recent cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration.”
While society is forced to only accept the arbitrary value of trace gas, and plant food carbon dioxide as the “climate control knob”, such new perspectives on the complex machinations of our ‘global’ atmosphere, perhaps, heighten the need to stop and pause, in the better interests of science, nature, and the ‘sustainability’ of the human existence.
For “shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas-fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity. Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe. At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables”.
Read on …
New Discoveries that Change “Settled Science” based Climate and Energy Perspectives
By Art Krugler with Vijay Jayaraj
Polar bears had been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change. In my book “POLAR BEARS in the HOT TUB”, I addressed the claims about how the global temperature change was impacting Polar Bears and what caused these changes in temperature.
I explained that the rate at which CO2 was increasing depended on the hydrogen content of fossil fuels and further that there was no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature rise or energy use.
In this, the book’s sequel, I use five data sets to identify the energy source behind the increase in global temperatures since 1980 and the reason for subsequent cooling in recent years.
The sequel is based on five key data sets:
1. A NOAA global temperature map (2013) showing warm and cool areas on the planet.
2. A NOAA global temperature map (2017) identifying alarming temperature “Hot Spots” at geographical locations, especially within the Arctic Circle.
3. A 2020 global temperature map showing the absence of most of those hot spots, especially Arctic areas.
4. The data, discovered by Krugler in 2020, which shows that all of the global hot spots were located above deposits of uranium ore.
5. Historical data that shows low sun spot activity is correlated with mini-ice-ages and major sun spot activity correlates with warming global periods, thus connecting the uranium deposit activity to sunspot activity.
These five new perspectives must alter Global Energy Reports and Policies that have been against the use of fossil fuel.
Here is why.
Disappearance of Existing Hotspots: CO2 Not the Primary Driver of Temperatures
The first data in the book reaffirms one of the most common faults that many climate scientists have been using: CO2 cannot be the primary driver of global average temperatures.
Global temperature maps (for 2016 and 2020) are available from NOAA showing hot areas and colder areas.
NOAA Global Temperature Map – for year 2017
Note the absence of large red [hot] areas, and the many blue [colder] areas appearing in the latest  map.
This cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration.
The irrefragable connection between Uranium Ore and Thermal Hot spots demonstrates that Uranium ore deposits are the Primary Driver of Global Warming.
The fifth set of data reveals groundbreaking insights into the totally ignored correlation between Uranium ore deposits and thermal hot spots in regions across the globe. A table showing the location and the amount of the top 10 of uranium ore deposits worldwide is given below.
|URANIUM ORE DEPOSITS – TOP 10 as on 12/20/2020|
|RANK||COUNTRY||2015 Reserves in Tonnes||Percent of Total Reserves|
Surprisingly, each of the uranium ore deposits is located beneath a “hot spot”. The data suggests that the warming since 1980 must have been caused by the nuclear reactions in the uranium ore deposits, rather than the current popular theory that blames the Greenhouse Gas blankets.
It is also very important to note that hotspots have disappeared or cooled down considerably during the last 5 years. If these hot spots continue to cool in the future, then the world temperatures will not increase. Instead we would witness a drop-in temperature.
However, there is another critical correlation that determines the future of global average temperature: Sunspots.
Sunspot Activity and Global Temperature
Scientific data prove that the past two mini ice ages correlated with the absence of sunspots and the warmer periods in recent millennia correlated with an increase in sunspot activity.
Average yearly sunspot numbers –
Graph of average yearly sunspot numbers showing the 11-year solar cycle. Image Credit and Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
The increase in sunspot activity also correlated with the global warming that began in the 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, there was no major increase in temperatures despite 200 years of Industrialization and high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Sunspots are now at very low levels and cooling is happening, as observed from the global temperature maps above.
According to commentators, the next Cycle 25 is likely to be slightly smaller than Cycle 24 and much lower than the maximum annual sunspot number of 250).
Implications for Energy Policy
Given the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, economies can now shift towards an energy policy that is more fossil friendly as other sources are developed.
Shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity. Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe. At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables.
This requires operating gas turbines to negate the disruptions in renewable generation. It also requires maintaining the supply chain of natural gas from gas well, through gas purification to remove sulphur, to compressors, to pipelines and to gas storage.
Moreover, contrary to popular belief, this policy will continue to drive CO2 levels higher and even worse, increase the cost of power and everything else in society. All efforts to reduce CO2 levels to save our planet are ineffective, costly and counterproductive.
Keeping hydrocarbons in the ground or raising the cost of hydrocarbons will have serious consequences. For example, there is no substitute source (apart form Hydrocarbons) for asphalt for roads, roofs, polyester for clothes, carpets, polyester fiber for tire sidewalls, graphite fiber for lightweight electric cars or for the more than 5000 other products that we depend on an everyday basis. All these are derived from hydrocarbons.
Coal may not be KING but it can be a SAVIOR with no negative factors. Coal, with acid gases removed from the stack gas, provides reliable power from local fuel and also CO2 at ground level for increased production of food from land and sea.
Developing economies, and even some developed economies, will experience immediate and adverse consequences if they shift away from hydrocarbons. The most logical analysis reveals that CO2 and greenhouse gases are not the primary drivers of global temperatures.
With the advent of these new findings on Uranium ore’s correlation with temperature hotspots, it is time policy makers and decision-making institutions pay attention to the simplicity of the climate system and stop restricting themselves to the narrow theory of fossil fuel driven global warming.
About the Author: Mr. Art Krugler is a leading geothermal engineer who has directed design and construction work on binary and flash steam plants in California, Nevada, Utah and Texas, and has contributed to many of the plants in the United States & internationally. He is responsible for 105 MW of co-generation power in Southern California and is a licensed chemical and mechanical engineer in five states.His book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub exposed the lies about the global warming movement and the state of climate reality. This article was co-authored with the help of Vijay Jayaraj, an environmental researcher.
More from Vijay :
- HYPOCRISY of Fossil Fuel Moral Policing : Germany’s Coal Love and the Blacklisting of Australia | Climatism
Good find. Makes sense.
By Paul Homewood
We’ve been discussing the sudden rise in UK and European temperatures in the 1990s, and I was reminded about a study undertaken by Clive Best and Euan Mearns looking at the role of cloud cover four years ago:
Clouds have a net average cooling effect on the earth’s climate. Climate models assume that changes in cloud cover are a feedback response to CO2 warming. Is this assumption valid? Following a study with Euan Mearns showing a strong correlation in UK temperatures with clouds, we looked at the global effects of clouds by developing a combined cloud and CO2 forcing model to sudy how variations in both cloud cover  and CO2  data affect global temperature anomalies between 1983 and 2008. The model as described below gives a good fit to HADCRUT4 data with a Transient Climate Response (TCR )= 1.6±0.3°C. The 17-year hiatus in…
View original post 290 more words