More data that it's the Sun that does it

dwh

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/arctic_treering_cooling_research/

"The research will be unwelcome in the hard-green movement, as it appears to undermine the direct connection between human carbon emissions and global warming - indicating as it does that temperatures actually fell back to pre-industrial levels from 1950 to 1990, just as human carbon emissions were really getting into high gear. Furthermore, the previous warming trend up to 1950 actually began in 1840, before the industrial revolution had even begun.

Böttger and her colleagues also reference other Arctic temperature studies, all of which show a 20th-century temperature peak followed by major falls of one to two degrees - in one case with the peak occurring as late as 1990."

Cariboocoot

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

New research funded by ...? Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum, perhaps?

The science behind global warming/climate change is sound. The physics undeniable. The question remains; are we being told an exaggerated version of what's actually happening now? (By either/both sides.) You just can't trust the information you're fed.

Political pro/con garbage aside, no one can argue that it's a good idea to waste tremendous amounts of energy and spew as much pollution into the air, land, and water as possible.

And boy I swore I wasn't going to respond to any more of these political posts. Maybe they should just ban them and remove the temptation. :roll:

mike95490

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Cariboocoot wrote: »

..... The physics undeniable. ..

Apparently, some are denying it. 'course right now (8/2/2010) the sun seems to be wakeing up, having just burped a large CME at earth. it's expected a few more of them, nailing us directly, has to have some effect, energy won't be lost, just turned into more heat. How many giga BTU are there in a CME ??

AntronX

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

dwh wrote: »

More data that it's the Sun that does it

What does the sun do?

mikeo

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

What does the sun do?

It set a new record for this date in Little Rock, AR today of 106F

solarix

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Well, in Phoenix this week there were some days in the 80's! That is unheard of.
I contend the global warming leads more to extreme weather than to hotter weather.

Ralph Day

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

That's why we should properly call it Climate Change. Things get hotter, colder, with more extremes.

Ralph

Cariboocoot

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Driest July on record, after a Winter with abnormally low snowfall. Meanwhile other parts of the world are (abnormally) drowning in rain.

Climate change is the first symptom. Global Warming is an over-all, long term problem.
I could give an explanation of Earth's "weather engine" (as explained to me umpteen years ago when kids had to learn stuff in school), but this thread is already pretty far away from solar/wind power and is running the risk of going "critically political". :roll:

bryanl

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

You just can't trust the information you're fed.

and not only that, if you don't like it, attack it?

First up is the presumption of bias by those evil corporations.

Then there's the assertion of authority (without basis).

Then there's the assertion of superiority (physics settled).

Then there's the reduce to absurd (anomalous temp records)

Then we have the appeal about doing good (don't waste your money).

What I note is that there is no looking at the information being fed or the data behind it or the connections between the data and the information. And when someone does offer transparency into information and data that does not meet the PC view, it is subject to the behaviors listed above. There seems to be a pattern here.

mike95490

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

If "methane gas" was such a greenhouse gas, why isn't the EPA all over BP for 6 weeks of unmeasured release? I guess we'll all die. No coverup here, the areas are closed for your protection.......

BB.

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

There is lots of methane bound up with water in the ocean that can be released in surges (methane+water "ice" at the sea floor and under permafrost):

The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further temperature rise and further methane clathrate destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process as irreversible, once started, as the firing of a gun.[1]

More interesting theories...

-Bill

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

mike90045 wrote: »

If "methane gas" was such a greenhouse gas, why isn't the EPA all over BP for 6 weeks of unmeasured release? I guess we'll all die. No coverup here, the areas are closed for your protection.......

Given the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere compared to CO2 (~8.2 years compared to ~100 years), a one-time release of methane isn't as worrisome as CO2.

Don't worry the EPA will be moving to fine BP based on ~50,000 barrels of oil released for the entire 6 weeks - I'm sure any fines on methane emissions will be chump change in comparison.

highrail

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Cariboocoot wrote: »

New research funded by ...? Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum, perhaps?

The science behind global warming/climate change is sound. The physics undeniable. The question remains; are we being told an exaggerated version of what's actually happening now? (By either/both sides.) You just can't trust the information you're fed.

Political pro/con garbage aside, no one can argue that it's a good idea to waste tremendous amounts of energy and spew as much pollution into the air, land, and water as possible.

And boy I swore I wasn't going to respond to any more of these political posts. Maybe they should just ban them and remove the temptation. :roll:

I have been a lurker up til now, learning much from you guys, many thanks.

Coot - when you say the science is sound/the physics undeniable, I have to respectfully point out that there are good scientists on the other side of this as well. The science/physics behind this are encoded in the climate models, which are predicting an increase of CO2 in the upper atmosphere where it is too cold for H2O to be present. The trouble is, ground truth from upper air soundings so far have not found this predicated increase. It is sort of like this must be happening, so we believe it is happening. The solar cycles have produced climate change in past ages, and may be producing this one too.

Jim

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

highrail wrote: »

I have to respectfully point out that there are good scientists on the other side of this as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

highrail wrote: »

The science/physics behind this are encoded in the climate models, which are predicting an increase of CO2 in the upper atmosphere where it is too cold for H2O to be present. The trouble is, ground truth from upper air soundings so far have not found this predicated increase.

Reference, please.

highrail wrote: »

The solar cycles have produced climate change in past ages, and may be producing this one too.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

AntronX

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

drees wrote: »

...around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

More like 97 - 98 %. Source (PDF).

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

bryanl

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

re: "of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field" -- this the bunch that was caught 'in flagrante delicto' plotting to restrict non conforming papers and fire recalcitrant journal editors?

But that is really a moot point as consensus and voting are not in line with basic values of science. Using these as arguments only shows a reluctance to teach, to educate, and to defend ideas with a proper intellectual integrity. That goes along with the inhibition to share data and describe methods used to get from that data to conclusions that was also revealed to be a habit in climate research.

The certainty asserted is rather in conflict with the vagueness of everything from the definition of a 'climate scientists' to the quality of the data to the complexity of the models being used. I think that conflict is indicative.

Arguing about influence of components of climate models, whether greenhouse gases or solar contributions or any of the many other contributing factors seems to me to be a rather fruitless exercise until the behaviors I have described can be confronted and properly dealt with.

AntronX

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

bryanl wrote: »

...until the behaviors I have described can be confronted and properly dealt with.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, you need to write more directly. But I suspect you are hinting at recent CRU email controversy and their reluctance to work with contrarians? Well, what would you do if there was well funded group of "scientists" breathing down your neck, trying to find slightest fault in your work, create uncertainty from nothing, all while having greatly disproportionate favorable representation in American media? I would tell them to f**k off and not share my work with them. But that would be a mistake, this only gives more power to the "conspiracy" theory.

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

bryanl wrote: »

Arguing about influence of components of climate models, whether greenhouse gases or solar contributions or any of the many other contributing factors seems to me to be a rather fruitless exercise until the behaviors I have described can be confronted and properly dealt with.

Welcome to the real world. The conditions you speak of only exist in fantasy land.

BB.

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Actually--that is how I expect science to work--People go through your work (and published data) with a fine tooth comb to find any errors.

Given that most of these folks are funded by government grants--That data is supposed to be available for anyone to review/use/etc.

For example:

Chronology of Albert Einstein’s Mistakes

1. 1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity.
2. 1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment.
3. 1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles.
4. 1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules.
5. 1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light.
6. 1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2.
7. 1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2.
8. 1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks.
9. 1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration.
10. 1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light.
11. 1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity.
12. 1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2.
13. 1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment.
14. 1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity.
15. 1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle.
16. 1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”).
17. 1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity.
18. 1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory.
19. 1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties.
20. 1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?).
21. 1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2.
22. 1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the black hole).
23. 1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2.

-Bill

carotene

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

I am not a climatologist and therefore am in no position to argue the details. I leave that to the PHDs whose life work is studying the models and data. May their body of knowledge bloom into amazing discoveries.

Climate change doesn't drive my passion for solar. Oil is a finite resource. Coal is a finite resource. It doesn't take a PHD to see that, nor does it take a genius to see that extracting and using fossil fuels harms the environment. It doesn't require an economist to see that purchasing oil from abroad exports billions of US dollars every year. It doesn't take a Secretary of State to figure that sending our fortunes overseas to our enemies will have ill consequences.

mike95490

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

Here's a detailed study some bloke did regarding his local weather:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

It's not too dry to read through, and when you understand (really understand) where the profit in climate change (carbon taxes that China and India won't be paying) it makes sense in a sick sort of way.

AntronX

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

mike90045 wrote: »

...and when you understand (really understand) where the profit in climate change (carbon taxes that China and India won't be paying) it makes sense in a sick sort of way.

I don't understand. Enlighten me. Provide sources.

bryanl

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

re: "you need to write more directly." -- always a good goal.

re: "what would you do if there was well funded group of "scientists" breathing down your neck, trying to find slightest fault in your work, create uncertainty from nothing, all while having greatly disproportionate favorable representation in American media?"

This illustrates the problem.

First is that a scientist much teach and educate. That means especially to teach and educate those he thinks are obnoxious twits. That is done rationally, by answering questions and helping others understand. It is not done by the use of citing secret data or spells, the use of logical fallacies, and other such arrogance.

Second is the factual problem. What is referred to as a "well funded group" is mostly a collection of self funded individuals. The well funded group is the climate research community that has received many millions in governmental research grants (although the DOE has decided to reconsider its hundreds of millions worth of funding to the CRU). (I have been a recipient of such funding but only wish it had been more than a few thou).

One of the amazing things here is how a retired TV weatherman and an ex mining analyst can, in their avocational time, do what the 'scientists' are not doing: educate the public about the subject and its study.

The comment about the media is also a hoot. That is so contrary to what anyone can see in headlines that it is enough to make one wonder about the source of the assertion. (you can look at measures such as delays between incidents and reporting, the use of adjectives in headlines, the bias in what stories get reported where, and other such things if you need objective analysis).

As for the "reality" comment - true enough. That is why it is worth noting. There is a cancer in our society where established means to define and solve problems are being cast aside in preference for dreams and fantasies. That has cost all of us in many ways and in many tragedies. It is a reality that we can change and, I think, must change starting with each of us individually.

BB.

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

The NOAA US temperature data also has similar offsets added to the "raw temperatures":

The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.

They have lots of papers on why the "new and improved" systems read lower temperatures than the old equipment...

But in the end, they are not measuring the same events and are trying to adjust the data to fit history. But, surprisingly, the entire US warming trend disappears if these offsets are removed.

Given that the entire US warming trend is the results of data manipulations--Then going through the work to understand and expose to criticism the works of government funded scientists is quite justifiable.

The Surface Stations project also attempts to document temperature station accuracy in the continental US.

Using the standards from the US weather surface, only ~10% of the (currently evaluated) stations are "accurate to less than 1 degree C"...

Notice that the offsets are on the order of 0.6F and that 61% of the USHCN stations are more than 5C (8+F) in error of measuring temperatures.

Why are "people" doing this project?:

Why are you doing this? Isn't this the responsibility of our government agency NOAA?

Yes NOAA is responsible for the operation, documentation and upkeep of the USHCN set of weather stations. In fact in 1997 there were concerns expressed by a National Research Council panel about the state of the climate measuring network.

In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to their meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task.

-Bill

mike95490

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

AntronX wrote: »

I don't understand. Enlighten me. Provide sources.

Put on the tin foil hat, then listen to late night talk radio. And don't drink the tap water. Enlightenment happens.

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

BB. wrote: »

They have lots of papers on why the "new and improved" systems read lower temperatures than the old equipment...

Yeah - the primary reason being that they are adjusting for sensors that have been relocated from roof tops and parking lots to grassy areas.

BB. wrote: »

But in the end, they are not measuring the same events and are trying to adjust the data to fit history. But, surprisingly, the entire US warming trend disappears if these offsets are removed.

Must be a conspiracy.

BB. wrote: »

The Surface Stations project also attempts to document temperature station accuracy in the continental US.

Adjustments are made for temperatures stations which show anomalous behavior using readings from stations in known good locations.

BB. wrote: »

Using the standards from the US weather surface, only ~10% of the (currently evaluated) stations are "accurate to less than 1 degree C"...

Not sure why you think this is an issue - like I said before, readings from known good stations are used to adjust the output from stations which are poorly sited and/or have readings which are not statistically accurate.

BB. wrote: »

Notice that the offsets are on the order of 0.6F and that 61% of the USHCN stations are more than 5C (8+F) in error of measuring temperatures.

So then why aren't they reporting that the climate has warmed 3C+? They must be underreporting global warming - I suspect that the govt is in cahoots with the fossil fuel industry - just look at how many subsidies they receive in comparison to renewable energy!

BB.

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

I have not mentioned any conspiracies at all.

There is the well know issue of conformation bias.

Adjustments are made for temperatures stations which show anomalous behavior using readings from stations in known good locations.

And--you cannot adjust bad data--If I did this in engineering--I would, rightfully, lose my job.

I make the equivalent comparison of randomly sticking temperature sensors all over a car and talking about the average temperature of the car over a 1 year period... Pretty much useless for figuring out how well the engine / AC / tires / outside air temperature / cabin air temperature / etc. are all working--each has a different set of operating/interactions. And, at this point, we only have computer models and theories about how these earth based systems operate.

~75% of the earth is water/oceans. And the vast majority of fixed/long term temperature sensors are on land (because that is where the people are).

And, the folks that are making the most money from oil are governments through taxes (and the fact that much of the oil/fossil fuels come from government lands). And, it seems like, the whole green/solar energy industry is operating on 30% or more subsidies from government.

-Bill

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

BB. wrote: »

And--you cannot adjust bad data--If I did this in engineering--I would, rightfully, lose my job.

Actually, you can and you must in climatology. No thermometer is perfect - inaccuracies crop into instruments all the time - and then those inaccuracies are known/verified, you adjust for them. Otherwise you will not have any data at all to work with.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

BB. wrote: »

I make the equivalent comparison of randomly sticking temperature sensors all over a car and talking about the average temperature of the car over a 1 year period... Pretty much useless for figuring out how well the engine / AC / tires / outside air temperature / cabin air temperature / etc. are all working--each has a different set of operating/interactions. And, at this point, we only have computer models and theories about how these earth based systems operate.

That comparison is not even valid. Within a set of thermometers that are near each other (and near in this case means within hundreds of miles) there is a very high correlation in temperatures. You can very closely approximate temperatures in an area using nearby readings.

BB. wrote: »

~75% of the earth is water/oceans. And the vast majority of fixed/long term temperature sensors are on land (because that is where the people are).

Which is why we also use satellites to measure land and ocean temperatures and in addition there are a number of projects out there which measure ocean temperatures (both at the surface and at depth).

BB.

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

The ocean based system is Argo and has only been out there since 2000, so there is no long term history yet:

[FONT=Arial, Times New Roman,Times]Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above. While the Argo array is currently complete at 3000 floats, to be maintained at that level, national commitments need to provide about 800 floats per year.[/FONT]

And the results have needed "fixing":

Data results from year 2006 with undetected errors The Argo Network has [10][3] shown a continuous declining trend in ocean temperatures. The trend was overstated in media reports because of published data with undetected errors in year 2006. In March 2008, Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory did report that the Argo system show no ocean warming since it started in 2003. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis has stated.[11] A lot of media has reported the uncorrected data results[12] and even though the revised corrected data appeared in 2008, many articles and arguments still use and promote the uncorrected data results from 2006.[13] [14]


Data results from year 2008 and after
In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed. [10][3]
Here is a graph with the 2008/2009 Argo network data included. [15]

You can read the article from NASA here.

They appear to be measuring very small changes in temperatures and there are lots of variables that affect them. So, review of the data, systems, etc. is certainly called for.

Regarding using other thermometers to correlate readings... You cannot do that when the temperatures are affected by non-natural objects:

From the Surface Station website, they have lots of examples of weather stations located near A/C units, paved areas, etc... Scroll to the bottom of the page and see the difference between two sites something like 60 miles apart in California. They don't appear to have much correlation over a multi-decade period. One shows a three degree increase and the other shows almost zero average change over a 100 year time frame.

Which one is correct? Well, if your definition for an accurate site/instrumentation is:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Then the second site is not representative of the local weather conditions.

You cannot correlate out A/C systems, Barbe-ques, etc... Paved areas are different than unpaved areas, etc.

Regarding thermometer accuracies--There is a difference between instrument error and sitting error. And even if I adjust for instrument errors (which is not a great idea--when did the error creep in, is the error systematic or local, etc.), there are errors from history of manual recording, differences over time for whitewash vs paint vs electronic logging, time of day readings, etc...

Anyway--I just don't see the accuracy in the raw data and have question about how all of the adjustments seem add to the raw temperature (instead of some add, other subtract, etc.).

And this was in the CRU climate modeling software too:

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

Apparently applies a, mostly positive, correction from 1904 through 1994 in 5 year increments.

Anyway--I am not arguing that Warming has or has not occurred--since our climate is always changing, there will be trends.

The bigger issue is this caused by people or not...

In the end, people have to defend their data and theories... It isn't pretty but needs to be done.

I did not like design reviews when I first started, however I did get used to them--As they are for the greater good. There are lots of people involved, from different disciplines, and, in the end it was better to catch and correct problems early vs getting 100's or tens of thousands of product in the field and them having to fix problems because we did not want to hurt somebody's feelings about finding mistakes/flaws in the designs.

-Bill

drees

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

BB. wrote: »

You cannot correlate out A/C systems, Barbe-ques, etc... Paved areas are different than unpaved areas, etc.

Regarding thermometer accuracies--There is a difference between instrument error and sitting error. And even if I adjust for instrument errors (which is not a great idea--when did the error creep in, is the error systematic or local, etc.), there are errors from history of manual recording, differences over time for whitewash vs paint vs electronic logging, time of day readings, etc...

Actually, you can and it turns out to not have any significant effect whether or not you include those measurements:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html

The 70-best surface stations as identified by NOAA (and surfacestations.org agrees that they are good) have nearly the exact same temperature trends as using ALL surface stations - including all the crap ones highlighted by surfacestations.org.

BB. wrote: »

And this was in the CRU climate modeling software too:
Apparently applies a, mostly positive, correction from 1904 through 1994 in 5 year increments.

The code snippet you refer to isn't even used.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

BB. wrote: »

Anyway--I am not arguing that Warming has or has not occurred--since our climate is always changing, there will be trends.

The bigger issue is this caused by people or not...

The trend is clear as is what is causing it - and it certainly isn't the sun. Would be nice if it were not the case and we could continue BAU, though.

mike95490

Re: More data that it's the Sun that does it

drees wrote: »

The trend is clear as is what is causing it - and it certainly isn't the sun. Would be nice if it were not the case and we could continue BAU, though.

What started the warming trend after the last ice age? It sure wasn't mankind burning fossil fuels. Woolly mammoth farts ?

Climates change. Maybe we effect them, maybe not.

Just don't tax me to support the UN redistribution of wealth.