Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Well Bro, once again the media at it's finest lol

I can't stand the media...

It's nothing but a bunch of bias reporting.

Looks like the tornado warning is dropped. It has a severe thunderstorm warning now.

Sully are you seeing this thing on the radar?
It almost looks like a huuge tropical storm.

Re #200: From the article:

"Bony fish and sharks would move in if waters warm further, threatening species with extinction, they say.

"In the last 50 years, sea surface temperatures around Antarctica have risen by 1 to 2C, which is more than twice the global average."

Yeah, warmer water. Who could even imagine a connection between global warming and warmer water.

Sorry....internet connection crashed.

Even though it didn't form in Colorado, it looks like a classic Colorado low....

Re #194: Well, this is boring. You completely speculate about long-term trends in ocean oscillations, claim you've read and forgotten the AR4 material on the subject of the attribution of warming to (primarily) GHGs, then insist that your spur-of-the-moment explanation for which you have zero evidence could be right? That's good old-fashioned denialism, which I believe is where we came in.

Or who could ever imagine the connection between increased TSI and warmer oceans??

Because, you know, sunlight which penetrates the ocean at depth, as opposed to surface only heating for the atmosphere....

Bloom, and the IPCC has explained it all for us, haven't they?

Please...

I think the difference between you and I is that you seem to think that ghg's are the only explaination and everything has been figured out. Meanwhile I haven't discounted any cause and believe that there's more variables that control climate other than ghg's.

"In general, the Earth re-radiates heat into outer space at about the same rate as the sun delivers heat, thus maintaining a relatively constant temperature on earth."

In general the Earth is in equilibrium.

Now when we add BTUs to the equation, the temperature rises some and some BTUs escape to space but not all of them and thus the temperature goes up when we turn up the BTUs. What exits the atmosphere is not EQUAL to what is replaced daily with all the nuclear and fossil fuels we consume. The atmosphere acts like a lid on a pot of boiling water. Some of the steam (BTUs) escape from under the lid but keeeping the lid there makes it boil faster. BTUs "IN" are greater than BTUs "OUT" thus temperature rises in the pot and the lid makes it rise faster. Temperature is no longer at equilibrium. The more fuel we consume the more we are turning up the heat on GODS good Earth. It is no longer in equilibrium. FOLKS we need to get Earth back to equilibrium and that is what the "TUNNELS" do.

#200. Sullivan, although most invasive species are introduced by human activity, the establishment of an invasive species is dependent on other factors, among them temperature. I do don't see any problem with attributing the establishment of a population of some marine invasives with changes in ocean temperature. In so far as part of the change in marine temperatures is due to anthropogenic forcings, then part of the cause of the establishment of certain species of invasives is very likely due to AWG. Not all invasives, not everywhere, but if you look at invasives case-by-case many will have an easier time establishing themselves in warmer climates. On the other hand an alien species that escapes into an environment that is significantly warmer than the one it came from might do worse in warming waters and not establish itself. If the marine ecologist that made that comment was making it about warm water adapted species being released into now warmer ocean water, then yes you expect them to do better.

Here in western MA we have an insect invasive, the wooly adelgid whose northward expansion is limited by winter temperatures. This species has been moving slowly northward as winter temperatures have increased over the last two decades.

Interestingly just an increase in CO2 levels, irrespective of climate change can enhance the growth of invasives in some ecosystems (Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. Nature, Vol. 408 (6808). 2 November, 2000. 79-82).

This species has been moving slowly northward as winter temperatures have increased over the last two decades.

There's nothing dissimilar between the rise in temperatures over the previous two decades as opposed to the rise in temperatures over any other period on this chart.



In other words, any signal from GHG's has yet to rise from the noise level in this chart. Besides, using a mere two decades to try and back this claim that the climate has changed is nonsense. Especially while during this 20 year period we had one of the coldest stretches of weather ever recorded (February '94).

Is that chart just a 3 month period for all those years? It says DEC.- FEB..

Buster,

Yes.

Can you post a yearly chart for the same time period instead of a 3 month chart from NOAA?

Why??

Did you not read the post??

"This species has been moving slowly northward as winter temperatures have increased over the last two decades."

Not the NE. but here is one.

Link

oops!

Meteorological boreal winter is December-February

So since 1895 up about ~1.5 degrees. Correct?

Well, if you want to get technical, since 1979 we're up almost 2 degrees. But that's a trough to peak measurement. We were also down around 2 degrees from 1950 to 1965 in a peak to trough. There's lots of noise in the data.

We're also up about 1.5 degrees since the mid 1990's but as you can see there's many peaks and troughs in that graph.

Tornados in Alabama now. To many BTUs out here.

Buster,

It's comments like those that make me shake my head.

To many tornados in winter. To many BTUs in winter.

Tornados in winter aren't a new occurance by any means...

Re #209: Sull, the problem is that when you named the non-GHG factors you thought were important, you listed climate oscillations and solar influence. Both are entirely wrong. I gave you a pointer on the solar information and explained why the climate oscillation idea made no sense. If you're planning on going into a science, you're going to need to amend your approach.

Re #224: Deja vu.

Sullivan,

#212. From the perspective of the wooly adelgid the NE climate has changed. The key climatic factor that has an affect on the distribution of the wooly adelgid is the length of periods of time that are below about 25 degrees F. The frequency and depth of such cold periods has changed during the period that the wooly adelgid has been in the northeast. And the latitude were favorable winter conditions exist has shifted northward.

There are other examples of a climate signals beginning to influence the populations of animals in the NE. Bradshaw and his collegues have done an impressive body of work on a pitcher plant mosquito and I use his work as an example in two of my courses. The pitcher plant mosquito has changed the length of its winter dormancy in response to warmer NE winters over the last 30 years (4 degrees F warmer). (PDF of Science review article of work on genetic responses of plants and animals to climate change.)

Sullivan, I agree about tornadoes, although the number of Jan and Feb tornadoes has been high compared to the historical average, you can't blame one bad year of tornadoes on climate change.

Streamtracker,

As shown in the Northeast winter temperature chart from the NCDC there is no signal that rises above the noise in the data.

There was a 6 year period of temperatures that were 3 degrees warmer than the long term mean winter temperature during the early 1950's. Those temperatures were even warmer than today's winter smoothed average temperature. Now if we stay at these current levels or rise within the next 30 years, then yes, the climate has changed. But until that happens we are still within the natrual variation of winter temperatures in the Northeast. Remember, 30 years ago we were at the peak of a trough and had endured several cold winters in a row during the late 1970's.

When we have mild winters here in central Florida we get a large migration of "snow birds".

These creatures have been known to cause roadcloganopus, a condition that we locals have learned to adapt to with much frustration.

It is believed based upon empirical evidence that global warming will mitigate this influx of these "snow birds" due to warmer climate conditions in their natural habitat.

Residence of central Florida, therefore have been known to wantonly disgorge tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to alleviate themselves from the dreaded roadcloganopus which this yearly migration plagues much of the state with.

I'm afraid we're going to have to wait folks. Wait 20 to 50 years or possibly more. We gotta see what is going to happen. Scientific "near-certainty" won't convince the vast majority of citizens. We had "near-certainty" that there were WMDs in iraq and that iraq was harboring numerous terrorists and al-qaeda groups. We had "near-certainty" that by attacking iraq we were attacking the very same people who had been the mastermind behind 911. Many of these assertions of "near-certainty" have not proven to be accurate. Instead we find that we were driven by fear and propoganda. Now we see the same driving force with global warming - fear and propoganda. A carbon tax, in addition to the numerous other policy measures that would be enacted to save us from global warming, will have far more immense costs than Iraq, if proven to be wrong. Numerous financial institutions will be crippled and nations will be unable to buy themselves out of it. The lesson we should take with us from Iraq is not to make consequential decisions - where life and death matter - until we know better. That folks means we gotta wait until we know better. That could mean the worst of what is forecasted or it could mean nothing at all. That is the chance we gotta take, if we want to be honest. IMHO, if you think global warming is a serious threat, use democracy, not force. We have the tools available to educate and market products. We don't need the government or the UN to mandate this. There're many things each of us can do to make this planet cleaner and less polluted, but it should be our own choice. If we're wrong then atleast we have reduced the impact to a smaller population - not everyone. This is why we have a democracy. Please Use It.

Sullivan,

The Bradshaw lab did their own measurements at the sites they study the mosquitoes and they found a 4F rise over the 30 years they have been working at their sites.
Furthermore, if we are talking about rapid (decadal) response to climate change by plants and animals then certainly since the 1960's winters are warmer.

Part of our disagreement here might have to do with the extent of the area we are referring to. I am specifically talking about New England, not the northeast as whole.

Finally I would really like to see some time series statistical analysis applied to the data set you posted, it is really hard to discern signals in a dataset like that without a proper statistical analysis.

I think we are also arguing about different time periods. Biologically the onset of spring is a very important variable. For the late winter to early spring period there seems to be plenty of evidence of warming.

Further info on changing NE climate:

1) Historical changes in lake ice-out dates as indicators of climate change in New England, 1850-2000. Glenn A. Hodgkins et al. 2002
, International Journal of Climatology
Volume 22, Issue 15 , Pages 1819 - 1827

Abstract
Various studies have shown that changes over time in spring ice-out dates can be used as indicators of climate change. Ice-out dates from 29 lakes in New England (USA) with 64 to 163 years of record were assembled and analysed for this study. Ice-out dates have become significantly earlier in New England since the 1800s. Changes in ice-out dates between 1850 and 2000 were 9 days and 16 days in the northern/mountainous and southern regions of New England respectively. The changes in the ice-out data over time were very consistent within each of the two regions of New England, and more consistent than four air-temperature records in each region. The ice-out dates of the two regions had a different response to changes in air temperature. The inferred late winter-early spring air-temperature warming in both regions of New England since 1850, based on linear regression analysis, was about 1.5 degree C.

Great graphs showing late winter early spring changes over 100 years.

2) Changes in the timing of high river flows in New England over the 20th Century
G.A. Hodgkins*, R.W. Dudley, T.G. Huntington
Journal of Hydrology 278 (2003).


Winter/spring center of volume (WSCV) dates have become signicantly earlier at all 11 river gaging stations in areas of New England where snowmelt runoff has the most effect on spring river flows. Most of this change has
occurred in the last 30 years with dates advancing by 1.2 weeks. WSCV dates were correlated with March through April air
temperatures...
...Changes in the timing of winter/spring and fall peak %uFB02ow dates were consistent with the changes
in the respective center of volume dates, given the greater variability in the peak flow dates. Changes in the WSCV dates over
the last 30 years are consistent with previous studies of New England last-frost dates, lilac bloom dates, lake ice-out dates, and
spring air temperatures. This suggests that these New England spring geophysical and biological changes all were caused by a
common mechanism, temperature increases.

When you look at the graphs in both of these articles what strikes you is the strong trends lines begin in the 1960 and extend to the present.

Why are all these signals of climate change synchronous?

If you consider the things that matter to plants and animals, the seasons in NE have changed. Winters are a bit warmer and spring is occurring earlier. Just ask your local farmer or sugar bush operator.

Have anything that isn't price locked?

Re #235: Frequently free versions can be found via Google Scholar. That's very likely true for these.

Sullivan, are you talking about post #234?

I can give you links to a non-peer reviewed reports But, I feel more comfortable with the primary literature as a source of information.

Given that here is a link to a report. The report authors are mainly academics from top-tier institutions.

PDF >> Climate Change in the Northeast

This site has a list of publications, many of which have links to pdf files. Scroll to bottom of page.

Well this has been fun, since it helped me compile a whole bunch of info regarding NE climate change that is biologically relevant.

Here is a list of temperature dependent indices of climate change that have a signal that is consistent with a warming trend in the NE.

seasonal warming patterns
advances in high spring streamflow
decreases in snow depth
extended growing seasons
earlier bloom dates
earlier ice-out dates for lakes and ponds

This paper has some very interesting data on rates of change in both natural and anthropogenic forcing agents over a 22,000 year period, up to the present. Bottom line is that forcings due to anthropogenic agents have increased exponentially, in contrast natural variation in forcings (ghg, solar, volcanic) can not account for what is going on today.

Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years.
Fortunat Joos* and Renato Spahni. 2008. PNAS | February 5, vol. 105, no. 5 pages 1425-1430

The rate of change of climate codetermines the global warming impacts on natural and socioeconomic systems and their capabilities to adapt. Establishing past rates of climate change from temperature proxy data remains difficult given their limited spatiotemporal resolution. In contrast, past greenhouse gas radiative forcing, causing climate to change, is well known from ice cores. We compare rates of change of anthropogenic forcing with rates of natural greenhouse gas forcing since the Last Glacial Maximum and of solar and volcanic forcing of the last millennium. The smoothing of atmospheric variations by the enclosure process of air into ice is computed with a firn diffusion and enclosure model. The 20th century increase in CO2 and its radiative forcing occurred more than an order of magnitude faster than any sustained change during the past 22,000 years. The average rate of increase in the radiative forcing not just from CO2 but from the combination of CO2, CH4, and N2O is larger during the Industrial Era than during any comparable period of at least the past 16,000 years. In addition, the decadal-to-century scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is unusually high in the context of the natural forcing variations (solar and volcanoes) of the past millennium. Our analysis implies that global climate change, which is anthropogenic in origin, is progressing at a speed that is unprecedented at least during the last 22,000 years.

This blog has a writeup on it and includes the key graph (click to expand).

232. sebastianjer 8:40 PM GMT on February 17, 2008
When we have mild winters here in central Florida we get a large migration of "snow birds".

These creatures have been known to cause roadcloganopus, a condition that we locals have learned to adapt to with much frustration.

It is believed based upon empirical evidence that global warming will mitigate this influx of these "snow birds" due to warmer climate conditions in their natural habitat.

Residence of central Florida, therefore have been known to wantonly disgorge tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to alleviate themselves from the dreaded roadcloganopus which this yearly migration plagues much of the state with.


ROTFL.........

Some more sources of information on climate change in NE US.

1) Indicators of climate change in NE

From the summary:

Weather and climate in the Northeastern U.S. are arguably among the most variable in the world. This
variability on time scales from hours to years is the result of several factors that relate to the physical
geographical setting of the region, including its latitude, topography, and coastal orientation.
Despite this variability, the indicators of the Northeast'ss changing climate presented in this report provide
a coherent set of evidence of a region that is warming, especially over the last thirty years. This evidence
comes from a wide range of environments the atmosphere, the biosphere, the oceans, and snow and ice.

2) Another report states:

Average annual temperature has increased .8 degree C (1.4 degree F) over from 1900 to 2002,
according to data from 136 stations and 1 degree C (1.8 degree F) over just the last 33 years.

Average winter temperatures in the region have shown an even more dramatic
increase (1.4 degree C [2.5 degree F]and an even more striking 2.4 degree C (4.3 degree F) increase
between 1970 and 2002.

You can download it at: Cross Border Indicators of Climate Change over the Past Century: Northeastern United States and Canadian Maritime Region.

3) We'll have to keep an eye out for this research's publication. Right now all we have is a conference abstract from Elizabeth Burakowski.

Analysis of these four meteorological variables indicates that Northeast US winter temperatures are warming at a rate significantly greater than the global trend. In addition, monthly and seasonal snowfall is decreasing, and the number of days with snow deeper than three inches has decreased substantially.

You can view the abstract at: WINTERTIME CLIMATE TRENDS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

Her work is also featured on the MSNBC website.

4) You can find an interactive map of NE climate change indicators at: Indicators of Climate Change in the Northeast

If you missed the other comments I posted, you'll find links to additional studies at comments 237, 238, 239, and 234.

Sullivan I think glancing at a graph has some utility, but there's nothing like really digging into the data and doing some analysis. And all of these studies point to one conclusion, NE winters are getting warmer.

Streamtracker,

That all well and good, for now.

But 30 years ago in the late 70's we had experienced just as much cooling over the prior 30 years as warming we've seen over this most recent 30 years. Also of note is that winter temperatures in the late 1970's ('77, '78, '79) were the coldest on record nationwide. In fact 1979 was more than 1°F colder than the previous coldest winter on record.

I could just as easily say there's been no warming (a slight cooling even) since the early 1950's in Northeast winter temperatures. Data can be manipulated in many ways.

If 30 years from now we've gone up another 2-4 degrees then yes, there's a prolonged warming trend. But any trough to ridge temperature measurement is going to show warming.

Furthermore, there's no provable evidence that the sole causation of the most recent warming is due to greenhouse gasses, especially when similar warming trends are there in the brief climatic record that we have. Could it be a minor factor? yes... Could it be a major factor? yes...

Winter will always have the highest variability of any season temperaturewise so any short term noise is going to be magnified.

Sullivan,

I could just as easily say there's been no warming (a slight cooling even) since the early 1950's in Northeast winter temperatures. Data can be manipulated in many ways.

No you can't "just as easily". Why can't you? Because there are several lines of independent evidence that all converge on the same conclusion. If your going to make such a sweeping statement then you should attack each independent piece of evidence and show what's wrong with them.

Let's see there's:
The temperature data.
The river flow data.
The ice out data.
The earlier blooming dates.
The decrease in snow depth and increase in snow density.
The decreased geographic extent of winter snow cover.
The extended growing seasons.
The earlier arrival and nesting of migrant birds.
The earlier calling times of vernal pool dependent anurans.
The changes in migration dates of anadromous fish.

Please, explain all that and with a straight face say that the most likely explanation, with a high degree of confidence, is not that NE winters are warming? What is it then that accounts for all those indicators pointing in the same direction? I eagerly await a plausible hypothesis.

And how many years do you need to make a trend? Most of the variables I listed began to change in the early sixties. That is over 40 years of change in the same direction (yes of course there were ups and downs, but the trend line is clearly up).

Is it a coincidence that the upward trend in global temperatures and the NE climate indices's all take an upward turn at the same time in the early 1960s? Or is it not coincidence and it's all part of the global pattern of AGW?

I think there's been a breakdown of communication somewhere, Streamtracker.

You keep making your assertions as if I had said there hasn't been any warming what-so-ever. As I keep saying, one can take a 30-40 year dataset from many different time periods and show that there has been warming and cooling. Right now we're in a warming trend, but we're also near the peak of the current warming trend. So either one of three things will happen.

It will continue getting warmer.
Temperatures will level.
It will begin to cool.

-----

Oh, a fast little bit of research I just did on growing seasons. Here's Albany, NY's growing seasons averaged by decade.

1870's (only 6 years of data beginning 1874) - 179 days
1880's - 189 days
1890's - 190 days
1900's - 173 days
1910's - 183 days
1920's - 189 days
1930's - 180 days
1940's - 148 days
1950's - 139 days
1960's - 141 days
1970's - 152 days
1980's - 154 days
1990's - 159 days
2000's (through 2006) - 163 days

I can also tell you that back in 2002 we had one of our shortest growing seasons since I've been growing crops. It snowed on May 18th and we had to replant everything. However, I believe that growing seasons is a poor tool to use since this can be most easily swayed by weather anomalies.

Re #243: What we have here is a conscious decision to not face the facts, ST. The urge to pretend that something (climate oscillations or a change in solar irradiance in Sull's case) will come along to save us from ourselves is very strong.

You may be interested in this depressing study that concludes that many humans, perhaps a majority, are not wired so as to be able to perceive the problem. Interestingly this lack is not correlated with intelligence as such (although somebody who lacks it would probably have a rather short career as a physicist, e.g.):

"Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change:
Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter"

"Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults-graduate students at MIT-showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change."

As JER says, a well built house is only as good as its "foundation." These surface stations have been the foundation of the IPCC's case, and holes and cracks are continually being found in this foundation from a variety of variables. Obviously, without this "foundation" the rest of the house is just built out of cards - it won't stand.

This is a bit lengthy maybe (sorry), but imo, it clearly shows how surface station data has been manipulated.

How not to measure temperature, part 51.-complete article.

While we've taken some detours looking at some
of the amazing things that have happened
globally for temperature in January, with
another detour to the sun, our
www.surfacestations.org volunteers continue
their mission.

This NOAA USHCN climate station of record
#415018 in Lampasas, TX was found to be tucked
between a building, and two parking lots, one
with nearby vehicles. According to the
surveyor, it is right next to the ACE Hardware
store on the main street of town. While likely
representative of the temperature for downtown
Lampasas, one wonders how well it measures the
climate of the region.



View looking NE

In her survey, volunteer surveyor Julie K.
Stacy noted the proximity to the building and
parking, which will certainly affect Tmin at
night due to IR radiance. Daytime Tmax is
likely affected by the large amount of asphalt
and concrete in the area around the sensor. The
main street of the town (28 ft from US 183) and
the ACE Hardware parking lot are visible in
this photo below:



View looking south

Google Earth shows just how much asphalt and
buildings there are around the sensor.


According to NCDC's MMS database, the Lampasas
climate station has been at this location since
10-01-2000.Previous location was an observer
residence, which appears to have been a
park-like location according to MMS location
map. The sensor was apparently converted to the
MMTS style seen in the photo in 1986, so the
move did not include an equipment change. See
the complete survey album here.

But the big surprise of just how bad this
location is came from the NASA GISS plot of
temperature. It clearly showed the results of
the move to this location, causing a jump in
temperature almost off the current graph scale.
Note that before the move, the temperature
trend of Lampasas was nearly flat from
1980-2000.


Click to see the full sized GISS record

Given the entropy of the measurement
environment, I have sincere doubts that anyone
can create an adjustment that will ascertain an
accurate trend from temperature data as badly
polluted as this. In my opinion, this station's
post 2000 data needs to be removed from the
climate record.

UPDATE:

Since there has been some discussion about how
well "adjustments" take care of such problems,
I thought I'd show you just how well the GISS
homogeneity adjustment works with this station.


Here is the GISS plot for Lampasas, TX with the
GISS homogeneity applied, I've changed the
color to red and labeled it to keep them
visually separate from the raw data shown in
the plot above.



Now here is the GISS raw data plot with the
homogeneity plot overlaid on it:



The effect is quite clear. The recent
"spurious" measurement remains unchanged, and
the past gets colder.

The result? An artificial warming trend for
this station that is created by GISS
adjustments.

Bloom and Streamtracker,

Is it the goal of you both to garble my posts here?

I have said repeatedly that there are many factors that have given us the rise in temperatures seen over the 20th century, GHG's being one of them.

Re #247: I don't believe I garbled a thing. You've said you don't think CO2 will warm things up very much and that soon enough other factors (you mention climate oscillations or a change in solar irradiance) will kick in to cool things off. Obviously Ricky and the other climate scientists think otherwise. What you haven't done is explain the reasoning behind your opposing view.

BTW, what's the source for those Albany growing season figures?

Bloom,

National weather service.

By the way...we're currently seeing how much one minor climate oscillation (ENSO) is cooling things off.

PDO is also swinging negative, so we'll also see what that takes us.

Again, increased CO2 will probably temper these effects more so than they have in the past, but in a few short years we'll have a better understanding of how much influence CO2 has on climate...

It's going to continue to rise so temperatures should natrually follow. Unless, of course, CO2's effect is being grossly exaggerated.

#246 The issues regarding stations in urban areas is well known and compensated for in the analyzes.

The issues regarding stations in urban areas is well known and compensated for in the analyzes.

The issues are well known, but throwing some statistical analysis in to "compensate" the skewed data doesn't fix the bias, it just places man's opinion mixed in with what went on in history..Graphs only explain fragmented times and places in history. It doesnt represent the whole.....correlation does not imply causation, although many scientists forget that golden rule.....man-made GW is pure theory, NOT fact.