A report in Newsweek, Iceberg Ahead, looks at the current state of climate science and politics… and how things got to this point.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. "The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired," says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Read more: Iceberg Ahead – Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

What would the implications be if the world’s historical temperature records had been manipulated in a way that results in a warming bias?  A new report shows that this may, in fact, be the case.  At the very best, the January 27, 2010 report, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?, suggests that global temperature databases are badly flawed and should not be used for the basis for making policy.  Twelve “case studies in data manipulation” are included in the report.

 

There has clearly been some cyclical warming in recent decades, most notably 1979 to 1998. However, the global surface-station data is seriously compromised. First, there is a major station dropout and increase in missing data in stations that remained which occurred suddenly around 1990; about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles. A clear bias was found towards removing cooler higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations during this culling process though leaving their data in the base periods from which ‘averages’ and anomalies are computed.

The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting. There are uncertainties in ocean temperatures; no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of the earth’s surface.

These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making.

The in-depth report was co-authored by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is getting a lot of heat these days on the claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035.

While the information used by the IPCC is supposed to be peer-reviewed and well vetted, it turns out that this gem is derived from a magazine article in New Science several years ago that was based on a single phone call to an Indian scientist.

An IBD Editorial says:

The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It’s their fraudulent claims that are melting away.

We hesitate to call it Glacier-gate, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body tasked with scaring us to death about global warming, has admitted that the claim in its 2007 report about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing was not based on any scientific study or research. It was instead based on one scientist’s speculation in a telephone interview with a reporter.

This issue has been hitting a number of other media sites over the last week or so.

Read the rest of the  IBD Editorial at Investors.com.

While I’m moving on – or back – to other things, climate issues will continue to be an interest. With 5 of my last 6 posts being on the subject, it’s time to look at other things.  I’ll try to figure out a way to continue to share some of what I learn, though, without this becoming a climate change blog.

I’m still happy with Windows 7.  My computer at work uses XP, though, and moving back and forth between Windows 7 and XP makes getting used to Windows 7 a little harder, I think.

Yes, I am still working.  A contract extension has been approved and, assuming the VP signs the funding paperwork, I will be there until about the middle of March.  After that, I plan not to work for at least the rest of 2010.

Regular visitors to Exit 78 may recognize that my theme has changed once again.  I have moved to the Thesis theme, which allows a lot more control over the appearance.  I’ve got the basic structure down pretty good now, but I’ll be tweaking on it, so there may be subtle changes day to day.

I still have a little bit of material to post from our September trip, photo galleries to develop and publish and images from the great depression to share.

Moving on.

.

Many scientists and others who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming would like the answer to one question that, so far, has not been answered:

While there is laboratory evidence that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide and global temperature have both been rising, real world proof that CO2 has caused the rise in global temperature does NOT exist.

While, at times,  there appears to be a rough correlation between CO2 and global temperature, correlation does not prove causation.

Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some historical warming resulted from carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by humans. However, because of the physical properties of CO2, it’s done all the warming it can do.

Predictions of rising temperatures and the dire consequences of anthropogenic global warming are based on computer climate models.  The climate models include the assumption that global temperatures will rise as CO2 continues to rise.

Over the last decade, global temperatures have leveled off while CO2 continued to rise.  Temperature is trending below all of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions.

Joanne Nova, an Australian freelance science presenter & writer: Professional speaker, author, and former TV host, has prepared and published two excellent — and free — booklets on global warming.  The first, The Skeptics Handbook, has been translated by volunteers into many other languages, including German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Danish.

Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2.  The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb.  Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.

The sun appears to have entered a less active period and is providing less warmth to the Earth.  The sun is in an extended solar minimum that was predicted to end in March 2008, nearly 20 months ago.  Since 2004 there have been 770 days without sunspots.  A typical solar minimum averages about 485 days.  Solar magnetic activity continues to drop.

A number of scientists are projecting that global warming is over, for now, and that global average temperatures will be dropping for the next 20 to 30 years.

“Tricks” apparently have been performed on more climate data than just the tree ring proxy information.  The figure below shows the adjustments made to the historical temperature record of Darwin, Australia.  The blue lines show the values for the original, “raw” temperature data. The red lines are the official NOAA/GHCN  ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — Global Historical Climate Network) data  after the values have been “homogenized” and averaged.  The black line are the values for the adjustment that was made (uses the scale on the right of the figure).

“Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century …” – Willis Eschenbach, The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

American climate sceptics are now demanding a thorough investigation of NASA’s earth science programme, including the possibility that instruments on its satellites have been “tweaked” to give a “correct” result, and pointing out that the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data, going back to the 1930s. The common factor between CRU East Anglia and NASA is the destruction or withholding of research models and data which, if they are reliable, should be their pride and joy – documentation that would secure these institutions’ place in history, like Einstein’s equations. Telegraph.co.uk

“They’ve lost the raw data on which all the models, all the computer generated forecasts, the graphs and projections, are based.”

“Poor Al Gore”

Climate politics continue to be interesting.  Australia’s opposition Liberal Party has ousted its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, after the resignation last week of several senators from their “front-seat” positions.  The Aussie government’s climate change bill is now in jeopardy, raising the potential of an early general election in 2010.

The Climategate emails and documents are being investigated by a number of organizations, including an inquiry by Penn State University, where Michael Mann, creator of the discredited hockey stick graph – used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth – is a professor. Inquiries are also under way at the University of East Anglia, the source of the leaked material.  Government investigations are either ongoing or pending and there has been at least one civil lawsuit filed.

At a minimum, the emails document the violation of UK Freedom of Information laws.

Many believe that the leaker was not a hacker, but, rather, was an insider acting as a anonymous whistleblower by leaking the emails and documents, including information that had been unsuccessfully been sought under the UK FOI statutes.

The emails are not the only incriminating material.  Computer codes and their documentation show fudged numbers and “blatant data-cooking” that tell a story of twisting reality to a desired view.

Many of the fantastic claims in the media about climate change are likely predicated on the same sort of skewed science.

An article in the Wall Street Journal titled The Climate Science Isn’t Settled, by Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT gives a more balanced view of the state of climate science.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

While I have been skeptical of global warming claims for quite some time, this Climategate fiasco appears to show  a conspiracy to doctor the evidence.

In my interest in climate change, I wasn’t looking for a conspiracy, just the truth.

While I have spent a bit of time reading some of the emails that were leaked earlier the week, I simply do not have the time – or desire – to delve deeply into the files.  There are many others around the world digging into this.

I think that there have been serious consequences that have resulted from the actions of some of the scientists whose correspondence has been leaked.  In their zeal to “prove” — at all costs — CO2 as the cause of anthropogenic global warming, other potential causes have been marginalized.  Evidence is mounting that changes in land use may have a significantly greater impact on climate change than rising CO2.  If true, mitigation and adaptation to successfully address human impacts on climate could be done at a fraction of the cost of  the drastic actions and expenses that are being called for today.  It may be that efforts could have been started a decade ago, but for an obsession on CO2 as the global warming culprit.

On Examiner.com, Thomas Fuller is writing a series of articles regarding the actions and communications of a group of climate scientists and paleoclimatologists known as The Team. Click here to read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 , Part 6, and Part 7.

My first post on this was Climategate.

While I haven’t blogged about it for a while, I read material related to global warming climate change every day, so it was with great interest yesterday morning that I read of the release of allegedly stolen anthropogenic global warming climate change correspondence.

I had woken early for some reason and was unable to get back to sleep.  By 4:30, I was up and checking email, blogs and the news-feeds that I subscribe to.

A little over an hour later, I was downloading the files.

It’s going to be interesting to see where this is going to end up.  Articles are already appearing in the mainstream media.

See new article: Climategate update.

The Sun has Lost it’s Spots (continued)

Today, it reached a count of 700 days.

On average, a solar minimum has 485 days where the surface of the sun is blank, with no sunspots appearing.  The solar minimum is the period in a sunspot cycle where the number of observed sunspots  is at its lowest. Sunspot cycles  average 11 years from beginning of minimum through maximum and back to the beginning of the next minimum.

The current solar minimum began in 2004 and was predicted to end late in 2007.

Since the minimum began, there have been 700 days with no sunspots.

The last observed sunspot disappeared 47 days ago.  If there are no sunspots by this time next week, this will have been the longest period without any sunspots during this minimum.

Long solar minimums have been observed in the past. However, this is the first long minimum where we have had sensitive instruments that can monitor the sun.

The jury is still out on the meaning of this extended minimum.

Advocates of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming discount any significant change in the energy received from the sun.  Others, however, point to previous periods of low sunspot and solar activity, which, by chance, happened to roughly correspond to the cold times of the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages.

(to be continued in about a month or so)

Note: Previous posts on the sun were The Sun Has Lost Its Spots (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) and The Sun Has Found Some Spots. I will be posting a continuation update about monthly.)

Peter Sissons, a veteran British newsman, left BBC’s Television Centre for the last time in June, without a “pang of regret.”

In The Mail of Sunday, July 15th,  he launched a blistering attack on the BBC, claiming standards have dropped and producers are too concerned about being politically correct to do anything about it.

His article was an interesting read and, given my growing disillusion over the news media and what I believe to be a misrepresentation of the facts on climate change, I was particularly interested in the part of the article that talked about the BBC position on global warming.

Mr. Sissons writes:

On a wintry Saturday last December, there was what was billed as a major climate change rally in London.

The leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, went into the Westminster studio to be interviewed by me on the BBC News channel. She clearly expected what I call a ‘free hit’; to be allowed to voice her views without being challenged on them.

I pointed out to her that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions.

Well, she was outraged. I don’t have the actual transcript, but Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC – the BBC! – should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.

I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.

But it is effectively BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard – witness the BBC statement last year that ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made’.

Politically the argument may be settled, but any inquisitive journalist can find ample evidence that scientifically it is not.

I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue. Disquiet over my interview with Miss Lucas, incidentally, went right to the top at the BBC although, naturally, they never sought to discuss it with me.

For me, this is not an issue about the climate, it is an issue about the duty of the journalist.

I suspect the policy of most major media outlets on climate change is similar to the BBC’s.

day 61

Sunspot 1024, July 7, 2009

Spot-free, July 27, 2009

In the first week of July, many observers thought that the long blank solar minimum was coming to an end when a large cycle 24 sunspot group developed.  However, after several days, it was fading away to nothing as the sun’s surface rotated it over the horizon.

Since then, the sun has gone back to being sunspot free, other than a brief period when it appeared that an old cycle sunspot — cycle 23 — was trying to develop. However, except perhaps briefly, it wasn’t observed on visible light images of the sun and, thus, was not counted as an actual sunspot.

Spotless Days

The current stretch of spotless days is 17.

The sun has been spotless just over ¾ of the year to date.  (159 days, 76%)

The sun has been spotless 670 days since the beginning of the current solar minimum in 2004.

In a typical solar minimum, there are about 485 spotless days.

What does it mean?

It depends on who you ask.

Some think that the lack of sunspots is indicative of a quiet sun and a cooling period that may last for 20 to 30 years or more.

Others say that the reduction of the energy from the sun during a solar minimum is only 0.1% and that it will have no impact on the warming of the earth that is taking place.

Time will tell.

__________

Related Posts:

• The Sun Has Lost Its Spots
• The Sun Has Lost Its Spots — Part 2
• The Sun has found some spots

day 55

A musical take on cap and tax… er, trade.

day 25

I discovered just a little while ago that access to individual posts on this blog was unavailable and commenting was not available. This was because of something I did with some files on the server earlier today — not a web host issue. I knew that I should have checked after I was done, but didn’t.

It’s all back to normal now. It was only a 30 second fix, because it’s something that happened before and I knew where to look.

——

A couple of days ago, a park visitor from Spain was injured by a Yellowstone National Park bison (aka American buffalo).

“At approximately 11:25 a.m., the woman and her husband were using a pay phone in the Canyon lodging area with their backs to the road. According to witnesses, two bull bison walked down the road, passing within 20 feet of the couple. One of the bison left the road, walked up behind the woman and butted her into the air. The couple, who were facing away from the road, did not see the bison.”

The woman was taken to the Lake Clinic where she was treated for minor injuries and released.

This quite an unusual event. Bison are not usually aggressive unless someone has encroached upon their space. We have seen numerous instances where people have gotten way too close to these critters and nothing happened. Park regulations require that a minimum distance of 25 yard must be maintained from bison.

Bison are very, very common in the Canyon area.

We still hope to make it to Yellowstone this year. However, we may not have as much time available as we had originally thought.

——

Climate change legislation — The Waxman/Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act pass by a very slim margin today in the US House of Representatives. I actually watched some of the debate on CSPAN. I’ve got just a few comments.

• They didn’t even have a properly collated official copy of the bill in the room during the debate. Three hundred pages were revised overnight and one of the House staff was in the process of inserting pages into the correct place in the “official copy” during the closing minutes of the floor debate.
• The debate on the floor was limited to 3 hours for a bill that may be one of the largest tax bills in the history of the country.
• While virtually every American would end up with higher energy costs as a result of the bill, as I understand it, it’s requirements would have negligible impact on global warming, if anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) were a proven fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
• The premise of the bill is predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a proven scientific fact. The earth has been warming up until the last ten years. Global carbon dioxide levels have been rising, at least in part due to human activities, even during the last ten years as global temperature anomalies have been stable or dropping. While it would seem obvious to blame rising temperatures on carbon dioxide produced by man, there is no proof that continued rising CO2 will result in a continued rise in global temperatures. The predictions of rising temperatures are the product of computer climate models that assume that anthropogenic global warming is a proven scientific fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
• Our Representative, voted against it. I think I voted against him in 2008. He’s got my vote in 2010.

——

Climate change — I read material on climate change almost every day.

I am absolutely appalled at the gloom and doom, the-sky-is-falling alarmism that is in the media on a daily basis.

I’m not sure at what point I stopped simply accepting anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. I can say that for well over a year I’ve been reading a lot of climate change related material and have a much better understanding of the topic than I once had. My first blog post on climate was It’s not a hypothesis… It’s not a theory… it’s a CONSENSUS! last year.

Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.

• Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis.
• Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some warming has resulted from carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by humans.
• There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.


Carbon Dioxide Absorption Peaks

• Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2.  The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb.  Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.
• The science of climate change is not settled.  Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.
• Consensus on climate change is not science.  It’s politics.  Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.
• For a scientist to be a skeptic on climate change is not a bad thing.  Scepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.
• The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century — 2000 to 2009.
• The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature.  They are also recycled over and over again.
• The prediction of an Arctic free of  ice is  premature.  AMSRE-A Sea Ice Extent has 6 1/2 years of history. The sea arctic sea ice extent currently is higher than any of the other years at this point in the annual cycle. AMSRE-A (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System).
• Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.
• A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected.  (radiobremen)
• The heat content of the world’s ocean is dropping – Q = mc∆T. (The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat)

day 22

You’ve heard the claims:

“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming.” — Al Gore

“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities…” — The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes, Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

I’ve looked for the consensus.  I haven’t found it.  I’ll let you know if I do.

Even if there is a consensus, it’s of little value if the underlying basis of the consensus is faulty:

It is amazing that some political leaders proclaim the debate over global warming is “over” when some of the meteorological community’s best minds continue to clash over the nature and magnitude of a phenomenon that could entirely offset the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Climate Change Reconsidered , the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), page 17)

The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the predictions of future temperature rise are heavily dependent upon computer models that do not incorporate many of the significant complexities of Earth’s climate.  See The problem is in the modeling.

Is consensus science or is consensus politics?

1

The sun wasn’t totally spotless in April.  Unfortunately, the most recent new spot is an old spot.

“Say WHAT?” You ask. “How can a new spot be an old spot?”

Sunspot polarity, March 27, 2008 magnetogram

Right now, the sunspot activity is in a low period between sunspot cycles.  Sunspots are features on the sun that are cooler that their surrounding areas.  That’s why they appear dark.

Sunspots are also magnetic features, having polarity, with north and south poles, much like a magnet.  Their magnetic alignment — where the poles are in relationship to each other — is dependent upon what hemisphere they are in and, more importantly to this discussion, what solar cycle they are in.

Sunspot polarity is reversed from one sunspot cycle to the next.  During the solar minimum period when sunspot activity is at the lowest, sunspots from both cycles can appear.  Most of the recent sunspots have had the polarity for cycle 24; they have been “new” sunspots.  The most recent sunspot has the polarity of cycle 23; thus, an “old” sunspot.

Sunspot 1016, April 30, 2009

There were but 2 sunspots, as I recall, during the month of April, neither of them very significant.  Overall solar activity remains low.  According to spaceweather.com, “Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.”

What does it all mean?

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were predicting a much different level of activity for the sun.  A March 10, 2006 NASA article headlined Solar Storm Warning, said:

This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.

It looks like they really missed the mark.

Last month, in The Sun Has Lost Its Spots — Part 2, I asked, “What happens when the solar indicators remain low  for an extended period of time?”

A number of scientists are projecting that global warming is over, for now, and that global average temperatures will be dropping for the next 20 to 30 years.  This is based on predictions that solar output will remain low for an extended period of time.

A number of indicators seem to be supporting the idea that global warming has stopped for now.

Climate change “alarmists” want to stop the use of coal and predict that the fabled Northwest Passage will be free of ice and passable in the near future.

West Seattle Herald, Seattle, Washington, March 26, 1931

Spotless Sun - April 5, 2009

A little over 2 months ago, I wrote about the extended lack of spots on the sun (The Sun Has Lost Its Spots).

The sun has remained essentially spotless since then and has been blank 87% of 2009 through April 4th.  In 2008, the sun was blank 266 out 366 days (73%) and was the blankest year since 1913.

We are currently in the solar minimum phase of the solar cycle — the part of the cycle where the fewest sunspots appear. A typical solar minimum is 485 days.  The current solar minimum is 594 days and counting.

A typical solar cycle is about 11 years in length, with lengths since 1900 varying from 9.8 years to over 12 years. The current solar cycle length, which began in May 1996, is approaching 13 years, though several years ago the end had been projected for Spring of 2007. According to sunspot expert Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum.”

NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and has solicited proposals “to study the causes and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23.”  Scientists intending to propose a study have to let NASA know of their intent by April 17th and their proposals must be submitted by June 5th.

Besides a dearth of sunspots, other solar indicators are also much lower than normal.

• Measured by instruments on satellites, the solar wind is 20% below what it was in the 1990s and is at the lowest point since solar wind measurements began in the 1960s.
• Measurements of solar irradiance by other satellites indicate the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% in visible light and 6% in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths – a 12 year low.
• The sun’s radio emissions, measured by radio telescopes, are the lowest since 1955.

The sun is the source of the energy that warms Earth and likely has a significant impact on climate and climate change.

What happens when the solar indicators remain low  for an extended period of time?

Sometimes, ya just gotta take a break.

I didn’t plan it that way.  It just sort of happened.

In the last several weeks, I’ve not spent much time working on my blogs or web pages other than a new blog, On Climate, where I now have 7 posts.

I’ve been reading quite a bit.  Besides a reading a lot of material on climate change, I’m on my ninth novel — three separate fantasy trilogies.  But for the internet and computers, I would be spending a lot more of my retirement time with my nose in a book — like I have been lately.  Two of the trilogies are rereads — excellent entertainment that doesn’t cost anything except that I couldn’t find the final book of one of them, the one that I’m reading now, so bought a replacement.

I’ve also been hitting the gym pretty heavily.  The one category of blog posts that I’ve been keeping up with is the Wednesday Weigh-In. For some reason, it has helped with the motivation that I was lacking in trying to get fit.  I am now spending 2 hours a day working out at the gym and have been making steady progress.

With a little warmer weather, I’ve been building storage shelving in the second floor of my at this point unheated and not yet finished shop.

Procrastinating like usual, I’m just now getting our taxes done.  Fortunately, our taxes this year are not going to be the horror that last year’s Taxes, Bloody Taxes were.  In fact, we paid so much in state taxes last year that, for the first time in several years, we can actually itemize deductions on the federal return.  Even though I said last year, “future years should be relatively painless,” it’s still been a bit of a pain digging up all of the deductions.  However, despite my tendency to procrastinate, the return is almost done and we didn’t need a tax specialist like last year.

I plan to be back posting on a more regualar basis, but….

I’ve been looking at a LOT of material related to climate change.

I’ve learned enough about it that I’m NOT going to simply accept what is being put out by the media and by government.

However, in going down this path I didn’t want to hijack Exit78 and make it into a niche blog on climate change, so I created still another blog.

It’s called On Climate and it’s an Exit78 spin off. I’ll be posting on things that I’ve learned, views that I’ve developed, material that I’ve discovered, and climate related news.  I’ll also be posting links to videos, news, and other climate related pages.

While I may on occasion still mention things related to climate here, it’ll be an exception rather than the rule.

For those that might want to visit On Climate, I’ve added a link.  Right now it’s on the top menu bar, though it may move to another location.

If I get any comments there, I expect that they’ll be a lot more focused and, there may be some who flat out disagree with what I’m posting.  I’ll have to publish a comment policy, of course, and it will probably be very similar to the one that I have here.

On another note, I plan to get back to posting more photos here in the near future.