.
.
.
Before you read these words, you have probably already made your mind up as to whether you will agree or disagree with what I am about to report – that’s too bad – I wish there could be real dialogue on this issue which is of paramount importance to all mankind.
As you may remember, when Mr. Al “I made hundreds of millions from an Inconvenient Truth and the green industry” Gore reported about global warming, there were loud protests that the data had been manipulated and charted in a way to maximize claims that global warming was melting the earth and that it was all caused by man. In addition, both global warming advocates and the press have been very sloppy in differentiating between “climate change” which is a natural part of Earth’s planetary cycles, and the impact man has had on those otherwise natural cycles. Dr. Richard Muller’s BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) program sought to review and reanalyze the data correcting prior perceived deficiencies. Scientists from around the world were curious as to how the data would be portrayed and just what it would show.
In a October 21, 2011 Wall Street Journal Article entitled There was good reason to doubt . . . until now, Dr. Muller argued that new review of the data should eliminate any reasonable skepticism about the validity of man-made global warming fears. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html Unfortunately, Dr. Muller’s conclusions don’t seem consistent with his own summary of his findings. One of the key problems with earlier analyses was that the stations that were used to collect global warming data were faulty, producing inconsistent results. Dr. Muller writes:
The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy’s Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.
Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, “most” of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.
We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo’s temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can’t be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction.
The faulty data from these data collection stations creates numerous problems with the methodology of the BEST study. Steve McIntyre, proprietor of Climate Audit noticed
“BEST’s estimate of the size of the temperature increase since the start of the 19th century is much larger than previous estimates….The decade of the 1810s is shown in their estimates as being nearly 2 degrees colder than the present….It’s also interesting to interpret these results from the context of ‘dangerous climate change’, defined by the UN as 2 deg C. Under BEST’s calculations, we’ve already experienced nearly 2 deg C of climate change since the early 19th century.”
McIntyre could not replicate some of Muller’s results using raw station data. Add to that, the land surface temperature record does not agree with the satellite record, nor is there good agreement with sea surface temperature record. BEST uses only land-based temperature data and ignores sea surface temperature data. According to Jonathen DuHamel:
“The whole thing boils down to what Muller said, “The temperature-station quality is largely awful.” That means the surface temperature data is inadequate to come to any valid conclusions. BEST measured a larger subset of the surface temperature record than some other researchers. BEST merged and “filtered” the data. Various methods of massaging data lead to different conclusions, none of which may be close to reality. The science is still not settled and the BEST study, despite its good intentions, provides nothing new.”
Yesterday the controversy “heated up” even more when BEST co-author Dr. Judith Curry denied claims that the BEST study supported continued global warming: “the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis.” An interesting “twist” in the way the global warming trend, flattening out and stabilizing for a decade and a half were “hidden” by the way the graph was depicted.
The top graph would seem to support claims that global warming is rampant and threatening the world we live in. Actually, if you take the same data and enlarge the graph to show the past decade plus you get an almost flat line showing no alarming spike. Even global warming skeptics are quick to point out that this “data display manipulation” was very different from the now infamous Climate gate data which hid problems in ways that made real analysis difficult. In this case, the data was transparently provided even if presented in a way intended to improperly persuade. Meteorologist Anthony Watts says:
Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering .. almost 200 years… with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.
Geoff,
Gosh, it’s a little hard to take you seriously when you say;
“I wish there could be real dialogue on this issue which is of paramount importance to all mankind. ” and immediately follow it up with this TOTALLY NON-BIASED comment;
“, when Mr. Al ”I made hundreds of millions from an Inconvenient Truth and the green industry” Gore …” hey, that’s a GREAT way to open up a “dialogue”.
What you really mean is you want everyone to BLINDLY ACCEPT the shit you’re about to shovel.
Thanks for the insightful substantive comment.
And yet again Anonster shows that when the libs can’t argue the facts on here, they simply attack Geoff. Dug from Up would be proud. And by the way, it’s not Geoff that’s shoveling, it’s another global warming study that’s “hiding the decline” – well, the static line in this case.
Well, I fail to see how an ad hominem attack upon the so-inviting-of-it mr. Gore has ANYTHING to do with the remainder of the presentation.
But I guess we can posit that ad hominem AUTOMATICALLY discredits all that follows- so long as we apply it universally. It will conveniently dispose of about 95% of all liberal positions.
Thanks for the link to the piece by Dr. Muller, a longtime prominent climate denier, in the WSJ, Geoff. He does go on to say this:
I’m sure that none of the above will come as any surprise to anyone who read your deft recapitulation of Dr. Muller’s article.
And yet he (Dr. Muller) felt it necessary to hide the fact that the temperature hasn’t increased in the past 13 years, during which man-made global warming advocates have been claiming we’re dumping tons upon tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That’s because Dr. Muller is smart enough to know that pointing to 5 or even 10 year trends in global warming is a fools errand. Over short periods of time, temperature does indeed rise and fall. But there simply is no explaining away the OVERALL, global trend.
Note the constant zig-zag, yet upward trend over longer periods of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif
Even if what you say is true (which I disagree), what does that say about homeogenic impacts on global warming?
I wrote “In a October 21, 2011 Wall Street Journal Article entitled There was good reason to doubt . . . until now, Dr. Muller argued that new review of the data should eliminate any reasonable skepticism about the validity of man-made global warming fears.”
That’s not a good enough summary of the fake “skeptic’s” argument?
I don’t know, Geoff, let’s ask our readers:
Readers, do you feel that the paragraphs that I included from Muller’s article change whatever view you might have tentatively formed from the pre-“However” portion of Muller’s article, which Geoff cited?
I found, for example, the portion directly addressing the problem of poor data from ground-based temperature stations to be, well, worth knowing!
Greg,
Are you implying that Geoff left out the information and facts that didn’t support his viewpoint? I’m shocked, just SHOCKED!
And all he wanted to do was have an open-minded and unbiased “dialogue”.
There are no amount of facts or any scientific “proof” that can or could penetrate the climate denier’s mind, they’ve been too thoroughly brainwashed and are too used to twisting themselves into mental pretzels to justify what they WANT to believe.
So instead of America being on the forefront of new technologies and the industries/jobs they could create, we’re stuck in the coal/oil age with these neanderthals.
Change is too scary and uncomfortable for them, so that means Americans will have to rely on the Chinese and the Europeans for future energy innovation and production. Smart, huh?
Just a fracking minute, Anonster!
The game here is to make people blame themselves for their miseries because they refused to buy snake oil — like the Tar Sands “cure” (of helping U.S. business by being able to refine more oil that will be sent to China.) That could only make sense if global warming/weirding is a myth, therefore it is a myth. If it turned out that we really DO have to focus on conservation and alternative energy NOW NOW NOW, then how would people ever be induced to blame themselves?
You’re right Diamond, the Democrats’ answer of no US drilling any time for any reason, coupled with massive public subsidies for failing companies like Solyndra is way better.
Do we have “no drilling” here, Newbie? This is a test.
Solyndra was a good investment that failed due to market conditions. If you’d like to talk about bad investments that failed due to greed and corruption, we can go back to discussing Wall Street.
Meanwhile, I have nice graphics below, look!
Newbie,
“the Democrats’ answer of no US drilling any time for any reason”
Just because you BELIEVE it, doesn’t make it true, here’s an “inconvenient truth” for you;
From the WSJ 8/27/11
Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?
1,069: The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. this week.
The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/27/number-of-the-week-how-many-rigs-are-drilling-for-oil/
Geoff,
I thought you were a capitalist, are you saying it’s wrong to invest in businesses that you believe in? Are you also suggesting that foreign governments and scientists have also been hoodwinked by Al Gore’s money making schemes?
Right-wingers in this country have turned Al Gore into their global warming boogeyman, yet there is worldwide consensus on global warming, governments, scientists and investors are putting money and research into combatting it.
Al Gore wrote a book and is an advocate for global warming, but to childishly assert that he “invented” global warming and he did it to make money and that he has snookered the whole world makes you sound like an idiot, but I guess if the shoe fits, wear it.
From the NYT’s;
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor
… Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.
Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”
In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.
“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”
Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.
He has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Royalties from his new book on climate change, “Our Choice,” printed on 100 percent recycled paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Anonster,
I thought that you were against cronyism, corporate welfare and the rich becoming uber rich through government handouts – or is that only when it is convenient for you?
“Solyndra was a good investment that failed due to market conditions. If you’d like to talk about bad investments that failed due to greed and corruption, we can go back to discussing Wall Street.”
If you think Solyndra was a good investment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you will be interested in. The evidence already shows that financial experts had concerns with Solyndra even before the massive investment was made. And Solyndra was on even shakier ground when the administration agreed to a stupid redo of the loan that put private investors ahead of the taxpayers (something I’ve seen at least one government analyst say has never happened before). So I disagree completely that Solyndra was a good investment, and I think the facts back me up. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but in this case had the green crazy administration had some foresight based on the facts that existed at the time, the taxpayers could have been spared a $500 million mistake. (I haven’t even touched the five figure bonuses Solyndra executives received while the ship was going down, the golden parachute one executive got, the ridiculous amenities like conference room windows that go dark with the push of a button that taxpayer dollars were wasted on, etc.) But you keep up with your cover story that Solyndra was a good investment.
Geoff,
I believe that using subsidies and our tax policy wisely, to encourage and support promising and innovative fledgling industries and research is an example of good government. It’s how we became a superpower and how we will maintain that status.
It is when we continue to subsidize old, outdated and destructive technologies and established profitable corporations that american taxpayers get screwed.
So its good government when YOU agree with the cause and filthy corruption when you disagree with the cause – that is now clear.
No Geoff, I support it when it’s SMART and oppose it when it’s stupid.
So glad that in your arrogance you think you are the sole judge of what is smart and what is not – that’s definitionally “illusions of grandeur.”
Geoff, for the love of god, can you please stop misrepresenting what people say? Show us where Anonster said she think she is the “sole” judge of what is smart and what is stupid.
Don’t we all make these evaluations to the best of our ability and in light of what each person feels is best for the country? Jeezus, give us a freakin’ break.
“No Geoff, I support it when it’s SMART and oppose it when it’s stupid.” Yes, I am misrepresenting, uh, wait . . .
What a fucking moron you are.
You are always accusing me of not addressing the issues, not providing facts, being venomous, resorting to “ad hominem” attacks, not providing sources, you’ve attacked my spelling, the placement of my posts, my use of capitalization, my anonymity and here you are, once again attacking me for stating my opinion.
OF COURSE IT IS MY OPINION, YOU POMPOUS ASS, WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE?
Get it through your fucking head, this is a blog, WHERE EVERYONE GIVES THEIR OPINION!
When you state your opinion I do not accuse you of thinking that you are the “sole judge” of what is being discussed, I REALIZE that even though I don’t agree with you, that it is, just your opinion and that you are not making some grand sweeping all encompassing statement.
You’re just mad, because you can’t PROVE that Al Gore personally profits from his environmental work and this is just a CHEAP SHOT to deflect from the fact, that YOU HAVE NO FACTS and that you get your talking points from other right-wing nut jobs that are just as full of hot air and crap as you are.
“No Geoff, I support it when it’s SMART and oppose it when it’s stupid.” Yes, I am misrepresenting, uh, wait . . .
NOW who’s denying and deflecting?
We can all read where you accuse Anonster of thinking she’s the “sole judge” of what is smart investment and what is stupid investment, when in reality her statement makes no such claim.
Project much, Geoff?
Right, and all you global warming advocates haven’t been blinded by Al Gore (and the many many millions he is taking back to his CO2 pumping mansion) and his crusade, complete with faulty facts and demagogic rhetoric. Actually, some of us “neanderthals” do believe that the earth is warming at times, just as it cools at times. And we also believe that man contributes to that warming and cooling. What we don’t believe is that man’s contribution will lead to the end of the earth as many global warming advocates (most of whom happen to be publicily funded professors and scientist whose grants would dry up if they didn’t keep coming up with studies that show the sky is falling – but I know that the source only matters to you lefties when the Koch brothers or Dick Chaney are involved) proclaim.
By the way, it’s hilarious for you to point to the Chinese as energy innovators when they are one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions in the world.
Right now there is a sizable number of Republicans and conservatives that we can’t even get to agree that the earth is warming at all, let alone that it is in part anthropogenic, let alone that it is so anthropogenic that the feedback loops we’re creating are likely to lead to disaster. So I’m glad that you’re not as kooky as some; we’ll get to your milder form of denial in a later discussion.
A country can simultaneously be both an energy innovator and one of the largest GFG sources in the world. We’re not yelling “China is good!”; this isn’t a playground popularity contest. We’re saying that energy innovation is good and overburdening the atmosphere with GHG is bad — whether we’re talking about China, the U.S., or anyone.
Newbie,
When you and Geoff (and others) say things like “blinded by Al Gore” or imply that he came up with global warming as a get-rich -quick-scheme, you just sound foolish and immediately LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY.
If you want to be taken seriously in discussions about global warming and the science behind it, you need to stop parroting moronic right-wing talking points.
Yeah we are completely off base with no credibility: “Gore is poised to profit — in a big way — from investments in companies which seek to address the ecological crises he has been warnings about for years. Broder writes that Gore could be viewed as “profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.” At a hearing earlier this year, Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, attacked Gore for being poised to profit from the very policies he was urging the government to adopt.” See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fMtHD7 “As a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital heavyweight Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from investments in the companies that will benefit from the government’s increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York Times’s John Broder, Gore could become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” Gore has been one of the most outspoken critics of global warming and a powerful advocate of carbon-reducing measures. As such, he has become a hero of the left — a man revered for warning Americans to curb their carbon footprint and reduce their impact on the Earth” See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fMtHD7
Yeah, WE are the ones with no credibility.
Would you be satisfied if he put profits from those investments into a trust? My bet is that he would be.
Al Gore has easier and less speculative ways to make a buck, were he so disposed. He could, for example, set up an LLC to run the OC Marathon.
See that is the kind of deflecting, avoiding the point crap that always happens when YOU (defined as Diamond, Anon and Anonster) do when you are just dead wrong. Al Gore had modest means. he put investments in place that would make him uber rich if the government started giving corporate welfare to “green” technology. He makes an “inconvenient truth.” Based on the hysteria caused by the movie, he strongly lobbies for legislative changes that would create corporate welfare for green technologies. Congress yields to his demands for government subsidies, and he becomes a $100 Millionaire. He is pushing for further government subsidies that could make him a billionaire. This is cronyism, insider dealing and corruption at its worst. YOU want to give him a pass because YOU view his goals as nobel notwithstanding the fact that he is profiting in EXACTLY the way opposed by the Occupy forces.
Well this is essentially the same fallacy you use to denigrate those with wealth who support the Occupy movement…as if a person who makes money can’t also be passionate about an issue…even one they stand to profit from. If someone like Al Gore promotes green energy, then makes money from it, THAT MEANS HE’S SUCCEEDING IN SPREADING GREEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY!!
Coming from Mr. Pure Free Market, your position is more than ironic.
No it is not the same fallacy. I believe that you have said that you oppose cronyism, corporate welfare and corporate handouts. If Mr. Gore was simply making money off of something he believed in, more power to him. He’s not – he is lobbying and changing government policy and directing it in ways that DIRECTLY profit him. He is seeking and obtaining government money to further profit from his achieved changes in governmental policy. He is manipulating the governmental system in ways that have made him rich and will make him even richer. If you replaced “gore” with “Murdoch” and changed “green” to “media” you would be howling at the moon in protest over the governmental manipulation that allows an individual to use political influence to enrich himself.
Geoff,
“Al Gore had modest means.”
Not true the Gore family had money.
From a 2000 CNN Money article;
… As for Gore, he’s benefited richly from his father’s financial savvy and was even his partner in a number of deals.
In short, both men are sons of privilege. “They are not average Americans,” says Peter Eisner of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan group that tracks their business dealings. As Eisner puts it, “Gore is to the manor born. And Bush is to the manor born more.”
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2000/11/01/290897/index.htm
THAT is the part you focus on? Really? Not the fact that he is manipulating government policy to his own personal gain? Not that he is seeking and receiving corporate welfare that personally profits him? I see . . .
Well Geoff, how about if YOU change “Gore” to “Murdoch” and howl at the moon.
I love how you ask people to do things you aren’t willing or able to do yourself.
You sit and profess that you’re against crony capitalism, but you only call out Democrats. Until you get a little objectivity in general, then you have no place asking for it from others.
deny, deflect, change the subject and personally attack – every time I see these behaviors I know I am absolutely right.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Oh yeah . . .
Geoff,
I read your article, it offered NO PROOF that Gore is personally enriching himself from investments that have ties to the government.
From Al Gore’s testimony to Congress 2009;
“… when asked about profiting from his investments through the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins related to renewable energy and climate change mitigation during April 24, 2009, congressional testimony, Gore stated that “every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.” He later added that “[e]very penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy” has “gone to” the non-profit.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109170001
Well done, Anonster. I believe that that’s game, set, and match.
Here’s what the graph with the supposedly too-narrow X-axis for “year” and the supposedly too-spread-out Y access for “temperature change” — by the way, there is no “right’ way to scale these incommensurate variables — looks when its width is doubled:
Still looks like increased climate change to me.
Oh, what the heck: can’t resist. I took only the section beginning in 2000 in the above graph and expanded it to be the same size as the others, so that it should more or less correspond with the lower graph. (I think that the graphic artists at the Mail may have blown it, though; it looks to me like the top graph goes only for the first 3.5 years. Hard to say.) Then, because this looks like a periodic function, I plunked down little black balls representing the middle of what looked like the peak and trough for each year, then I connected peak-to-peak and trough-to-trough. You can see the result below.
Looks to me like there was continued warming. So, I’d really like to see the actual data rather than rely on the Daily Mail taking it from who-knows-where. I’m sure that you’ll understand.
I did note on Judith Curry’s site, by the way, a stronger statement of the point that you concede: “There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.”
What I have NOT found, though I’m sure you must have a link, is any presentation (other than the bottom graph that you’ve taken from the right-wing Daily Mail) of the data that supposedly show stable temperatures over the past decade.
Other tidbits from my research:
– I did see where Muller said that with global warming the oceans may be acting as a heat sink
– I did see a lot of people saying that the cooling of Los Angeles over recent years warrants notice. Indeed, Muller says above that a third of the stations cooled, while two-thirds warmed, and that warming exceeded cooling. Pulling out one data point as significant is the mark of a complete amateur. But, since they have, I’ll note that the smog in Los Angeles has declined substantially since the ’60s and ’70s of my youth — thank you, AQMD! Say, do you think that smog tents to make a city hotter or cooler? I seem to remember something called the “greenhouse effect” relevant to that.
So you’re basically saying that you don’t trust the Daily Mail (possibly because of some perceived bias) yet you take the IPCC at its word despite the fact that several of its determinations were made based on flawed, speculative, or simply false fact. How very consistent of you. By the way, more bad news for AGW fans:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/04/monster-levels-of-greenhouse-gases-in-2010/
So we have a huge increase in GHG emissions over the past year but no increase in temperature (you know, like AGW advocates say should happen). I hate it when the facts get in the way of a good liberal story. Perhaps even more shocking is that some AGW scientists are actually taking the facts as applicable and starting to look at areas other than GHG that may be responsible for the warming over the last century. What’s the world coming to?
Newbie — how long do you think that it takes GHGs to get into the upper atmosphere where they do they most damage.
That you don’t even think that you may be missing some critical part of the process is understandable; that you’re smug about asserting with confidence that other people are wrong because they know that there’s a lag in the effect on the process is incomprehensible.
As for this — “despite the fact that several of its determinations were made based on flawed, speculative, or simply false fact” — I’ll discuss specifics with you. Limiting yourself to generalities gives you too much protection.
So in the past 13 years, all that GHG is still working its way into the upper atmosphere. And you’re right, we’ve only been putting GHG into the atmosphere recently. It’s not like we have been doing it for tens of decades or anything. But some day all that GHG will finally get to the upper atmosphere and then we’ll really get warming. Thanks for setting me straight, and not addressing my point at the same time. A very effective and relevant post.
Let’s say that there is a five-year lag between a GHG emission being ground smog (which is a problem, but a different one that that causing the greenhouse effect in the upper atmosphere) and joining its brethren in the upper atmosphere. If that’s true, Newbie, that what does that tell you about expecting that GHG increases in Year X should necessarily lead to higher temperatures in Year X, as opposed to Year X+5?
I’d get into topics like stochastic processes, but you don’t get to talk about that until you get to the Intermediate class.