2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

I've never seen anything that claims over a 4 year lag. I've seen 3 years and it wasn't the majority of studies, though its difficult to filter out the solar factor entirely because it has some small co-variance with the ocean cycles...they are all on cycles, but they aren't the exact same length every time and they are not the same strength each time...including the PDO/AMO cycles. The larger issue with solar lag is the longer term effects (i.e. a series of high cycles or a series of low cycles) and its not well understood.

I apologize for the mis-reference, It must have been someone else, alot of red-taggers here.

Also, I'm curious as to your thought on the Solar/PDO correlation. I've been researching into this one heavily, and found some correlation between the two.

I haven't gone into it as deeply as I'd like to, causation wise, personal life getting "busy" lately.

[nzucker]

Aren't you sick of the cold, raw, nasty winter yet? I'm dying for some warmth.

heck, i'll emit as much Co2 as I can into the atmosphere

No, I love winter, and especially snowstorms and glistening white snowpack on a crisp, starry night with the moon shining through the pines...ah, the refreshing winter! Also, nothing like seeing the town's white pines rock in the heavy winds of an intense Nor'easter as the snow piles deeper and bustling NYC metro grinds to a halt in a blizzard. I am always sad as we approach the end of winter and the sun angle grows higher, a sign of the impending doom.

That's why I'm really hoping for the solar minimum and global cooling

[BethesdaWX]

No, I love winter, and especially snowstorms and glistening white snowpack on a crisp, starry night with the moon shining through the pines...ah, the refreshing winter! Also, nothing like seeing the town's white pines rock in the heavy winds of an intense Nor'easter as the snow piles deeper and bustling NYC metro grinds to a halt in a blizzard. I am always sad as we approach the end of winter and the sun angle grows higher, a sign of the impending doom.

That's why I'm really hoping for the solar minimum and global cooling

haha+++

I'm not a big cold weather/winter WX fan, but snow is good. So if its gonna snow, it better snow 5 feet and keep me trapped in my house for a week.

Last winter was a textbook example of "snowed in". 5 feet of snow in 10 days...

[nzucker]

haha+++

I'm not a big winter weather fan, but snow is good. So if its gonna snow, it better snow 5 feet and keep me trapped in my house for a week.

Last winter was a textbook example of "snowed in". 5 feet of snow in 10 days...

Yeah you guys got ROCKED last winter. I mean DESTROYED. I can't believe BWI had over 80" and parts of northern VA saw 40" snow depth after the 2/10 storm...that's just absurdity.

My town had 68" last year compared to a long-term average around 38"...this year I'm at 58" and hoping for more. This will be the third winter of above average snowfall, but this year we've had snow on the ground since 12/26. That's over 50 consecutive days of snow cover, insane for NYC metro. Really impressive.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah you guys got ROCKED last winter. I mean DESTROYED. I can't believe BWI had over 80" and parts of northern VA saw 40" snow depth after the 2/10 storm...that's just absurdity.

My town had 68" last year compared to a long-term average around 38"...this year I'm at 58" and hoping for more. This will be the third winter of above average snowfall, but this year we've had snow on the ground since 12/26. That's over 50 consecutive days of snow cover, insane for NYC metro. Really impressive.

You're getting clobbered this year for sure.........but yeah it was super bad. I remember hearing trees cracking all night during snowmageddon, lost power at 3AM, ended up with near 30".

But Feb10...............THAT was pure madness from the gates of frozen hell. The Deform Band contained wind gusts near 70mph in places, reached near 60mph at my place....and continued all day with whiteout snows and constant blowing. I couldn't see anything, and temps were 18 degrees.

4 Big storms in 10 days...yikes

[skierinvermont]

To be fair, though, the IPCC uses the minimal variation between MWP and LIA, certainly less than many skeptics would argue existed...It's easier to explain a .25C change in global climate using solar irradiance than a 1C change, and there's not complete consensus on what the global temperature was back then; all the proxies have their issues and large error bars, and the anecdotal reports pinpoint different cooling regimes beginning at varying times across the globe, with a common consensus that there was a cooling period between 1300-1800. So it's only a myth if you believe in the IPCC definitions of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Also, the 2007 IPCC report doesn't comment much on other aspects of solar variation besides total radiation emitted, whereas there has been much argument about meteorologists that solar changes can affect ENSO, cloud formation, the AO/NAO, etc. We definitely have an incomplete picture of how solar minima work given that we're just beginning to understand changes in the sun's rotation during the Maunder, the way solar can shape the tropical Pacific...no need for the common hubris that the IPCC has it all figured out. One of the best tools that the skeptics have is just how little we actually know about the climate, most ironically its ultimate driver, the sun.

There could still be positive changes in sea ice/snow cover in a -PDO/-AO/low solar regime...I mean Winter 09-10 had some of the highest Northern Hemisphere snow cover despite some of the warmest global temps ever recorded. Extrapolate those changes to the Arctic over a longer period of time and you'd start to see some albedo feedbacks.

The IPCC does not use the "minimal" variation between the MWP and LIA and it shows much more than a .25C variation.. get your facts straight. The IPCC includes all the major reconstructions that I know of, including Moberg et al. 2005 (one cited by Will as showing more variation than others). The climate models are able to accurately reproduce over a .5C variation based on solar and volcanic forcing between the MPW and LIA.

You can't just go around making up facts. The IPCC does not show a minimal variation and it does not show a .25C variation. You are basing your arguments on made up facts and fantasy. You can't just make science up however you feel like it.

[BethesdaWX]

I'd like reference to these models.

Our current Solar Max is on the same level as the MWP Max, Our CWP temperatures are on the same lavel as the MWP temperatures.

Our Modern Max was a faster "spike" upwards from weak solar in the 1700's/1800's to a huge Max from 1915-2000, which is why we see the "spike" in temps and sea level.

[tacoman25]

This study is old and barely readable. This isn't really disputable.. you perform a simple correlation study and temperature lags the solar cycle by 1-2 years NOT 6. It's basic very straightforward math.

Are we reinventing math now too?

In fact we don't even need math, all you have to do is look at this chart to see there is very little lag between intra-cycle changes and temperature:

That is assuming TSI is the only forcing mechanism to look at for correlations.

[BethesdaWX]

That is assuming TSI is the only forcing mechanism to look at for correlations.

Bingo.

[skierinvermont]

That is assuming TSI is the only forcing mechanism to look at for correlations.

The other variables directly correlate to TSI so whether the actual causation is TSI or something else, it doesn't matter for determining the lag from the cycle to temperature. I could have even done a graph of sunspots vs temp even though sunspots are only proxies for the actual mechanisms. Wouldn't make a difference. There is no lag. I know you all will just disagree with whatever I say so ask Will since he is like god around here.

As he just said the longest he's seen is 3 and the majority are 1-2 year lag.

Again I am speaking solely of the INTRA-cycle effect that we can expect from this cycle so please don't change the topic to inter-cycle changes.

[nzucker]

The IPCC does not use the "minimal" variation between the MWP and LIA and it shows much more than a .25C variation.. get your facts straight. The IPCC includes all the major reconstructions that I know of, including Moberg et al. 2005 (one cited by Will as showing more variation than others). The climate models are able to accurately reproduce over a .5C variation based on solar and volcanic forcing between the MPW and LIA.

You can't just go around making up facts. The IPCC does not show a minimal variation and it does not show a .25C variation. You are basing your arguments on made up facts and fantasy. You can't just make science up however you feel like it.

"The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980." (IPCC 2007)

It doesn't sound as if the IPCC believes that the Medieval Warm Period could have approached modern levels of warmth globally, or even in the Northern Hemisphere where the effects are supposed to be greater. Although they include all of the reconstructions and admit that European data such as the Lamb study shows regional climate warming of up to 2C, they don't accept that much variation on a global level.

Where did I say that they showed a .25C variation? That was an example....reading comprehension FTL Skier. The point was that some of the skeptic interpretations of how warm the Medieval Warm Period were would not be easy to support using modelling only tuned to changes in solar radiation.

[skierinvermont]

"The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980." (IPCC 2007)

It doesn't sound as if the IPCC believes that the Medieval Warm Period could have approached modern levels of warmth globally, or even in the Northern Hemisphere where the effects are supposed to be greater. Although they include all of the reconstructions and admit that European data such as the Lamb study shows regional climate warming of up to 2C, they don't accept that much variation on a global level.

Where did I say that they showed a .25C variation? That was an example....reading comprehension FTL Skier. The point was that some of the skeptic interpretations of how warm the Medieval Warm Period were would not be easy to support using modelling only tuned to changes in solar radiation.

You also said that "IPCC only uses the minimal variation between MWP and LIA" which is just straight up wrong. They include every reconstruction for which there is any evidence. The reconstruction that shows the most MWP warming (and which Will has cited many times to demonstrate this) is cited right there with all the others.

Skeptics may fantasize the MWP was tremendously warm globally, but they would be wrong.

Whether your .25C figure was hypothetical or not, you shouldn't have just made up a number. Spend the 2 minutes to find out how much variation the IPCC actually endorses.

[BethesdaWX]

The other variables directly correlate to TSI so whether the actual causation is TSI or something else, it doesn't matter for determining the lag from the cycle to temperature. I could have even done a graph of sunspots vs temp even though sunspots are only proxies for the actual mechanisms. Wouldn't make a difference. There is no lag. I know you all will just disagree with whatever I say so ask Will since he is like god around here.

As he just said the longest he's seen is 3 and the majority are 1-2 year lag.

Again I am speaking solely of the INTRA-cycle effect that we can expect from this cycle so please don't change the topic to inter-cycle changes.

There is most certainly a lag when INCLUDING more then just Solar Irradiance.....(read the study I posted yesterday)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16745163/Solar-Wind-Near-Earth-Indicator-Of-Variations-In-Global-Temperature

Total solar irradiance is not the only variabel at play though. Yes, other variables correlate to TSI obiously, but that doesn't mean their effect are the same. The earth will react differently to different types of energy influence.

[nzucker]

You also said that IPCC only accepts the reconstructions that show "minimal variation" which is just straight up wrong. They include every reconstruction for which there is any evidence.

Skeptics may fantasize the MWP was tremendously warm globally, but they would be wrong.

" With regard to Iceland and Greenland, Pettersson (1914) cited evidence for considerable areas of Iceland being cultivated in the 10th century. At the same time, Norse settlers colonised areas of Greenland, while a general absence of sea ice allowed regular voyages at latitudes far to the north of what was possible in the colder 14th century. Much of the evidence used by Lamb was drawn from a very diverse mixture of sources such as historical information, evidence of treeline and vegetation changes, or records of the cultivation of cereals and vines. He also drew inferences from very preliminary analyses of some Greenland ice core data and European tree ring records. Much of this evidence was difficult to interpret in terms of accurate quantitative temperature influences. Much was not precisely dated, representing physical or biological systems that involve complex lags between forcing and response, as is the case for vegetation and glacier changes. Lamb’s analyses also predate any formal statistical calibration of much of the evidence he considered. He concluded that ‘High Medieval’ temperatures were probably 1.0°C to 2.0°C above early 20th-century levels at various European locations (Lamb, 1977; Bradley et al., 2003a)." (IPCC 2007)

The Lamb study and Norse records would indicate far more climate change during the MWP than what the IPCC is willing to accept. It's hard to say how widespread these spikes in temperature were globally since we're lacking data for most of the oceans as well as large parts of the Southern Hemisphere...but the thing that strikes me as curious is that BOTH Greenland/Iceland and Europe were warm, indicating that this was not just normal weather variation due to oscillations in the NAO but rather a large scale shift in temperatures, sea ice, snow cover, etc. If you've done any research about European exploration in the 16th/17th centuries, you'll know that explorers repeatedly found a strong inverse relationship between winter conditions in Europe and the North Atlantic; if it was a mild winter in one place, it was likely a harsh winter in the other. To have both locations experiencing very mild winters suggests a large change in the global temperature...is it possible that the 1-2C warming was more widespread than we think? After all, the regions with the best data do show a lot of warming.

[tacoman25]

The other variables directly correlate to TSI so whether the actual causation is TSI or something else, it doesn't matter for determining the lag from the cycle to temperature. I could have even done a graph of sunspots vs temp even though sunspots are only proxies for the actual mechanisms. Wouldn't make a difference. There is no lag. I know you all will just disagree with whatever I say so ask Will since he is like god around here.

As he just said the longest he's seen is 3 and the majority are 1-2 year lag.

Again I am speaking solely of the INTRA-cycle effect that we can expect from this cycle so please don't change the topic to inter-cycle changes.

Well, I guess the question seems to be: should we only expect the "normal" amount of cooling from an abnormally long minimum? If solar activity remained well below normal levels, whether that be during the lowest point or the highest point of the cycle, wouldn't that continue to exert a cooling effect beyond 2-3 years from the absolute minimum?

Obviously the Maunder and Dalton minimums didn't just see cooling during the cycle minimums.

[BethesdaWX]

I'd like reference to these models.

Our current Solar Max is on the same level as the MWP Max, Our CWP temperatures are on the same lavel as the MWP temperatures.

Our Modern Max features a faster "spike" upwards from weak solar in the 1700's/1800's to a huge Max from 1915-2000, which is why we see the "spike" in temps and sea level.

To skier.

Warmists can fantasize the MWP as cooler than present day...but they would be incorrect.

[nzucker]

Whether your .25C figure was hypothetical or not, you shouldn't have just made up a number. Spend the 2 minutes to find out how much variation the IPCC actually endorses.

Why not? The point was that it's easier to explain small changes in climate using irradiance than larger changes, which may require a more complete, complex understanding of solar mechanisms. This wasn't intended to be a discussion of the IPCC reconstructions of the MWP. And it seems that overall, my point stands: they endorse a pretty conservative view of how dramatic the climate change was between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, so overall my comments are accurate.

[skierinvermont]

Why not? The point was that it's easier to explain small changes in climate using irradiance than larger changes, which may require a more complete, complex understanding of solar mechanisms. This wasn't intended to be a discussion of the IPCC reconstructions of the MWP. And it seems that overall, my point stands: they endorse a pretty conservative view of how dramatic the climate change was between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, so overall my comments are accurate.

No they do not endorse a conservative view. They endorse the view for which there is evidence. They include every reference for which there is any evidence including Moberg 2005 which shows more variation than any other (but we are still significantly warmer than during the MWP). If you have some evidence pertaining to MWP hemispheric or global temperatures that is not included I would love to hear it.

[BethesdaWX]

" With regard to Iceland and Greenland, Pettersson (1914) cited evidence for considerable areas of Iceland being cultivated in the 10th century. At the same time, Norse settlers colonised areas of Greenland, while a general absence of sea ice allowed regular voyages at latitudes far to the north of what was possible in the colder 14th century. Much of the evidence used by Lamb was drawn from a very diverse mixture of sources such as historical information, evidence of treeline and vegetation changes, or records of the cultivation of cereals and vines. He also drew inferences from very preliminary analyses of some Greenland ice core data and European tree ring records. Much of this evidence was difficult to interpret in terms of accurate quantitative temperature influences. Much was not precisely dated, representing physical or biological systems that involve complex lags between forcing and response, as is the case for vegetation and glacier changes. Lamb’s analyses also predate any formal statistical calibration of much of the evidence he considered. He concluded that ‘High Medieval’ temperatures were probably 1.0°C to 2.0°C above early 20th-century levels at various European locations (Lamb, 1977; Bradley et al., 2003a)." (IPCC 2007)

The Lamb study and Norse records would indicate far more climate change during the MWP than what the IPCC is willing to accept. It's hard to say how widespread these spikes in temperature were globally since we're lacking data for most of the oceans as well as large parts of the Southern Hemisphere...but the thing that strikes me as curious is that BOTH Greenland/Iceland and Europe were warm, indicating that this was not just normal weather variation due to oscillations in the NAO but rather a large scale shift in temperatures, sea ice, snow cover, etc. If you've done any research about European exploration in the 16th/17th centuries, you'll know that explorers repeatedly found a strong inverse relationship between winter conditions in Europe and the North Atlantic; if it was a mild winter in one place, it was likely a harsh winter in the other. To have both locations experiencing very mild winters suggests a large change in the global temperature...is it possible that the 1-2C warming was more widespread than we think? After all, the regions with the best data do show a lot of warming.

Exactly.

We also know there was significant Antarctic Ice Melt.....Very Warm temperatures down there surpassing those of today, so it hit both poles with LESS Ice.

Then we have the Data from South America and Africa....although too vague to make a conclusion.....Also showed a "Warm period".

The MWP could have easily been 1C warmer than today.

[tacoman25]

No they do not endorse a conservative view. They endorse the view for which there is evidence. They include every reference for which there is any evidence including Moberg 2005 which shows more variation than any other (but we are still significantly warmer than during the MWP).

As recently as 2009 members of the IPCC did not even know what the PDO was. I think you give them too much credit sometimes.

[BethesdaWX]

As recently as 2009 members of the IPCC did not even know what the PDO was. I think you give them too much credit sometimes.

For real?

[ORH_wxman]

As recently as 2009 members of the IPCC did not even know what the PDO was. I think you give them too much credit sometimes.

The IPCC has left a lot to be desired WRT some pretty straight forward climate concepts such as ocean cycles. For an organization that is supposed to be the leading authority on climate change and create public awareness to governments around the world, they are just going to look more foolish as we go forward unless they make some changes to the way they convey their stance on climate change to the outside.

[skierinvermont]

Well, I guess the question seems to be: should we only expect the "normal" amount of cooling from an abnormally long minimum? If solar activity remained well below normal levels, whether that be during the lowest point or the highest point of the cycle, wouldn't that continue to exert a cooling effect beyond 2-3 years from the absolute minimum?

Obviously the Maunder and Dalton minimums didn't just see cooling during the cycle minimums.

To answer this question you have to think of the mechanisms involved. The primary mechanism is TSI. The fluctuations in TSI are large enough to explain both the observed intra and inter-cycle changes in temperature.

Incoming SW radiation drops, this produces a fairly immediate response at the surface. Unless incoming SW radiation continues to drop, the surface temperature will stabilize at the new equilibrium.

[skierinvermont]

As recently as 2009 members of the IPCC did not even know what the PDO was. I think you give them too much credit sometimes.

The IPCC 2007 report dedicates a whole section to the PDO and the ability of climate models to simulate it.

They also dedicate whole sections to the NAM, SAM, AMO, ocean salinity and temperature structure etc...

Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability.

...

Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics.

[Clifford]

The other variables directly correlate to TSI so whether the actual causation is TSI or something else, it doesn't matter for determining the lag from the cycle to temperature. I could have even done a graph of sunspots vs temp even though sunspots are only proxies for the actual mechanisms. Wouldn't make a difference. There is no lag. I know you all will just disagree with whatever I say so ask Will since he is like god around here.

As he just said the longest he's seen is 3 and the majority are 1-2 year lag.

Again I am speaking solely of the INTRA-cycle effect that we can expect from this cycle so please don't change the topic to inter-cycle changes.

There is not a perfect correlation.

We are now seeing a spike in TSI followed by a decrease in TSI associated with an increase in X-Ray emissions and other emissions.

One can not assume that all wavelengths of light interact with the earth equally.

There is apparently a negative correlation between cosmic rays of extra-solar origin and solar activity.

There is some evidence for weather phenomenon such as overall cloudiness out of phase with TSI that some researchers attribute to cosmic rays.

[BethesdaWX]

Again skier

There is most certainly a lag when INCLUDING more then just Solar Irradiance.....(read the study I posted yesterday)

http://www.scribd.co...bal-Temperature

Total solar irradiance is not the only variabel at play though. Yes, other variables correlate to TSI obiously, but that doesn't mean their effect are the same. The earth will react differently to different types of energy influence.

[skierinvermont]

There is not a perfect correlation.

We are now seeing a spike in TSI followed by a decrease in TSI associated with an increase in X-Ray emissions and other emissions.

One can not assume that all wavelengths of light interact with the earth equally.

There is apparently a negative correlation between cosmic rays of extra-solar origin and solar activity.

There is some evidence for weather phenomenon such as overall cloudiness out of phase with TSI that some researchers attribute to cosmic rays.

And those researchers would be wrong. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies conclude that there is little if any effect of cosmic rays on global temperature and that the causative mechanisms are not even valid.

If you want to assert the influence of cosmic rays, why don't you tell me how you refute the dozen+ peer reviewed references here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

[ORH_wxman]

The IPCC 2007 report dedicates a whole section to the PDO and the ability of climate models to simulate it.

They also dedicate whole sections to the NAM, SAM, AMO, ocean salinity and temperature structure etc...

Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability.

...

Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics.

Yet just about all their models show hardly a flinch in global temps (and their forecasts)...pretty much straight up, even in the short term of 1 or 2 decades.

[skierinvermont]

Again skier

There is most certainly a lag when INCLUDING more then just Solar Irradiance.....(read the study I posted yesterday)

http://www.scribd.co...bal-Temperature

Total solar irradiance is not the only variabel at play though. Yes, other variables correlate to TSI obiously, but that doesn't mean their effect are the same. The earth will react differently to different types of energy influence.

Well then the other variables must actually cause warming since global temperatures are lowest at the solar minimum.

Global temperatures are lowest at the solar minimum. We are at the minimum. End of story.

[BethesdaWX]

The IPCC 2007 report dedicates a whole section to the PDO and the ability of climate models to simulate it.

They also dedicate whole sections to the NAM, SAM, AMO, ocean salinity and temperature structure etc...

Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability.

...

Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics.

This has nothing to do with Tacomans quote. "as recently as 2009, members of the IPCC did not know what the PDO was".

FYI, they also didn't know how much of Europe is below sea level , or the 35yr himalayan glacier....amazongate.......picking things out of magazines and using it as proof.

And, the common public is pointing this out.