Dakota Beacon

This would be great if we had unbiased climate scientists working on figuring out how much of the warming in the last 100 years was natural and how much was man made.

Since all of the many past temperature fluctuations were caused by natural cycles and we have barely scratched the surface regarding our understanding of these natural cycles, it's absurd to assume all of the 1 degree of warming the past 100 years must be from man.

Since there have been natural cycles going on the past 100 years and we don't know how they work, saying that all the warming must be from CO2, is like having 10 murder suspects for a crime, not knowing much about 9 of them but thinking the 10th looks guilty so lets convict him.
If they are legit they would get some experts and do research on:

1. the sun's influence, especially as it relates to galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind which has a big effect on cloud cover because of the particles needed for condensation nuclei. This is linked to the sunspot cycle but even more so the magnetic field on the sun.

2. The oceans influence. This vast reservoir of stored heat has 266 times the mass of the atmosphere.
We assume that a 1 degree increase in global temps is warming the oceans but water has 1,000 times more heat capacity than air and this planet is 2/3rds water. It could very well be the other way around.

3. Geothermal heat, especially as it is released under our vast oceans. The inside of this planet is many thousands of degrees and some of that heat is constantly escaping.

Global temps in January made a big spike upwards. This is very expected and almost entirely from the current El Nino, just like the spike of 1998 from that strong El Nino. Common sense tells you that if we know for sure El Nino's have such a powerful effect (La Nina's the opposite) than the oceans are getting vastly underweighted in their impact on climate change.

Oceans store heat for many, many hundreds of years.

There are longer term natural oceanic cycles, like the PDO-Pacific Decadal Oscillation which alternates from positive to negative around every 20-30 years which show a much closer 1 to 1 correlation between it and the warming than CO2 and the warming.

CO2 has been going up for 100 years but temps have had 20-30 year stretches when they cooled a bit in between the warming years which have also lasted 20-30 years.

The PDO and temp patterns the last 100 years are a very close match.

I hope to be wrong but my educated guess is that the new climate service will not look closely at these things and will be grossly manipulated for political ammunition just like the EPA has been.