Time Magazine's Jeffrey Kluger writes what might possibly be the stupidest article about climate ever – climate change causes volcanoes

The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.

volcanoes-climateExcerpt from the article:

Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island to rise. And that’s where the trouble begins.

Riiight.

Here’s the money quote:

“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.” The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement and blow the whole mess through the surface.

“High heat content at lower pressure creates an environment prone to melting these rising mantle rocks, which provides magma to the volcanic systems,” says Arizona geoscientist Richard Bennett, another co-author.

Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting. The magma’s always been there; it’s the rising global temperature that’s new. At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.

So, Iceland has had melting glaciers, OK we’ll accept that, but Iceland is not the world, and a good number of volcanoes that have erupted in the last century are in the tropical parts of the world where there are no glaciers on the volcanoes or magma fields, yet somehow, this writer, Jeffrey Kluger, extrapolates Iceland’s glacier melt to volcano link up to to the entire world.

To the uniniformed (such as Time Magazine writers), graphs like this one might seem to be “proof” of such Icelandic-to-global extrapolation:

volcano-2[1]Source data: http://volcano.si.edu/

Gosh, it sure looks like another slam dunk for carbon dioxide driven climate hell in a handbasket, doesn’t it? The VEI starts increasing right about the time of the industrial revolution.

For those unfamiliar: The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) was devised by Chris Newhall of the US Geological Survey and Stephen Self at the University of Hawaii in 1982 to provide a relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions. (Wikipedia)

But, there’s a hitch, according to NOAA data, volcanic activity worldwide actually went DOWN in the 2000’s while the climate changing carbon dioxide went UP in global concentration:

Volcanoes-figure-2[1]
Source: PLOS One The Human Impact of Volcanoes: a Historical Review of Events 1900-2009 and Systematic Literature Review (2013)
co2_data_mlo[1]Correlation isn’t causation, at least when it comes to CO2 and climate and volcanoes.

Something that DID increase during the study period was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Guess where Iceland is? In the North Atlantic, which has been in the warm phase since about 1980.

The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years.

AMO_fig123[1]Source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html

Gee, do you think maybe, possibly, that Iceland might have more glacier melt when the AMO is warmer? The authors don’t seem to be cognizant of it, preferring instead to cite the universal bogeyman “climate change”.

Here is the publication that is cited in the Time article:

Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy

Abstract

Earth’s present-day response to enhanced glacial melting resulting from climate change can be measured using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. We present data from 62 continuously operating GPS instruments in Iceland. Statistically significant upward velocity and accelerations are recorded at 27 GPS stations, predominantly located in the Central Highlands region of Iceland, where present-day thinning of the Iceland ice caps results in velocities of more than 30 mm/yr and uplift accelerations of 1-2 mm/yr2. We use our acceleration estimates to back-calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends. We show, through a simple inversion, a direct relationship between ice mass balance measurements and vertical position and show that accelerated unloading is required to reproduce uplift observations for a simple elastic layer over viscoelastic half-space model.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062446/abstract

Again, no mention of the world here, only Iceland. Compare that to the baseless claim made by the TIME writer Jeffrey Kluger:

The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

Newsflash Mr. Kluger: Iceland is not “everywhere”, and the authors make no claim about the issue affecting the rest of the Earth.

WUWT reader Mike Bromley writes something on his Facebook page that I really can’t improve upon:

Plate tectonics….caused by climate change. No mention of the fact that Iceland has one of the highest geothermal heat fluxes on the planet, that its geomorphology is controlled by vulcanism, that many of the scientific terms for glacial melt features are in Icelandic Language, and oh boy, 11 billion tons of ice is really not that much, in fact, one eruption of Hekla or Eyjafjallajokull would release about that much ice.

These people have zero shame, and even less uniformitarian common sense. They elevate conjecture to the level of fact, for an uncritical media to spew around in alarming terms. This one takes the cake. Vote Green, everyone. Soon you’ll find out what living under nature is all about.

We’ll have more on this later, readers are encouraged to add comments regarding this inanity.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

357 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
January 30, 2015 11:00 am

..and just last year it was magma

looncraz
Reply to  Latitude
January 30, 2015 12:19 pm

…they do grow up fast…

ShrNfr
Reply to  looncraz
January 30, 2015 1:55 pm

They sort of magnafy so to speak.

Reply to  looncraz
January 30, 2015 7:04 pm

You’re having a larv…
Pointman

ferdberple
Reply to  Latitude
January 30, 2015 5:44 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again/
Willis found quite a different story. During the time when AGW was actually happening (if it was), during the rapid warming in the1980’s and 1990’s, here are the facts:comment image?w=720

Reply to  ferdberple
February 1, 2015 1:50 am

This separate article better explains the connections, and that there is a >2,000 year lag between the climate warming and the increased volcanic activity.
http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html

ferdberple
Reply to  Latitude
January 30, 2015 5:46 pm

Looking at the graph in the original article, volcanoes started ramping up around 1800. Perhaps someone can explain how that was caused by human CO2 from fossil fuels?

Jimbo
Reply to  ferdberple
January 31, 2015 1:13 am

Let’s remember what this WUWT post is trying to address – Jeffrey Kluger of Time Magazine said:

That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

The authors of the paper talk about Iceland and not countries which don’t have glaciers but have volcanoes. The Time piece has already issued one correction [“Correction appended Jan. 30, 2015“]. Maybe it’s time it issued another.

Reply to  Latitude
January 31, 2015 6:41 pm

Next year it’ll be smegma.

Aleks mici
Reply to  john
February 1, 2015 2:10 am

This the best comment !
Those so called science humans.Buach I vomit !

Reply to  john
February 1, 2015 2:17 pm

…which would pretty much prove they’re dick-heads?

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
January 30, 2015 11:01 am

A true Nut Job and Time Mag. as well as the “Authors” and GRL Editors; psycho-ward escapees!
Did the intrepid GRL Editors even notice the word, Geophysical, in their rags title, or for the Nut Jobs to read that Iceland is built on the Mid-Atlantic Spreading Ridge separating two lithosphere plates above the Iceland Hotspot!
Idiots all.

Jimbo
January 30, 2015 11:04 am

“Number of Volcanic Eruptions Reported

How important is that word in the scheme of things?

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
January 30, 2015 11:15 am

Is it possible that the “Number of Volcanic Eruptions Reported“ has trended up because of better observations?
Unreported volcanoes deduced from aerosols.

Abstract
A decade of stratospheric sulfate measurements compared with observations of volcanic eruptions
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC088iC06p03741/abstract
Abstract
SAGE II observations of a previously unreported stratospheric volcanic aerosol cloud in the northern polar summer of 1990
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL03376/abstract

Jay Hope
Reply to  Jimbo
January 30, 2015 3:54 pm

But some other experts have suggested that global cooling is causing more volcanic eruptions! And I thought the warming had stopped 18 years ago?

Mac the Knife
January 30, 2015 11:06 am

I just read the Time article, linked from Drudge Report, and came over here to see if had ‘surfaced’ yet.
http://time.com/3687893/volcanoes-climate-change/
Breathtaking conjecture that belies reason, sanity, even sentience.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Mac the Knife
January 30, 2015 12:32 pm

Read that too. In middle of article is video of Jeffrey Kluger taking on Sen. James Inhofe using the 97% fudge. We know that attack. Shut it off, waste of bandwidth.

highflight56433
January 30, 2015 11:07 am

Here I have been blaming increased taxation for global change everything inclusive natural and unnatural… ufda!
“We’ll have more on this later, readers are encouraged to add comments regarding this inanity (insanity).”
I can’t imagine living with a mind that is so off the chart stupid…and I am not exactly anything bright. lol

Questing Vole
Reply to  highflight56433
January 30, 2015 12:28 pm

Highflight56433
You’d be right to blame some increased taxation on climate change, or at least on crazy policies designed to counter the conjectured “catastrophic anthropogenic” variety.

JayB
Reply to  highflight56433
January 31, 2015 12:59 pm

highflight – As much as I have pondered this problem, I don’t know how I missed ‘higher taxation’ as a reasonable cause! I’m still laffin’ – and I’m grateful to you because, after reading the piece, I was in dire need of a jolly to help settle my stomach. Also, its been quite some time since I’ve seen the interjection ‘ufda’. This is a good word and should be used more often.

JayB
Reply to  JayB
January 31, 2015 1:04 pm

Actually, I suggest that higher taxation is a result rather than a cause. . .

Bezotch
Reply to  JayB
February 1, 2015 10:23 am

JayB:
It is both.
More money in the government’s hands causes more wasteful spending on studies such as this. Studies such as this cause higher taxes, which gives the government more money to waste on studies like this, which cause taxes to go up…..
It is called a positive feedback.

January 30, 2015 11:07 am

Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
I remember the infamous ‘corrector of climate disinformation’ Jo Abbas scratching around in Mar 2011 following the Tōhoku/Sendai earthquake/tsunami as she was convinced it was all our fault. ‘Science’ has proved how right she was
/sarc

Ryan
January 30, 2015 11:07 am

Just one year ago Time was reporting that volcanoes were slowing down climate change.
http://time.com/9717/volcanoes-may-be-slowing-down-climate-change/

Bert Walker
Reply to  Ryan
January 30, 2015 5:14 pm

So, actually this volcano effect would represent a negative feedback for the (infinitesimal) CO2 climate forcing.
We shall now all be saved from Anthropogenic Global Warming by erupting volcanos. Yeah!

January 30, 2015 11:08 am

it is ridiculous, should not be given any play.

Editor
January 30, 2015 11:12 am

Icelandic glaciers reached their Holocene maximum during the Little Ice Age.
From Ingolffson et al, 2009:
During the mid-Holocene climate optimum some of the present-day ice caps were probably absent. Ice caps expanded after 6.0–5.0 cal. kyr BP, and most glaciers reached their Holocene maxima during the Little Ice Age (AD 1300–1900).
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/iceland-glaciers-in-lia-biggest-for-8000-years/
And they’re surprised they’ve melted a bit since?

Jimbo
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 30, 2015 11:36 am

They did some retreating before 1949. Blame co2?

J Eythorsson – Geografiska Annaler, 1935 – JSTOR
On the variations of glaciers in Iceland. Some studies made in 1931
…..Drangajokull is especially remarkable in that it has undergone considerable changes during historic times. It has laid waste several farms, and the ruins of some of them may still be seen and are known by name……..In Drangajokull no volcanic eruptions are known to have taken place within historic times. Its variations must therefore chiefly be due to climate changes,
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/519954?sid=21105212693471&uid=2&uid=4
============
Temperature variations in Iceland
J Eythorsson – Geografiska Annaler, 1949 – JSTOR
… The glaciers have been rapidly retreating and thinning for the last two decades, and wherever
you travel in the…..
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iceland+glaciers+retreat&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1900&as_yhi=1950
[paywalled]

Frank
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 31, 2015 5:35 pm

Even better, we have a new thermostat theory of climate control to added to Willis’s. Volcanos erupt and cause global cooling. Cooling causes Ice caps grow on volcanos. Weight of ice suppresses volcanic activity. Volcanic aerosols clear from the air, causing global warming. Global warming returns, melting ice caps. Volcanic activity is restored.

Aleks mici
Reply to  Paul Homewood
February 1, 2015 2:17 am

Yes , your comment it is the most competent !
Grosseclockner ( Austria) glacier was not there 2000 years ago, after that it grew imenssely to the valley 25 km long, after that smelted again and in that place it was a lake and again the glacier rise hugely , all that before the industrial era, and now it smelt slowly and those scientific bastards crys: disaster ! disaster .
If don’t obey to politicians and banks we will not get any salary. Therefore climat change.
Such imbecile tautology : climat change !

David M
January 30, 2015 11:14 am

Gee..here in new Mexico we had volcanoes erupting millions of yrs ago…must have climate change

DirkH
January 30, 2015 11:20 am

Cool! We’ll have Palm trees, pomegranates and olive trees in Germany, and volcanos in our gardens! Big fun!

January 30, 2015 11:26 am

Some people never learn to understand tectonic plates…. that’s one thing. Stupid as it might be….

Harold
January 30, 2015 11:27 am

Yes, kids, you too can play scientist with a degree from Acme School of Journalism!

Mac the Knife
January 30, 2015 11:27 am

Excellent rebuttal analysis, Anthony!

January 30, 2015 11:27 am

Too bad it’s not true — otherwise, this would be a major negative feedback mechanism.

DirkH
Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 31, 2015 4:40 am

Negative feedback against a warming that has stopped 18 years ago? How does a negative feedback work against a signal that refuses to change?

January 30, 2015 11:27 am

A related thread:
Another story about global warming causing volcanoes… WUWT Oct. 2, 2014.
I don’t buy it at all. Earth-Tides move the crust up and down 0.3 meters twice a day.
What I can buy is a drop in sea level during Global Cooling can cause volcanic eruptions by increasing the stress on thousands of volcanic islands with their lava skirts exposed above water.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
January 30, 2015 6:56 pm

What about a contest on WUWT as to what ridiculous geological or astronomical catastrophe will be caused by global warming. I’ll start with: “A significant change in the Earth’s axial tilt found from melting polar icecaps!” Try to top that one – without being too far fetched.

ralfellis
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 31, 2015 2:33 am

Disruption of the Earth’s axis die too much ice at the poles? Sorry, that one was done long ago, and several people still have the T-shirt…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis
Ralph

Bezotch
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 1, 2015 10:31 am

How about:
Due to thermal expansion caused by global warming, the earth has a larger surface area and therefore is much more likely to be hit by an asteroid or comet.
Co2 causes asteroid strikes.

grant
January 30, 2015 11:30 am

It looks like it should be a wash. As more ice melts, the sea level will increase, putting more pressure on those undersea volcanos causing less eruptions there. /sarc

Reply to  grant
January 30, 2015 2:41 pm

I’m not sure if it’s a wash. Last year I proposed this mechanism informally. The way I see it, the ice ages should cause increased volcanism in sea floor spreading centers. The rhythmic ebb and flow of sea level oscillating about 130 meters should allow magma chambers to “reload” when the ice is growing and sea level drops. Once the sea level rises there’s a fairly large load imposed over a large area, this should increase magma chamber pressure.
If this mechanism works then we have a decreased local load where the glaciers melted, and increased load in the areas where there were no glaciers and were underwater. But this “kneading” effect should be at its peak when sea level rose and hit a high point. I would have expected increased volcanic activity from say 18000 to 8000 years ago.
I don’t think tying volcanic activity to anthropogenic CO2 has much to stand on, but the geomechanic effects do merit study.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  grant
January 30, 2015 5:22 pm

Ice has a density of about 57 lb/cu ft and so exerts a pressure of 0.396 psi. At a depth of 1 mile, the additional pressure on the crust of the earth is 2,090 psi. Basalt has a density of about 190 lb/cu ft. I found one reference suggesting magma chambers lie around 11-15km below the earth’s surface. Crustal pressure from 11km of basalt above the chamber would be on the order of 47,500 psi. Doesn’t sound like a big change (~5%) to me. Even less, depending on the depth of the glaciers under discussion.

ferdberple
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
January 30, 2015 5:39 pm

the entire ice cap would have to melt to change the pressure 5%. they are not even sure if the ice cap is shrinking or growing. depends on who does the measuring.

nielszoo
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
January 31, 2015 12:00 pm

OK I’ll buy that and add a bit.
Iceland is ~40,000 mi² and the glacial coverage is ~11% of that or 122.6×10^9 ft². 11 billion tons of ice (I’ll even use long tons since they didn’t specify) means 197 lbs of ice lost for each ft². That’s a pressure change of 1.37psi. (Yes, I know that’s not how glaciers lose ice, but that’s what the article infers.) If we ignore the rest of the ice depth and just use the basalt’s pressure that’s a delta from 47,500 psi to 47,498.63 psi or a change of 0.002%. <sarc>I can’t imagine why the whole island isn’t now flooded by magma like a dam just broke with that massive pressure change.</sarc> Considering it takes more overpressure than that to break the average plate glass window this is another one I ain’t worrying about. What an inane article, but the loons that think crystals can heal them and Nature is benevolent will buy it hook, line and (lead free, all natural, approved by the State of California) sinker.

Aleks mici
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
February 1, 2015 2:34 am

The scientific bastrads treat the Earth as it is an abces !
Strange ways to make clear what it is absolutely not possible to be known.
It is just an educated guess , not more . But they try to sell a fraud , just to please their masters of the NWO.

chris moffatt
January 30, 2015 11:32 am

Yeah! I can’t tell you how many prospecting trips we had to cancel because of active volcanoes in Labrador when I was in the mining business. The whole Canadian Shield, as I understand, is completely untravellable because of constant lava eruptions. And it’s only getting worse as the air temperatures spiral upwards out of control. I understand there are similar problems in Hawaii with the glaciers there. And as soon as the mile thick ice is gone from Yellowstone we can expect another super-eruption – should be anytime in the next twenty thousand years.

hunter
January 30, 2015 11:35 am

Over at Bishop Hill, poster Michael Hart stated:
“The BBC aspire to educate the world, yet they cannot educate themselves.”
Reading this article from Time, it seems clear that the deliberate ignorance of the BBC extends to other media outlets.
It is fair to state that Time Magazine aspires to inform its readers, but declines to educate itself.

Rob
January 30, 2015 11:39 am

The elevated alarm raised by the ‘research’ is rather shocking, but the disgust should be directed toward the post doc PhD student from U of A who is principally making the claim, with total blinders on. Unfortunately, there are incompetent personnel at every institution.

January 30, 2015 11:40 am

I blame it on the schools, people are often taught how to write good English at the expense of never been taught basic logic. Common sense and actual fact checking are indeed a rare commodity to most in Journalism. This could have simply been blown out the water by just passing the paper under the noses of a few academics from true sciences first – the BS reaction would have been almost instant.

Harold
Reply to  ecoGuy
January 30, 2015 11:45 am

Good English? Where? Most kids (and many adults) these days think ‘their’ is singular.

mebbe
Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 12:35 pm

Pedantry is all well and good but you run the risk of saying something silly. And you just did that.
Impersonal ‘their’ has been employed by speakers and writers, many of them highly esteemed, since at least the fifteenth century.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 12:55 pm

“Stupidest” vs “Most stupid” (more stupid/stupider) has also been bandied about for quite some time,
as has the usage of “bantered” vs “Bandied”.
I don’t care.
All I want to know is, where are the trolls?

Harold
Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 1:30 pm

Consensus of the esteemed? Oy.

mebbe
Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Harold,
Doubling down on silly!

CodeTech
Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 3:08 pm

Their they’re – just relax, don’t listen to the loosers, there not to brite neway.

Reply to  Harold
January 30, 2015 8:51 pm

Isn’t as important as learning how to think, they could do that poor English could be forgiven.

highflight56433
Reply to  ecoGuy
January 30, 2015 11:49 am

Few graduate with any sense of “good” writing skills. Even some GRPs are scribbled drivel on TP.

Reply to  ecoGuy
January 30, 2015 3:26 pm

ur n 2 smting

DCA
January 30, 2015 11:42 am

Warming causes volcanoes which causes cooling. Where’s the net “Change”? ….or is volcanic activity a negative freedback to the warming?

DCA
January 30, 2015 11:42 am

that’s feedback

JPS
January 30, 2015 11:45 am

“Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting.”
There’s no need to be nasty about it. It’s a fine question: How sure are you which one causes which?
Only in climate science and a few other fields is asking such questions seen as evidence of bad faith.
Being one of those uncanny 2+2 = 5 folks (not really, but he’d say so), I’d further ask: How did they disprove that volcanic activity caused the melting? Were they open to the idea that it did, or did they start with the need to disprove this alternative? I’m hoping there’s more to it than “The magma’s always been there,” since their whole observed effect is *increased* volcanic activity!
Not that I am making this case; I’d incline, while confessing my relative ignorance, toward the AMO explanation nicely given above. But that’s the great thing about this particular “science”: You’re not allowed to ask, “How do you know that?” or say “Not so fast,” unless you have the right credentials and signal that you’re on the right team.

Andrew
Reply to  JPS
January 30, 2015 2:58 pm

This.
“Being one of those uncanny 2+2 = 5 folks (not really, but he’d say so), I’d further ask: How did they disprove that volcanic activity caused the melting? Were they open to the idea that it did, or did they start with the need to disprove this alternative? I’m hoping there’s more to it than “The magma’s always been there,” since their whole observed effect is *increased* volcanic activity!”
Yep, the magma has always been there, at precisely the same temp, never moved, never had rock above it weakened by tremors, and sat 1C below its freezing point at high pressures. Only when AGW took away what, 2m of ice thickness? did volcanoes happen.
How do volcanoes ever happen anywhere else then???

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  JPS
January 31, 2015 12:44 am

But 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2.

nielszoo
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
January 31, 2015 12:07 pm

+1

Just an engineer
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
February 2, 2015 9:57 am

And after proper hominization, there is a 38% chance that 2+2 will equal 6!

Mike M
January 30, 2015 11:46 am

Then let’s just chalk up volcanoes as being yet another negative feedback….

Texcis
Reply to  Mike M
January 30, 2015 12:31 pm

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it! Nature’s thermostat control much more advanced than ours.

1 2 3 6