Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I'm having two imediate problems with your viewpoint.

1) If you don't want someone else's lifestyle to effect your's, how can you justify the lifestyle of industrialized nations and how the biproducts of which effect other countries?

It's a two way street friend.

2) You seem to have a problem with the summary I posted because of the author's meantion of uncertainty it contains yet in your own profile...

ican711nm's profile wrote:

I am a probablist: One who believes certainty is probably impossible and that probability suffices to govern belief and action.

When I claim something is true, I am actually claiming something is more probably true than false.

Solar variance is certainly a varible, but the evidence has yet to converge on a degree of probablity to make such a rigid stance as you have.

Basically, you just don't like the conclusion.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

What evidence (not opinion) do you have to support your claim that the approximate 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1878 to 1998, or the approximate 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1911 to 1998, is an unprecedented change in earth's climate history, say, over the last million years?

It's the time scale in which these things are changing that is the evidence.
...

T
K
O

Of course, the time scale is relevant. More specifically, it is the rate of change that is quite relevant.

I'll phrase my question more specifically:
What evidence (not opinion) do you have to support your claim that the approximate 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1878 to 1998 (120 years), or the approximate 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1911 to 1998 (87 years), is an unprecedented rate of change in earth's climate history, say, over the last million years?

The article you refer to does not provide such evidence. It only opines such evidence exists.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

What evidence (not opinion) do you have to support your claim that the approximate 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1878 to 1998, or the approximate 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1911 to 1998, is an unprecedented change in earth's climate history, say, over the last million years?

It's the time scale in which these things are changing that is the evidence.
...

T
K
O

Of course, the time scale is relevant. More specifically, it is the rate of change that is quite relevant.

I'll phrase my question more specifically:
What evidence (not opinion) do you have to support your claim that the approximate 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1878 to 1998 (120 years), or the approximate 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature 1911 to 1998 (87 years), is an unprecedented rate of change in earth's climate history, say, over the last million years?

The article you refer to does not provide such evidence. It only opines such evidence exists.

Mostly ice cores at this point; extrapolation. The journal does more than opine, keep reading. You seem to trivialize an average earth dT/dt of 1degree/century. Did you bother looking at the dT/dt plot for one station in Russia? I just randomly picked one over a land mass. Averages meen little.

What evidence (not opinion) do you have to show that sun spots have driven climate change for the last say... 10,000 years?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm having two imediate problems with your viewpoint.

1) If you don't want someone else's lifestyle to effect your's, how can you justify the lifestyle of industrialized nations and how the biproducts of which effect other countries?

It's a two way street friend.

I think that a nation does not equal a person, and consequently does not have a lifestyle. Rather a nation has one or more cultures within it. Generally, a nation contains a population with a wide range of individual lifestyles.

2) You seem to have a problem with the summary I posted because of the author's meantion of uncertainty it contains yet in your own profile...

ican711nm's profile wrote:
I am a probablist: One who believes certainty is probably impossible and that probability suffices to govern belief and action.

When I claim something is true, I am actually claiming something is more probably true than false.

EXACTLY MY POINT. You have supplied little or nothing on which I can base a rational estimate of the probability that humans have had or are having anything more than an insignificant effect on climate changes. Until I have such evidence, I am concluding the whole human caused climate change theory will prove to be "much ado about nothing."

Solar variance is certainly a varible, but the evidence has yet to converge on a degree of probablity to make such a rigid stance as you have.

Basically, you just don't like the conclusion.

T
K
O

Basically, I just don't like fraud, hypochondria, or opinion polls.

Oh for the good ol' days when a minority of scientists were of the opinion that the speed of light did not vary with the speed of the emitter and/or the detector. Or when further back, a minority of scientists were of the opinion that the earth was not the center of the universe.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm having two imediate problems with your viewpoint.

1) If you don't want someone else's lifestyle to effect your's, how can you justify the lifestyle of industrialized nations and how the biproducts of which effect other countries?

It's a two way street friend.

I think that a nation does not equal a person, and consequently does not have a lifestyle. Rather a nation has one or more cultures within it. Generally, a nation contains a population with a wide range of individual lifestyles.

LOL.

You don't think that American's have a lifestyle independant of subculture? You don't think our choices effect the lifestyles of other individuals? If you can't handle the scope I'm sending you, I'll provide a small example for you.

A small group of American executives acting in such a way to raise profits and thus further promote their lifestyles, decides to manufacture an old product in a country were they won't have to pay people as much and also they won't have to spend as much money on disposal of chemical bi-products. This choice results in both an economic shift and an ecological event (such as the water table getting contaminated.)

The change negitively effects the lifestyles of both the Americans who used to make that product but lost their job, and the locals of the area where the water is contaminated.

Another example which is much more simple: Deforrestation.

If for your lifestyle, you contribute to deforrestation or strip mining, you are tampering with the ecosystem.

Tell me about what our lifestyle would look like with no more trees?

In short: You claim is false, worse ignorant.

Diest TKO wrote:

2) You seem to have a problem with the summary I posted because of the author's meantion of uncertainty it contains yet in your own profile...

ican711nm's profile wrote:
I am a probablist: One who believes certainty is probably impossible and that probability suffices to govern belief and action.

When I claim something is true, I am actually claiming something is more probably true than false.

EXACTLY MY POINT. You have supplied little or nothing on which I can base a rational estimate of the probability that humans have had or are having anything more than an insignificant effect on climate changes. Until I have such evidence, I am concluding the whole human caused climate change theory will prove to be "much ado about nothing."

Your opinion on solar variation as a cause seems pretty set though. So much for incertainty. You're not a probablist, you're a opinionist. You just like things that support your uncertainties.

Having a default position which is not neutral also contradicts your probablist claim. Even if I have a difficulty proving to you that humans are changing the climate, I dont' have to prove that the climate is changing. The reason for it's change does not default to anything.

All you have is your opinion.

Diest TKO wrote:

Solar variance is certainly a varible, but the evidence has yet to converge on a degree of probablity to make such a rigid stance as you have.

Basically, you just don't like the conclusion.

T
K
O

ican711nm wrote:

Basically, I just don't like fraud, hypochondria, or opinion polls.

Oh for the good ol' days when a minority of scientists were of the opinion that the speed of light did not vary with the speed of the emitter and/or the detector. Or when further back, a minority of scientists were of the opinion that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Yeah, and AGW, used to be the minortiy opinion too. Poor example if your trying to provide perspective.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
What evidence (not opinion) do you have to show that sun spots have driven climate change for the last say... 10,000 years?

T
K
O

I don't have any evidence that sun spots drive climate change for say ... the last 10,000 years.

I have evidence provided by those who have directly measured the intensity of the sun's radiation and the number of the sun's sunspots. They generally correlate. But "correlation is not cause."

I have evidence that the number of sunspots has been generally increasing over the last 100 years and so has global warming (i.e., THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBE HAS BEEN INCREASING). But again, "correlation is not cause."

I have evidence that it is generally cooler when standing in the shade than when not.

I have evidence that when water containing CO2 is heated, some of that CO2 evaporates mixed with the water that also evaporates.

I have evidence that when it rains some of the CO2 mixed with water vapor prior to its condensation into rain remains mixed in that rain.

Oh yes, I have evidence that the average temperature of the northern hemisphere's summer is generally warmer than its winter. But I also have evidence of exceptions to that.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
You don't think our choices effect the lifestyles of other individuals? If you can't handle the scope I'm sending you, I'll provide a small example for you.

A small group of American executives acting in such a way to raise profits and thus further promote their lifestyles, decides to manufacture an old product in a country were they won't have to pay people as much and also they won't have to spend as much money on disposal of chemical bi-products. This choice results in both an economic shift and an ecological event (such as the water table getting contaminated.)

The change negitively effects the lifestyles of both the Americans who used to make that product but lost their job, and the locals of the area where the water is contaminated.

Another example which is much more simple: Deforrestation.

If for your lifestyle, you contribute to deforrestation or strip mining, you are tampering with the ecosystem.

Tell me about what our lifestyle would look like with no more trees?

In short: You claim is false, worse ignorant.

OK! Good job! You are right and I am wrong!

I was thinking lifestyles were a collection of choices having little effect on what others choose to do. My notion was that within a culture that supports the principles that all humans are created with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that limits individual choices to conformity with those principles, such limits that I do encounter are, relatively speaking, trifles like not winning a contract, client, job, prize, or game because someone else won it instead. I think that because of what I have won, am winning and will probably win instead, and because what I have won has so far, far outweighed my loses.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

0 Replies

ican (who can't) wrote-

Quote:

I don't know the answer. Hell I don't even know the recommended units for measuring the size of a carbon footprint. Worse, even if I knew the recommended units, I don't even know the size of the carbon footprints for human walking, talking, or sleeping (to name only three).

Yeah- but you must have seen, if only on telly, the plants where they make those jets; the car parks, the arrangements for breaks and other stuff like the spending patterns of the workforce and how common it is to live, in the appropriate manner, cheek by jowl with one's workstation.

The mpg in flight might be insignificant by the side of it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ican (who can't) wrote-

Quote:
I don't know the answer. Hell I don't even know the recommended units for measuring the size of a carbon footprint. Worse, even if I knew the recommended units, I don't even know the size of the carbon footprints for human walking, talking, or sleeping (to name only three).

Yeah- but you must have seen, if only on telly, the plants where they make those jets; the car parks, the arrangements for breaks and other stuff like the spending patterns of the workforce and how common it is to live, in the appropriate manner, cheek by jowl with one's workstation.

The mpg in flight might be insignificant by the side of it.

I'm sure the mpg, or rather the total pounds burned over the jet's useful life, is insignificant in comparison to all that stuff.

But what is all that stuff's net impact on the quality of the lives of all the designers, producers, operators, and users of those jets? Are their lives generally shortened or lengthened? Healthier or sicker? Happier or sadder? More or less meaningful? More or less enjoyable? As near as I can tell, their lives are generally better in all those respects because of the design, production, operation, and use of those jets, despite the fact that in their lifetimes the average temperature of the globe will have gone up a degree or two.

Then we must ask about the rest of the human race. How are their lives affected? Some would be better off without all that stuff; some are better off because of all that stuff. Maybe you should hire a pollster to poll a random sample of the human race to learn what it thinks about this stuff's effect on their lives.

However, the propensity of humans to envy (i.e., resent others who have more than they do) has to figure in this analysis.

You are correct. I can't figure in all this. Can you?

0 Replies

When you put in terms such as a few degrees, you forget the weather associated with it. Many people have bennifitted from advances in technology and even in trivial advances in leasure or entertainment. That's not up for question.

We made the car, not let's make it more efficient.

We built the house, now build the next one more efficient.

As for the change in weather, look at the increasingly powerful hurricane seasons in the last decade. I'm sure the last thing on the Katrina survivors mind is how great an SUV would look in the driveway of their destroyed home.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

When you put in terms such as a few degrees, you forget the weather associated with it. Many people have bennifitted from advances in technology and even in trivial advances in leasure or entertainment. That's not up for question.

We made the car, not let's make it more efficient.

We built the house, now build the next one more efficient.

As for the change in weather, look at the increasingly powerful hurricane seasons in the last decade. I'm sure the last thing on the Katrina survivors mind is how great an SUV would look in the driveway of their destroyed home.

T
K
O

When I speak of an increase of a degree or two, I am in fact thinking of the total effect on the weather.

Cars...and airplanes... have been made in America for over 100 years and many have been made more efficient ever since, but not yet efficent enough.

Houses have been made in America by native Americans for who knows how long, and by immigrants for almost 400 years, and we all have been making many houses more efficient ever since, but not yet efficent enough.

Actually the trend over the last decade in the power and frequency of hurricanes has been diminishing and not increasing.

The magnitude of the Katrina mess was due more to the failures of Louisiana politicians before and after Katrina than it was due to Katrina. Katrina's center entered land at Gulfport, Mississippi--slightly east of Louisiana--yet Mississippi politicians dealt with the effects of Katrina far more competently than did the Louisiana politicians.

As for the appeal of an SUV to many people ... I don't understand it.

TRUE STORY
My wife and I own two cars: a 1990 4 door Ford Mercury, and a smaller 1996 four door Ford Contour. On the highway they both burn about 19mpg. We obey Texas law and have them inspected every year.

This year, 2007, for the first time they had to pass an extra test--an emissions test using the inspector's newly purchased state authorized $30,000 emissions testor. On first try, both cars failed the test. We were told that our cars (as well as many new cars) were not driven enough to remove enough of the carbon and other emissions from their exhaust systems. So the inspector recommended we drive each car for 2 hours at 70 mph on a nearby highway, and then come back for a second test. Both cars passed the second time.

I think there are two obvious ironies embedded in these events:
(1) Driving both cars at 70 mph for an extra 2 hours each produces more emissions for no other reason than passing an emissions test.
(2) Driving our cars far more than our usual total less than 2,000 total miles per year, will enable our cars to pass next year's emission test--without an extra two hours driving each--the first time, but they will produce far more emissions, while we do that.
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
It's a two way street friend.
...
2) You seem to have a problem with the summary I posted because of the author's meantion of uncertainty it contains yet in your own profile...

ican711nm's profile wrote:
I am a probablist: One who believes certainty is probably impossible and that probability suffices to govern belief and action.

When I claim something is true, I am actually claiming something is more probably true than false.

Solar variance is certainly a varible, but the evidence has yet to converge on a degree of probablity to make such a rigid stance as you have.

Basically, you just don't like the conclusion.

T
K
O

Basically, you just do like the conclusion.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...
It's a two way street friend.
...
2) You seem to have a problem with the summary I posted because of the author's meantion of uncertainty it contains yet in your own profile...

ican711nm's profile wrote:
I am a probablist: One who believes certainty is probably impossible and that probability suffices to govern belief and action.

When I claim something is true, I am actually claiming something is more probably true than false.

Solar variance is certainly a varible, but the evidence has yet to converge on a degree of probablity to make such a rigid stance as you have.

Basically, you just don't like the conclusion.

T
K
O

Basically, you just do like the conclusion.

I do "like" the conclusion, but what I "like" about the journal is not exclusive to the conclusion, I like the method and how thorough the author was. Taking the time to be so detailed gives the conclusion meaning.

I do "like" the conclusion, but "like" the body as well. It's very informative, and quite objective. As far as actual like/dislike, the conclusion is nothing to be actually happy about.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

When I speak of an increase of a degree or two, I am in fact thinking of the total effect on the weather.

...

You live in Texas. What did you think about the snow in 2004? I was on South Padre Island in December and the snow made it's way all the way down there.

I've yet to hear you talk about the total effect on the weather.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Number of Atlantic Hurricanes:
2005 = 15
2006 = 5
2007 = 6

In 2005 many more were predicted for 2006.

In 2006 many more were predicted for 2007.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

When I speak of an increase of a degree or two, I am in fact thinking of the total effect on the weather.

...

You live in Texas. What did you think about the snow in 2004? I was on South Padre Island in December and the snow made it's way all the way down there.

...
T
K
O

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans
New Orleans experiences snowfall only on rare occasions. Most recently, a small amount of snow fell during the 2004 Christmas Eve Snowstorm. On December 25, a combination of rain, sleet, and snow fell on the city, leaving some bridges icy. Before that, the last white Christmas was in 1954 and brought 4.5 inches (11 cm). The last significant snowfall in New Orleans fell on December 22, 1989, when most of the city received 1-2 inches (2-5 cm) of snow.

On October 24, 1980 in central Texas I personally witnessed a heavy 24-hour sleet storm, and occassionally thereafter I personally witnessed both snow and sleet storms of varying lengths.

Since 1980, in the months of July and August, I personally witnessed both more and less than 100 degree maximum temperatures for those months in central Texas. I blamed that on our relative proximity to the equator compared to more northern regions.

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=2803943
By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writer
SAN ANTONIO Jan 18, 2007 (AP)
Font Size

...
A bone-rattling blast of sleet and snow kept Texas and Oklahoma residents shivering in the dark on Thursday, while a blizzard north of Los Angeles caused big-rigs to jackknife.

Many Oklahoma schools remained closed Thursday, but Texas students headed back to class as transportation officials reopened some but not all roadways closed by ice.
...

A 300-mile stretch of Interstate 10 in Texas from Fort Stockton to San Antonio remained closed Thursday, but the Alamo in San Antonio reopened Wednesday.

More than 250 flights were canceled at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on Wednesday. Austin-Bergstrom International Airport canceled 102 flights, while San Antonio International Airport canceled 23 morning flights and Houston's two major airports had delays.

Looks to me like central Texas has both warmed and cooled over the years. I decided that to cure all that--whatever that means--I would flight instruct in airplanes more and drive in ground vehicles less. Besides, usually it's a lot cooler everywhere in the country above 3,500 agl (i.e., above ground level) than below.

Quote:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlya1.html
NAME & AREASa OF LARGEST LOSS APPROXIMATE DATES DEATHS AND DATA SOURCE(S)
1. MAR, STE, BAR, offshore 10-16 Oct 1780 >22000B,22000M,L,s,>20000AC
2. Galveston (Texas) 8 Sep 1900 12000C,j,>8000-12000AA,i,>8000H
3. FIFI: Honduras 14-19 Sep 1974 8000-10000AE,3000-10000R,>3000G
4. Dominican Republic 1-6 Sep 1930 8000AD,4000K,R,2000G,AC,R,T,BC,aq
5. FLORA: Haiti, Cuba 9/30-10/8 1963 8000G,7193A,R,7191BC,>7186R
6. Pointe-a-Pitre Bay (GUA) 6 Sep 1776 >6000BD
7. Newfoundland Banks 9-12 Sep 1775 4000L,z,c,aw
8. Puerto Rico, Carolinas 8-19 Aug 1899 >3433(I,J)+AV+CG,m,>3064(T,R,BC)+AV+CG
9. FL, GUA, PR, TUR, MAR 12-17 Sep 1928 >3411R+AF+BB+I+BL,(3375-4075)b
10. Cuba, CI, Jamaica 4-10 Nov 1932 >3107AR+AU,ad,2569R,>2500G,2500AC
11. Central Atlantic 16-17 Sep 1782 >3000AX,BU,c,at,z
12. Martinique Aug 1813 >3000BD,z
13. El Salvador, Honduras 4-8 Jun 1934 >3000W,>2000T,ae,506-3006R
14. Western Cuba 21-22 Jun 1791 3000M,J,BC,bh,257Y,>30AP
15. Barbados 10-11 Aug 1831 2500B,1525B,>1500L,AC,T,BC,BI,ah
16. Belize 6-10 Sep 1931 2500BB,1500R,1500G,AC,T,BC
17. HAI, HON, offshore JAM 19-25 Oct 1935 >2150T,af,1168-2168R+W,1000-2000AC
18. DAVID: DR, Dominica, US 8/29-9/5 1979 >2068R,>2063G
19. Offshore Florida (?) 1781 >2000BP,z
20. South Carolina, Georgia 27-28 Aug 1893 2000-2500X,1000-2000D,A,R,>1000T,s
21. Eastern Gulf of Mexico 17-21 Oct 1780 2000AP
22. Cuba 7-8 Oct 1870 2000AH,1000V,>800CN,136AG
23. Louisiana 1-2 Oct 1893 2000D,T,R,1800A
24. Guadeloupe, Martinique 14-15 Aug 1666 <2000M,J,AG,AJ,d,z
25. Martinique Aug 1767 1600I
26. Mexico 28 Aug 1909 1500T,BW,1000-2000V
27. W Cuba, Straits of FL Oct 1644 <1500M>1300BK,>500I,374I,T,AY,372BC
29. Offshore Nicaragua 1605 1300M,ak
30. GORDON: HAI, FL, CR, DR 8-21 Nov 1994 1145CA,bc
31. Jamaica, Cuba 2-5 Oct 1780 1115AR+M,w,>415M,42BB
32. Straits of Florida 5 Sep 1622 >1090M,z,90M
33. Gulf of Mexico early Nov 1590 >1000BD,c
34. Offshore Barbados 27 Sep 1694 >1000BD
35. S Bahamas, Straits of FL 30 Jul 1715 (>1000-<2500>1000BD,1000M
36. Havana (Cuba) 15 Oct 1768 >1000Y,AG,AJ,BB,BC,>100M,n,43B,AK
37. Veracruz (Mexico) 1601 1000M,c
38. HAZEL: HAI, US, GRE, CAN 5-13 Oct 1954 1000G,600-1200AD,575-1175R
39. INEZ: Caribbean, Mexico 9/27-10/1 1966 1000R
40. Cuba, PR, Turks Islands 1-5 Sep 1888 921R+I,bi
41. St. Thomas, Puerto Rico 29 Oct 1867 >811I,BC
42. Texas, Cuba 16-17 Sep 1875 800BS,q,180C,176R,A,BW
...
248. Texas, Gulf of MX, JAM 15-19 Aug 1916 27V+R,25V+AH 249. DORA: Mexico 12 Sep 1956 27R
250. U.S. mid-Atlantic coast 7-13 Sep 1854 26AS
251. NC, SC, offshore Bahamas 11-15 Jul 1916 26V,c
252. Bahamas, Florida 14-16 Sep 1945 26R
253. Cuba, Alabama 25-31 Aug 1950 26W+R
254. SW Atlantic, CU 9/26-10/9 1873 26V,aa
255. ANDREW: FL, LA, Bahamas 23-27 Aug 1992 26R
256. SC, offshore NC, GA 24-25 Aug 1885 25R+V
257. Georgia, South Carolina 27-29 Aug 1911 25R,24R,bk
258. Louisiana 25-26 Aug 1926 25D,R
259. CONNIE: North Carolina 11-13 Aug 1955 25D

Hurricanes in the 16th and 17th centuries Question

The USA didn't even exist then. By golly, the Pilgrims must have caused some of those hurricanes. Mad

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

...

You posted nothing to tell me what you thought about the snow in 2004.

T
K
O

0 Replies

In addition, very few GW people are saying that GW will cause more hurricanes so your totals by year for that doesn't mean much.

What the majority claim will happen is more severe storms, not more frequent.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
...

You posted nothing to tell me what you thought about the snow in 2004.

T
K
O

You posted:

snow in 2004 ... South Padre Island in December ...

I posted:

white Christmas in 1954 ... brought 4.5 inches ... snowfall in New Orleans ... on December 22, 1989, ...received 1-2 inches ...

October 24, 1980 in central Texas ... a heavy 24-hour sleet storm ...

New Orleans ... a small amount of snow fell during the 2004 Christmas Eve Snowstorm ...

Jan 18, 2007 ... blast of sleet and snow ... 300-mile stretch of Interstate 10 in Texas from Fort Stockton to San Antonio ...

What I thought about all that snow/sleet in Texas and Louisiana:

IT WAS ALL CAUSED BY EARTH'S WEATHER JUST LIKE THE SNOW/SLEET STORMS IN TEXAS IN THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES AND OTHER SUCH STORMS IN THE 20TH CENTURY!

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

In addition, very few GW people are saying that GW will cause more hurricanes so your totals by year for that doesn't mean much.

What the majority claim will happen is more severe storms, not more frequent.

Malarky! You guys change your pontifications about what climate changes humans are causing, each time your previous pontifications about what climate changes humans are causing is shown to be false.

Hint: Human influence on climate changes is negligible!

Trends in both hurricane frequency and intensity have fluctuated (i.e., increased and decreased) over the last 500 years.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know