Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  Next

Comments 54051 to 54100:

  1. Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
    The "Climate Realists" website has republished Bastardi's claims about the "rapid recovery" of Arctic sea ice this month, along with his picture. Even after I pointed out the picture was not what he claimed it is, the site moderator yelled "Squirrel!!" and changed the subject, but the picture still stands. They really don't care if it's correct or not, as long as it fools enough people. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10209
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Link added by request.
  2. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    villabolo: I couldn't find any kind of international survey on eschatological views, which was a surprise, but does support my impression that the different kinds of millenialism are mainly a US concern. But your analysis at @23 seems very plausible to me.
  3. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thanks Eric, I really do not wish to rehash all the previous comments, but it seems to me that you also put a caveat on that previously, namely that you accept the 97% scientific consensus except where it is based on models. Further more, you put a further constraint on climate sensitivity namely: "all the uncertainty points to lower sensitivity" which virtually invalidates most of the models which are based on middle ball park estimates. Though why uncertainty should point in any general direction, I do not know. It is accepted scientific practice that uncertainty is dealt with by saying + or - 5% (or whatever), so equal weighting in both direction. So hence you are loading the dice against the models as well for no good reason, thereby guaranteeing that you won't accept those bits of the scientific consensus. Do I have it right so far?
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 20:08 PM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntingdon1 wrote "People at high altitudes breathe less O2 (and Co2), but continue to metabolize glucose, which produces water and Co2. Thus, people at high altitudes are exposed to a higher ratio of Co2 to O2 internally. But yes, the atmosphere is less dense all around." I very much doubt this is correct. The amounts of CO2 produced from glucose metabolism are going to be very small compared with the amounts in the atmosphere already. Unless of course you are indoors in which case CO2 levels are not primarily determined by background CO2 levels and so your initial hypothesis is invalid anyway.
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 20:02 PM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntingdon1 I asked you for a peer-reviewed* study that supported your hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a significant metabolic benefit. You were only able to provide papers supporting some of the component parts of the hypothesis. Ideally one would like to see the self-skepticism that would be indicated by a straight answer that clearly stated that there were no papers that supported the hypothesis itself. No regarding the obesity paper, as you said I used logic as the basis for my skepticism of that hypothesis. The same logic underpins my skepticims of your hypothesis, I doubt rising background levels of CO2 have a great effect on CO2 levels indoors or in urban environments, where CO2 levels are likely to be determined by local source and sinks. You did not address that issue. If CO2 levels did have a significant effect on metabolism (i) we would be able to see those benefits in human health and (ii) it would be easy to perform the experiments to confirm the link and there would be a paper on the subject by now. *yes, I do know that peer-review is no guarantee of correctness, however it does at least mean that the paper has passed the preliminary sanity check of peer review.
  6. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Thanks for taking up my question. IMO, this is the first real observation which I found and could finally lead to a sound sceptical argument about AGW. I think we can agree that, no matter how accurate that graph in the WP is drawn, it does match the generally observable trend from other TSI records: No matter how we might find issues with the WP-graph, the graph "historical TSI reconstruction" on http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm does also show a correllation of TSI and global (not only USA) rising temperature trend. Now, if I understand correctly, that correllation is not really being challenged as concerning the first half of the 20th century, right? According to what KR did quote, we look merely at the time since 1985, where TSI goes downwards. Others say we need to look at the time since about 1960. So, it is only from that point of time that GHG could really take over as a driver, right? But, atmospheric temp seems again to align to the weaker TSI, by keeping moreless its level since 1998. However, we then argue that it is the global oceanic temp, which continues to rise. Correct? If I go by simplified logic, it should be like that: +TSI +GHG = strong raise of global temperature -TSI +GHG = weaker raise of global temperature (if at all, if you look at the lag at the climax shown by the ice core curves...) If we observe merly atmospheric global temperature, this simplified logic seems to apply and our AGW Theorie seems to fail. Atmospheric temperatur does indeed not rise for about 10 years! But if we put emphasis on the oceanic global temperature, we instead observe a continued strong raise of global temperature, right? Which is odd, too. If it should be mainly GHG as responsible factor, could that raise really be that strong? It should be weaker than a bundled raise of TSI and GHG together, right? Or do we commit an error by taking into account oceanic temperature somehow in a wrong way? Or do we still not understand TSI, or other influences and its effects on earth correctly? This seem at least to be possibilities. Along these lines, another observation: I always understood IPCC arguing that climate is a long term issue, and that we observe a rather strong raise of 0,8 degree since 1850. But suddenly, I see here that most of the raise can be aligned with historical TSI-data (as far as we know...) and it is only 1960 or 1985 where GHG really could kick-in. This does not seem consistent, do we have AGW by GHG emissions since 1850 or since 1960/1985??? I am confused.
  7. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I think it's worth pointing out that the key difference between an ETS and a simple carbon tax is that the latter relies entirely on price signals to control emissions while in the former the critical point is the cap — the price of the carbon is simply a by-product of how easily the cap is met. The disadvantage of an ETS is that it makes it harder for business to plan for the future because they don't know how expensive emissions will be, but let's not forget its advantages!
  8. It's not bad
    "More CO2 means less O2 is absorbed immediately into the hemoglobin, but the O2 that is picked up is easily distributed." Yes, my point exactly. For all you know, the two things cancel out, or worse. You've provided no real evidence that increasing ambient CO2 has a net positive impact on O2 use efficiency. It could just as easily be a negative impact. In any case, even if you were correct, it is besides the point. As KR notes, the point of the OP is not that increasing CO2 is always bad for everything under all circumstances. It's that, taken together, the effects of increasing CO2 on organisms and human society will be on balance very negative. That's true even when we acknowledge the positive effects of increasing, including CO2 fertilization of plants. By focusing on a few physiological processes, you're missing the forest for a few cherry trees.
  9. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    wyoming@22 "... it is obvious that the solution to our situation 'requires' a dramatic reduction in the scope and complexity of industrial civilization or we will never lower carbon emissions sufficiently in time to prevent catastrophe." We've already lost the time we needed 'to prevent catastrophe' if you're thinking in terms of getting the work done soon enough in the way that the computer industry put their heads down and eliminated the Y2K threat. Even if we'd started properly 25 years ago with building standards, vehicle efficiency and renewable energy we'd still have a lot to do. The 'scope and complexity' of our industrial and commercial activities can be redirected or refocused to achieve better objectives much more easily than they can be halted. We don't stop mining - we start mining (or reopen worked out mines) to extract olivine and similar materials that can be milled into gravels and dusts to remove CO2. If we cut our capacity to perform such activities effectively, we cut off our best chance to reverse some of the damage we've already done. We don't stop building houses and businesses. We build them better and we fix the ones we've got. 'we will never lower carbon emissions sufficiently' is absolutely right. Let's face it, decreasing emissions alone has no chance at all of reducing accumulated CO2 concentrations at the rate needed. Cutting the rate of further accumulation will not be enough. We have to do a lot more than that if the data we're now getting about extreme weather events and loss of glaciers and sea ice is anything to go by. And we have to maintain our capacity to deal with adaptation. Education and training for different industries performing different activities does not mean 'a dramatic reduction' in the size of industry. It just means different industries with different priorities. We've left it too late for a Y2K type success. The best we can hope for is a CFC type operation. When you look at how long it's taken to stabilise the SH ozone hole, let alone reduce it, we're going to have to work a lot harder.
  10. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Seconding DSL's pointer to Science of Doom, the gold standard of "working it out" step-by-step. If you want to get comprehensively, deeply schooled, head to SoD.
  11. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Ed, I'm not going to try to do the math, because . . . well, because I just don't want to spend the time on Venus. I will point you to Science of Doom, though: Venusian Mysteries Part 1 Venusian Mysteries Part 2 Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion SoD is quite willing to discuss the fine details to the nth degree.
  12. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    We have to start attacking the demand side. Only once we stigmatized smoking did 2nd hand smoke regulations start popping up all over the place. Most folks are patriotic souls. We need to really sneer at their fossil fuel usage, all the time, so they start to doubt their own knowledge and choices. One possible Tshirt in this campaign: Image of walker passing by gas station yelling "You're burning your kids' FOOD in your CAR?? Are you a COMMUNIST or just nuts?"
  13. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    dana & KR: They've developed biological hydrogen production over the "economically feasible" barrier of 10% efficiency, and improving constantly. It won't be too far in the future (matter of years probably) that the technology will be to the point where algae hydrogen could replace all transport fuel. For instance, at 10% efficiency, to replace transport fuel in the US, 0.003% of the US land area (25,000km2) of algae farms would be required. That's a tenth of the area dedicated to soya. Like I said, the power to replace all energy sources with hydrogen is in the palms of our hands. We just need to "do it".
  14. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 - I would point to Gonzilez et al 1996, "Direct lnhibition of Plant Mitochondrial Respiration by Elevated CO2", among others. When considering elevated CO2 it is vital to consider the full spectrum of effects - heat, ocean acidity, C3 versus C4 plant responses, and the fact that other aspects of the environment may be the limiting effects on biology. You claim elevated CO2 is, overall, beneficial - that's really not supported by the evidence available.
  15. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming, your comment @22 confuses me because we do have many carbon pricing systems in place, and they are working in the real world. See Figure 1 above and this post. For example, the EU has had a carbon pricing system in place for 7 years now. I also think the panic style of language you're advocating contributes to the frustration you're expressing. Climate change isn't an all or nothing proposition - the more we mitigate, the less we have to adapt and suffer. If we start to panic, we turn people off and they give up. If we keep a positive message going, I think we will have more success in maximizing mitigation.
  16. It's not bad
    As for plants, I certainly concede the point that other factors (outside the greenhouse) might negate the benefit of Co2 as an aerial fertilizer. I have read the page and am still on the fence regarding overall cost-benefit analysis regarding the aerial fertilizer argument. But, just as the potential benefits of aerial fertilization is listed in the above pros and cons, I would like to see potential benefit to mitochondrial respiration in fauna listed as well.
  17. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Dana, Thanks for the response, but perhaps you miss my point. My contention is that solutions, like Carbon Pricing, the other ideas I mentioned above and Paul's solution above, cannot work in the real world. Technically possible in theory does not equal doable in practice. They are not going to be possible to execute in any timeframe that will solve the problem. If your solution requires a change in human nature then you actually do have to figure out how to change that nature or you do not have a solution. I understand completely the reluctance of using fear to motivate. It has potential unpredictable downsides. I believe, however, that it is the last option available. Solutions which will take decades to execute are not solutions, but rather a kind of salve which makes one feel as if they are pursuing a noble option in the face of great odds. People are already resigning themselves to fate so if you lose a few more it does not really matter. Many of those you are losing are the very ones you have convinced that AGW is a critical problem. They/me see proposed solutions like those described by you, Paul and Dale above and we just throw up our hands in frustration as it is obvious that the solution to our situation 'requires' a dramatic reduction in the scope and complexity of industrial civilization or we will never lower carbon emissions sufficiently in time to prevent catastrophe. The information you detail on this site every day brings us to those conclusions. We simply are out of time. The tool box is pretty empty at this point and we appear to be down to our final options. It is not always appropriate to keep telling people not to worry and that we can fix things. Sometimes you have to holler that it is time to abandon ship to save those you still can. The collective 'you' cannot keep telling us how fast we are sinking and then stand on the sidelines or in the background. Sorry to be so stark, but there are a lot of us out there that are giving up on working on fixing AGW because of what I have described above. Every day we delay the situation worsens, the end result becomes less tolerable, and the chances of finding our way through this mess less likely.
  18. It's not bad
    Stephen Baines, a higher affinity for O2 in the hemoglobin results in less oxygen transfer out of the blood, to tissues. More Co2 means less O2 is absorbed immediately into the hemoglobin, but the O2 that is picked up is easily distributed. Philippe Chantreau, that is a good point, and I did mis-type. People at high altitudes breathe less O2 (and Co2), but continue to metabolize glucose, which produces water and Co2. Thus, people at high altitudes are exposed to a higher ratio of Co2 to O2 internally. But yes, the atmosphere is less dense all around.
  19. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Hydrogen is very easy to use once produced - but the production of hydrogen is (currently) very inefficient, storage and transport is not realistic (the hydrogen tank required for a reasonable range is just huge), etc etc. Fuel cells, while efficient, are extremely expensive due to catalysts, and quite sensitive to contaminants. A more realistic method of replacing fossil fuels would be to use renewable energy to generate methane, enthanol, or other renewable fuels that are more easily transported and stored.
  20. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I'm not a big fan of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It's not as efficient as EVs, more expensive, and most hydrogen comes from natural gas. Electrolysis is very inefficient. You're better off powering the vehicle directly with electricity than using the electricity to create hydrogen fuel for the car. It's an extra inefficient step. There's a reason all automakers are pursuing EVs while few are pursuing hydrogen cars.
  21. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Parable of the All-Powerful Project Management Team continues… We take out coal! OK, we still have some loose ends to deal with. What do need to do with the coal plants? Personally, i would preferred to put a team of mothers on this project, because I have found mothers particularly effective as project managers taking care of problems like this. They would make a list (mothers love lists) of the coal plants, then they would go talk to the owners; and talk… and talk some more. They would ask "What's it gonna take?" And then they start bargaining, and they negotiate, and they rap a few knuckles at times, and eventually, they get all women want… they get their own way! It took a little money, some replacement green power project participation, some ownership in some big transmission projects, but in the end, most of the coal plants caved. A few coal plant owners foolishly held out, but then dana's carbon tax came in handy. it took a while (over ten years) but eventually, we got enough transmission capacity into their territories, and slashed prices below their op costs. Coal plant op costs are over $40 per MWh, and by adding $25 per MWh of carbon tax on top, all the green power had to do to undercut the remaining coal plants was to deliver electricity under $65 for a few years… and that was the end of the coal plants. Although I must admit, in order to make the deals go, we did end up funding some carbon capture and sequestration projects coupled with clean coal power plants. Those two projects sliced into our profits to the tune of about $6B, but enabled us to get rid of the old plants. So dana's carbon pricing wins one here, the carbon tax came in handy dealing with coal plants. Next comment: Which finally leaves natural gas, particularly shale gas.
  22. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    zinfan94: I know it's not "peer reviewed science" ;) but here is a link explaining a bit about Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell car. http://www.caradvice.com.au/177707/toyota-fuel-cell-hybrid-car-coming-in-2015/ 700km per fillup, more power than electric, and produce only water and speed as by-products. The concept car also looks really cool!
  23. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    The Parable of the All-Powerful Project Manager continues: We finish the second year of our project, and the green vehicle ramp continues. GM and the other vehicle makers are making money on their green vehicle manufacturing, and investing more into new models and increased manufacturing capacity. And as global oil demand begins falling even faster, the price goes into a "death spiral". Some of my ex-buddies at the oil companies pay our team a visit. "Stop, already, what ya trying to do?" So we tell 'em: "we are trying to reduce the carbon emissions from all fossil fuel sources 80% within thirty years…. our target in America is to reduce crude oil use 50% in fifteen years." "Reduce America's oil demand 50% in fifteen years? Wow, thats a lot… no, that's unspeakable!" " How are going to do that?" And so we tell them than now we are getting over $100B annually from our half share in the savings due to the drop in crude oil prices. And we are trying to invest all of it in green vehicles and biofuels, but it simply isn't possible. All the suppliers in that space are doing everything they can do, and throwing more money at that space won't do any good. Then they ask, how low do you intend to take oil prices? And I ask, when are they going to start shutting down fields, and curtailing oil supply? They tell us that they stopped drilling in the Arctic, curtailed deepwater drilling in the Gulf, and overseas they have scaled back development plans… But we ask, what about the tar sands? Hmmm… hems and haws. No reductions in production yet. When, then? At what oil price do the tar sands shut down? And that's when we find out that it will take oil prices below $30 per barrel to completely shut in tar sands production. Ok, then. It will take us several more years to get there, but we, the project management team, intend to drive oil prices below $30 per barrel. After they leave, it hits us. if we drive oil prices just to $40 per barrel, our team's share of the oil cost savings will exceed $200B annually just 8 years into the program. What can we do with all that money? Even now, we are having a hard time investing $100B annually in the green vehicle and biofuel incentives. Somebody is going to get mad about all the billions piling up in the bank. So we look around, hoping to find something to invest the money in, and find out that the green power guys need money to get their projects built. We decide to go talk to them. They tell us about their projects, and then we ask them what do they need? It turns out that they need to borrow money at low interest rates, less than 4% would be nice. But we tell them that only the government (or some homeowners) can borrow money at those interest rates. After banging our heads together, they capitulate, and agree to build projects owned by various governments and public co-operatives, using public financing. Our project management team will give $30B annually, and public financing provides another $100B, and thus they can build green power projects ten times faster than currently. This solves a problem for us, what with all the money coming in from the tax on the drop in oil price. We manage to offload a big chunk into building green power projects. Next comment: Cleaning up loose ends.
  24. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Dale: I don't think the latest work on hydrogen is as good as you say, but I am not opposed. Bring your team of manufacturers into the All-Powerful Project Management Team, and we can throw a few billion their way, if it makes sense. But remember, they have to deploy, and deploy fast, to drive down oil demand.
  25. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    Scaddenp @21 "I suspect most of this is post-hoc rationalization of a position, where actual views on the environment formed from other influences." Yes, it began that way but now, particularly with a new generation being brought up on denialism, it's become an integral part of their religious views.
  26. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    zinfan94: If you're the "All Powerful Project Manager", why wouldn't you just tell the auto makers to convert to hydrogen fuel cell cars? At present they're commercially viable using natural gas (and produce half the emissions of oil-based cars) with just the final kinks to work out before "clean" fuel sources can be used (storage of hydrogen is pretty trick). And the best thing with hydrogen fuel cells are they are easily scalable so could easily become a personal household energy source. Quite seriously, we're not too many years off being able to pour water (or some "better" clean fuel source) into an energy converter which powers our house and cars. Proof of that is Toyota, Daimler and Hyundai all have production roadmaps for the first hydrogen fuel cell car in 2015. And hydrogen is the "ultimate clean energy" which is literally on our fingertips. Why waste time on hybrid technology, or technology that still uses fossil fuel energy to "recharge"?
  27. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    John, Thanks for this. I often get students claiming that a scientific viewpoint and a religious viewpoint are incompatable, and that topics like climate change and evolution force one to choose between one or the other. It's nice to have an example of someone using science to act upon moral principles. It should generate some interesting discussion.
  28. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    People at The Cryosphere Today probably need to change the y-axis lower bound. And note that red line showing up in the upper-right corner here. Time for a change, a change for the worse.
  29. Philippe Chantreau at 08:21 AM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1, how does high altitude increase the CO2 to O2 ratio? As pressure decreases, the mass of any given atmospheric element per unit of volume decreases and that applies to all of them: oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, all other well mixed gases. CO2 concentration within the range of altitudes at which humans can live does not vary in any significant way.
  30. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    "An example of American fundamentalist thinking on the environment " I suspect most of this is post-hoc rationalization of a position, where actual views on the environment formed from other influences. (eg. distaste for environmentalistists/Al Gore, perception that environmental care restricts freedom, distaste for taxes etc).
  31. It's not bad
    AHuntingdon I don't think you understand how the Bohr effect works. It's the difference in affinity of haemoglobin for O2 in the lung (low CO2) and in O2-starved (high CO2) tissues that increases efficiency of O2 supply to O2-starved tissues. If you increase CO2 in the lungs, you decrease the ability of haemoglobin in the lungs to take up O2 due to the very same chemistry. That will not increase O2 supply to internal tissues. You may also reduce the differential in O2 affinity between the lungs and O2-starved tissues, which will reduce effiency of supply of that O2 to O2-starved tissues. And no, CO2 is not considered a "major" factor affecting plant growth. Nutrients and water are far more important in nature. Only when the latter are in sufficient quantities (as in a greenhouse) do you see a substantial CO2 effect. That effect decreases as CO2 concentrations increase -- i.e., there is a law of diminishing returns. It is far less obvious for C4 than for C3 plants. You should read the CO2 is plant food thread in detail before commenting here. BTW...You should be aware the IPCC accounted for the fertilization by CO2 when assessing the effects of increasing CO2 on crops. They predicted an initial increase in production followed by substantial decreases after further increases due to effects on climate.
  32. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    @John Cook #5 "...I've never really taken the time to investigate eschatology and pre/post millenial theology. As for the age of the earth, this blog post should make my views clear. I know realize that was a silly question, I guess I got up too early in the morning. :-)
  33. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Project Management, continued… OK, this is good, we have something started, we have a bunch of green vehicle guys looking for ways to ramp their production and sales, and investing to do this, but…. we need to come up with the bucks to pay them. Now as an all-powerful project manager, I call in our bankers, and say we need $80B. They look and say, well, no. No? We are all powerful. Still no, but… they will lend it to us, with interest. Even though this a rude awakening about the limitations of "all-powerfulness" , we agree. So now we have a host of green vehicle manufacturers, and even some biofuel suppliers out there rapidly ramping production and selling vehicles that don't use gasoline or diesel or jet fuel into the vehicle fleet. But our borrowed money is going out the door. Then one day a few months later, I drive by the gas station, and notice that gasoline price has fallen over 30 cents per gallon, and this is even though dana and his carbon taxers put a seven cent carbon tax on gasoline. I call in our commodity traders, and ask "What's Up?". They tell us that crude oil prices have fallen 12 bucks a barrel from $96 to $84, and the crack spread (refining margin) has fallen ten cents a gallon. Wow, that seems like a lot, and indeed it is. American crude oil products customers are saving $110B annually. The commodity traders tell me that the EU and India and China copied our green vehicle incentives, and world-wide oil demand has dropped about one percent. We ask, is that normal? And the commodity traders explain about the oil market price elasticity of demand, and how in late 2008 the world oil demand temporarily fell 2.7%, causing oil prices to fall over $60 per barrel. I am amazed, but now I know how to pay those pesky bankers back… we'll show them who is all-powerful! We call Congress and the POTUS in and tell them we want half the oil price savings, so we can pay back our bankers (and investors?). Currently that would be over $50B annually. Now I know, in real life, there is no way that the congress and the president are going to put a tax on crude oil to capture some of the price drop, but humor me… lets say we get half the crude oil price drop (that we caused with our substitution investments). We, the project management team, now have access to $50B annually. So we invest more in green vehicles, and drive oil demand down more, and guess what? Oil prices keep falling. Next comment: How low can they go?
  34. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    dana, thanks, I agree to some extent, but remember I want to make the difference, and get the change underway… so let's try this: Instead of an economist sitting in front of his blackboard, hypothesizing about a perfect market, lets instead imagine ourselves as a project manager, who has access to all the energy companies, researchers, financial and investment institutions, and…. huh … wait for it… who will have the politicians support anything that you feel is necessary to do to solve the problem (AGW) while at the same time optimizing customer satisfaction. What would you do? Lets take the vehicle fuels market as an example. I would ask the vehicle manufacturers and the researchers for a plan to reduce GHG emissions at least 80% in thirty years, perhaps with an even more aggressive objective of achieving a 50% reduction within fifteen years (plan for a faster ramp). Now the vehicle fuel guys (oil companies) would tell me that it can't be done. In fact, I have actually had oil company engineers that I have known for years, tell me exactly that, with a long-winded lecture as well. But remember, as project manager, we have all the resources available at our disposal… so if the oil companies don't want to participate, then fine; lets talk to the other guys. Lets ask the vehicle manufacturers. Mr. GM, you can currently manufacture 60k Volts per year, but currently selling only about 30k. Whats it gonna take to get to three million annually? Answer: Well, we can make money with a price at $40k per vehicle, currently the government pays the customer $7500, but this still leaves us about $10k above equivalent vehicles. If you (project manager) can get us another $5k per vehicle, we can narrow the cost difference to less than $5k, and the customer saves over $1200 per year, so the vehicles will sell out at that price. So as project manager, you ask Mr. GM, you can sell the vehicles out and ramp to three million annually if we get you another $5k per vehicle? "Yes, we can." As project manager, we can get this going, and adjust the details later, so we want to immediately say "Go do it." But we remember our carbon pricing dictums, and ask instead, what if we give you seven cents per gallon ($25 per ton of carbon), can you do it? They whip out their calculators, and come back and say, that's only $40 a year… our customer couldn't even buy his Starbucks coffees for two weeks with that measly amount. So now we have a dilemma, do we let Mr. GM go off and do what they do best, and hope we find the $5k per vehicle to pay for his ramp? Since we are the all powerful project manager, we say: "Go, and Just Do It!" And we can set up similar deals with other vehicle manufacturers, motorcycles, bicycles, airplanes, etc. And in the next comment, I will explain where we are going to find the extra $5k per vehicle.
  35. It's not bad
    KR, the first statement is backed up by the Bohr effect, and the fact that Co2 helps prevent acute hypoxia (potentially deadly lack of oxygen supply). These two facts show how Co2 (and especially a higher ratio of Co2 and O2) does indeed increase oxygen distribution throughout the body significantly. Co2 also displays antioxidant activity. I don't see the comments in the plant food thread that you are referring to. Do you deny that one major positive factor in plant growth (among others, such as soil type, and water quantity) is the quantity of Co2 in the area? Do you disagree with the litany of studies that show crop yield increases when Co2 increase was the only changing variable?
  36. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 - I believe the issue is that you have made numerous assertions without backing evidence, such as "...increasing the ratio of Co2 to 02 significantly increases the distribution of 02 throughout the body..." and "More atmospheric C02 is beneficial for plants (as has been described in this thread) and animals." I haven't seen the latter in this thread, and in fact if you look at the relevant CO2 is plant food thread you will see that this is actually not the case - heightened CO2 has mixed, and in general negative, effects on plants due to effects such as changes in the hydrological cycle. You have then moved the goalposts - raising separate points (lactate mechanisms, antioxidants, hypoxia) - using references showing that insufficient CO2 is harmful, but not producing any evidence that excess CO2 is helpful. The term "Gish Gallop" applies to the rhetorical tactic of raising many unrelated points without fully addressing (or completing a reply to critiques) any of them, and it does seem to apply to your posts so far. If you are going to make claims, you need to support them. You have not.
  37. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sphaerica (and chuck101), I answer yes to the following question: ""Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"" If that is not the "97% question" please link to or repeat the correct question.
  38. It's not bad
    For the record, irrational appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy, which is hardly inflammatory (he could easily defend himself and prove me wrong. Why is it ok for Sphaerica to accuse me of logical fallacies without being "snipped" but not vice versa? If this is an inappropriate place for such questions to be issued, I apologize in advance. Also, great site! I really enjoy the comments sections.
  39. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming - I agree the media is driven by financial interests, which is why I propose trying to change their behavior through their purse strings by driving viewer and readership towards accurate stories. Regarding the best approach, I don't think panic is the way to go. I think the best way to motivate people is through positive messaging (i.e. we can solve this problem) as opposed to fear. The other problem with messaging through fear is that people may just stop listening to you. Many will either dismiss you as "alarmist" (a message facilitated by the climate deniers), or will simply resign themselves to whatever fate comes in the future. This is why I think we have to keep our messaging positive, to engage people and make them believe that we can solve the problem.
  40. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Gws @39 First I want to say again, I have not abandoned anything. I keep looking for ways to reduce my own carbon footprint and I will not vote for a denier. I support all programs that will reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. I live in California and our state has some strong programs in place to encourage wind and solar and reduce emissions. But I cannot ignore the truth. We are at about 392 ppmv of CO2 and that will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The science (not models but actual research on the Pliocene warm period) tells me that is sufficient to produce 2 to 3 degrees of warming at equilibrium absent the cooling effects of aerosols. Civilization will only continue to pump out more. Even if all the polluting nations limit emissions, the atmospheric concentration will only go up. For me this does not mean the end of civilization or mankind it means a very difficult future. A very expensive future. A future where freshwater and food become scarce and more expensive in places where it was once abundant and cheap. Places that now find it difficult or impossible to provide those will suffer more. Places that are spending fortunes to move water and irrigate agriculture might find their efforts ineffective to ensure a comfortable future. I have children and grandchildren. Considering their future makes this awful truth very hard to live with. But I have learned that life is full of awful truths. My first awful truth came when I was only five. At school I experienced my first “duck and cover drill.” Mom and Dad had not told me I lived in a world where nuclear annihilation was a possibility. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean we have felt that nightmare in the past. Russia and the US still have thousands of MRV’ed missiles pointed at each other. I wonder if Russia takes as much care with the upkeep of their launching systems as the US? No country matches the US in defense spending and that is part of it. If not sparked by accidental launch we still have a world full of unstable warring people and unstable nations armed with nuclear devices. Other awful truths were discovered as I grew older but I will move on to AGW. Like you I was born into this world where our wonderful civilization was created by cheap fossil fuels and irrigated agriculture; growing in places where nature did not intend for those crops to flourish. I first learned about global warming in about 1980. When I learned that to avoid catastrophic warming we would need to end fossil fuel use I became immediately pessimistic that we would do so in my lifetime. With the advent of much cheaper and more efficient solar cells and much more efficient wind turbines I now believe it is possible to end fossil fuel use immediately for energy production. I really wish the rich nations would immediately switch to those but they are not; not even China where the government really is in charge of energy production. The way I see it civilization will take about 40 more years, maybe longer, to finally get to a place where the majority of our energy is produced by non-fossil fuel technologies and the majority of transportation finally moves to electric or carbon neutral solutions. I fully expect that in 40 years many of the predicted shortages in food and water will be a reality and extreme weather events will become a very common occurrence. Does that mean I have given up all hope? Of course not. Each year very bright and very talented young people go off to university with new ideas and approaches. I cannot believe in something that does not exist yet but I do not abandon the possibility that something completely unknown to us now will come along and change everything, or at least open a door to a new avenue of approach. In the mean time I still work for change but I cannot ignore what science has taught me. If I were to illustrate my dual emotions produced by the awful truths I perceive and the hope I cling to, the despair would be pictured by Durer’s Melancholia because even with all the negative symbolism the angle and the cherub do not seem to have given up completely. For hope I would choose the Flammarion engraving, the one where mankind breaks through into the unknown, because that is what I believe is always possible for mankind while I keep in mind we frequently get unwanted consequences.
  41. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Can someone explain this to me? From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K. This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. (-snip-) Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, (-snip-) in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, (-snip-), should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. (So, is there no greenhouse effect? Why are the two planets just behaving the same) [Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]
    Moderator Response: [DB] Again, reread the Comments Policy regarding all-caps usage (snipped).
  42. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    zinfan - you don't seem to be taking issue with carbon pricing, but rather arguing that carbon pricing alone can't solve the problem. I agree with that. Regarding natural gas, from what I've read, the current low prices are not sustainable. We'll see if that's true, but putting a price on carbon emissions would raise the cost of natural gas with respect to the price of renewables. Their climate impact could further be taken into account by including methane leakage in a carbon pricing system. Regarding transportation, again carbon pricing will raise the cost of petroleum fuels, while the costs of alternatives (e.g. EVs) is falling. Global demand will also make oil prices continue to rise - it's only a matter of time before we transition off of them. Again, a carbon price by itself may not solve the problem (that also depends on how high the price is), but it will speed up the transition.
  43. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Dana I applaud your efforts and commitment. I read your site all the time and find great value here. I have to disagree with the advise found in this post. I do not claim to have a solution to the problem of getting civilization to stop making AGW worse, so I am going to be critiquing your solution without being able to articulate one of my own. Not the best approach perhaps but maybe what I have to say can prove useful. Your approach described above, the "Wedges" approach promoted by folks like Joe Romm and others have two consistent features. They appear to be technically feasible/possible and they have an extremely small possibility of success because they fly in the face of human nature. Success of these types of solutions ride on a global shift in human behavior. A change in human nature on a grand scale. This is not possible in a BAU (or BAU-Green as the case may be) situation as pretty much any expert in human behavior will tell you. Like all creatures, humans are highly programmed by thousands of generations of natural selection. We discount the future at a high rate because we live in the present. Water, food, shelter, security have always been the drivers of survival. Humans cannot be rationally talked into sacrificing their present needs for a future that they will not be living in. Not even for their children and grandchildren. Even the most rational humans cannot do this very well and there are not very many rational humans out there. Perhaps there are none. Large masses of people only change direction quickly when they are in a panic about survival. In addition to requiring the above from people there is an assumption that one can effect the political process by voting. Once again this ignores the fact that political consensus on any subject is almost always impossible and especially on matters that directly impact lifestyles, religion, political ideology and living conditions. These are not trivial differences between us all but fundamental ones. For example, I know a number of people who are very religious who acknowledge in private that AGW is real but simply do not care because; 1) they believe that God will take care of them, 2) that, if anything, AGW is merely one of the factors leading to the End Of Days - which they are looking forwards to. I kid you not. AGW is also, unfortunately, closely associated in many peoples minds with Liberal/environmental/Progressive (i.e. left wing) ideology/religion. Many people have also been led to believe that science is leftist in orientation or a kind of competing religion to theirs. This is not just here in the US either. This group of people is a substantial proportion of the population and it is not going to just shut up or go away. There are those who are poor that feel they have a right to economic development and an equal level of consumption with the rich. Those of opposing political/economic camps do not need to have a majority to stop all meaningful progress along the lines you describe. And they will try to stop you if you propose dramatic government intervention or to restrict their economic growth. Another point is the suggested approach to using the news media. The major print and broadcast media organizations hold anything but a liberal policy bias (which has not existed for a generation). These are big corporations that are almost all under the control of conservative business interests representing the big stockholders. These people are not your friends and will not help you unless it is in their financial interests. In the current environment, accurate reporting is just not the major focus of the media (it is likely entertainment) and educating reporters on science will not change this as they are not in charge of anything. This, of course, leads to the big kicker which is the impact change related to 'fixing' AGW would have on the financial interests of the various very large international businesses involved in the fossil fuels industry, banking and investment, industrial agriculture, etc. These people have trillions of dollars invested and want to recoup their investments and make a lot of additional money from them. Their concept of the future and yours are incompatible. Now while I am not opposed to efforts like the one you detail, I think the time for them to have any substantial effect is rapidly passing. Given the problems with executing those types of solutions there is little chance of meaningful success for at least 10-20 years. That is far too late in time presuming that I actually understand what you have been teaching us. Scientists like yourself, Hansen, G. Schmidt, Mann and others have convinced many of us that we are facing highly probable catastrophic changes in our climate and living conditions. These changes, if they occur, will, for all practical purposes, not allow the continuance of civilization as we know it. And would likely result in a dramatic and quick reduction in world population in the not too distant future. If this is accurate, or even of significant probability, then it is time for leadership, not scholarship, I am afraid. If people should be panicked over the situation we are in then it is time to make them panic. That is the only way you will get the change needed. You need to mass your expertise and marshal the resources you have at hand and start screaming at the top of your lungs to the folks in charge of the various governments. Demand change now and if you do not get satisfaction you start shutting industries and governments down. Force change. You will have many allies and support but you have to lead.
    Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps converted to lower case.
  44. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John Hartz @110: I am not up to speed on sociological literature relating to pejoratives, slurs, and the reclamation thereof, so the best I can say is that I do not know whether an attempt to reclaim 'alarmist' will diminish its rhetorical power when used as a pejorative by others.
  45. It's not bad
    Sphaerica, the qualifications of of the people with whom I am communicating are less important than the information they present ( -snip-). Dikran mentioned that obesity rates and Co2 have been rising hand in hand, I pointed out that correlation does not equal causation and mentioned that there are a multitude of other potential contributory factors. As to your second point- the majority of time that organisms evolved on earth (especially during krebs cycle evolution, which was a very early adaptation), Co2 concentrations have been significantly higher than the present day. The fact that neither aerobic nor anaerobic bacteria can survive without Co2 highlights this fact. http://jmm.sgmjournals.org/content/13/4/573.abstract The idea that I cite random mouse studies unrelated to my point is simply wrong. Numerous studies have shown Co2 to be protective against acute hypoxia. I also wanted to point out that Co2 is potentially a potent antioxidant. The lactate paradox ceases to be a paradox when the ratio of Co2 to O2 is considered. It is also interesting that people who live in high altitudes (and are exposed to a higher Co2 to O2 ratio) experience lower mortality rates, in general. High altitudes provide a real life example of a population that breathes a higher Co2 to O2 ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_humans#Long-term_effects These are factual benefits from increases in atmospheric Co2 concentration, and I'm simply asking for them to be included in the above list of pros and cons.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  46. It's not bad
    How much C02 is good for us? My car heater can keep me alive in winter. It does not follow that using my car heater in summer is even better for me. As to metabolic processes and C02, simply look up what's been established w/regard to concentrations of C02 in naval submarines and for that matter spacecraft. More does not equal better. In any case, remember: The "C02 is good for us" gambit is a frantic attempt to change the subject of conversation from geophysics to another only vaguely related topic. When nothing more can be done to evade the physical problem of global warming it's imperative to switch conversation to something else. You're seeing that happen right here.
  47. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Anticipated Problems with Carbon Pricing: First, lets try to classify the energy markets for fossil fuels that result in the largest amount of carbon released to the atmosphere. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the largest fossil fuel carbon sources, although burning accumulated biomass from old growth timber sources or peat contributes some carbon, and of course there is the massive carbon flows associated with natural carbon cycles. For the moment, lets ignore the non-fossil fuel carbon sources. The allure of carbon pricing proposals most likely arose because the perception that replacing coal emissions is the key step to mitigating GHG emissions. Coal is actually part of the electricity market for the most part, with coke for steel industry and coal-fired steam plants for building or industrial heat, much smaller markets. No question that placing a reasonable carbon tax or fee would impact coal-fired power plants. A carbon tax of $25 USD per ton raised the fuel cost of coal by about 50%. For the US market using $50 per ton, the cost of fuel increases from about $25 per MWh of electricity to about $38. This causes a shift to natural gas fired power plants, because natural gas fuel cost would rise only from about $25 per MWh to $30 per MWh. A couple of years back, carbon pricing would have raised natural gas fuel cost from $50 to $55, and perhaps opened the door slightly for heavily subsidized green power projects (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass), but not anymore. I have talked to green power companies, and America's extremely low natural gas prices has really put the green power guys on the skids. So now the first unintended consequence rears its head… Not only would we see new utility scale natural gas-fired power plants replacing coal-fired plants, but there is a relatively new kid on the block, that would sweep through America. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generates power from natural gas, and produces building heat or hot water as second product. From a process engineering and thermodynamics standpoint, we love CHP because the process uses the high temperature heat from natural gas much more efficiently. But from an environmental standpoint, CHP plants scattered across the country creates a lot of new carbon emission sources. In effect, we have carbon priced 500 coal plants out of existence, and created potentially millions of new carbon emitting sources. But wait, there's more! Much of the new natural gas is shale gas, and methane emissions of the natural gas used can easily exceed 5%, maybe even 10%, of the gas produced. And some of the gas will be consumed as part of the collection, storage reservoirs, and distribution network. How does the carbon tax hit this source? Of course, we can design the carbon pricing mechanism around these problems… we could place an additional fees on natural gas to account for shrinkage, lease fuel, storage facility fuel use, and fugitive emissions estimates etcetera. But it becomes very complicated very quickly. And what about solar PV installations coupled with CHP? Or with the cheap price of natural gas, how do we justify the high subsidies given to privately owned green power projects (typically over 55% of installation costs), that even then produce electricity at significantly higher cost? One of the biggest problems with carbon pricing proposals, is that it doesn't pick, choose, and promote energy substitutes effectively. Contrary to many assertions, not picking and choosing is a weakness, not a strong point for carbon pricing. Carbon emission mitigation is one of many needs that should be fulfilled by systems that provide products and services that best meet customer needs. Improving these systems, and optimizing customer satisfaction requires knowledge and understanding of customer needs and energy systems, and there is no substitute for this knowledge. And moving away from electricity market to the vehicle and aviation fuel markets, the carbon pricing mechanism only adds seven cents per gallon to these fuels. How is this going to substantially help substitute green fuels, green energy sources, and greener systems penetrate these markets quickly, in the timeframe needed to make an impact on AGW? In these markets, and among suppliers to these transportation markets, a massive shift in capital spending must occur, moving investment from fossil fuel sources to vehicle manufacturers and green energy sources. Carbon pricing proposals aren't very effective in causing this shift. And No… that mythical beast, "Mr. Market" has been particularly inept at forecasting changes in the energy markets, and causing the shift in investments (more on this in following comments). Paul Klemencic
  48. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I hope Skeptical Science places posts on environmental and energy policy analysis in a separate section from your main mission. I want to participate in this discussion on a well moderated site, but we can quickly b(l)og down into an impenetrable mass of conflicting commentary in an unorganized mess. Understandable and accurate analyses of policies requires a good system for organizing ideas, analytical discussions, and likely will best organized by energy market or other source market (cement, ag, deforestation, etc.). In the next few comments, I am going to take issue with the very fundamental premises and assumptions behind your post, dana, and I am not doing this to be argumentative. Instead I am driven by my desire to find a workable set of solutions, and my analysis shows that carbon pricing coupled with the assumption that free markets work best… simply doesn't work best. Carbon pricing may end up being part of a successful set of solutions, but the carbon pricing model has some serious flaws, and would likely result in "fixes that backfires" in many markets and situations. The law of unintended consequences hits almost every energy market touched by carbon pricing proposals. I hope that you view the forthcoming discussion as "constructive criticism", because that's how I intend it. I have extensive engineering and business experience in energy markets since the mid-70s, studied system designs for best providing high quality solutions to customers, and have spent the last 6 years working on green energy solutions and evaluating the best means to transition and transform existing energy markets to better meet customer needs. I have come to a somewhat different set of solutions that should work better than carbon pricing mechanisms alone. Paul Klemencic
  49. It's not bad
    Readers, please note that AHuntington1 appears to be a master of both the Gish Gallop and the non sequitur. First, he impresses all with his ability to recite terms in respiratory biology, accompanied with a supercilious attitude ("Dikran Marsupial, it is extremely important not to confuse correlation and causation" and "I'm glad we agree that...") that gives no thought to the qualifications of the people with whom he is speaking. Second, he is able to compile a list of fairly inconsequential papers that show potential effects of elevated CO2 levels in rats, and projects this into the grand idea that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will have positive (and no negative) effects on all living creatures. These papers in no way make the case for his grandiose claim about "the enhanced efficiency of mitochondrial respiration that it would provide to animals via the Bohr effect." So he sets the goal post, then moves it, while with slight-of-hand appearing to support it. He hopes that you don't notice that (a) the papers do not reflect on his original proposition at all (b) they are impressive enough to convince you he is right, (c) they focus on very specific aspects of biology which may or may not have actual, real-life positive effects on the species studied and (d) they have little to do with elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. He closes with the woefully simplistic (and wrong) statement that "Co2 is good for plants and animals" which is all he knows most (uncritical) readers will take away from the discussion.
  50. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, well I missed your last post; I'm glad we agree that the study published in the peer reviewed NCBI which you posted, and its hypothesis, are most likely wrong. You used logic to determine the validity of a study. Peer reviewed does not mean proven. Co2 levels absolutely influence the rate of oxidative respiration via the Bohr effect- this has been well established. When considering the reduced ratio of O2 to Co2 at higher elevations the "lactate paradox" (whereby people accustomed to high altitudes display higher levels of krebs cycle activity[make more ATP] during exercise) no longer is a paradox (evidence for Co2 increasing krebs activity). This study,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7581542 implies Co2 as a potent antioxidant. This study shows Co2 protecting the organism from hypoxia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/720676 Here's another interesting study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139450 The positive attributes of Co2 on the organism have been well established. The fact that it is hard to find a peer reviewed study on the overall benefits of Co2 and the appropriate atmospheric concentration in which said benefits are maximized, reflects the mentality of most nutrition scientists more than the evidence. Again, Co2 is good for plants and animals.

Prev  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us