Recent Comments

Prev  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  Next

Comments 56701 to 56750:

56701. Dikran Marsupial at 20:37 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Tom, a good point about your scenario is that at least in that case atmospheric CO2 levels would still be rising (albeit with a delay of a year or so) even if there were no anthropogenic emissions. That could be used as a reasonable definition of "causing the increase" (although in that case, the mass balance argument would correctly show that to be the case). But then taking in more CO2 than you emit is also a reasonable defintion of "opposing the increase", so in your scenario the natural environment is both "causing" and "opposing" the increase in atmospheric CO2! Perhaps the problem lies in language, rather than science?
56702. Dikran Marsupial at 19:49 PM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Thanks Tom. I can see what you are getting at, but in this case, I would still say that the mass balance argument is correct. I would not agree that in this case the rise was due to natural emissions. I find it useful to recast the problem into a financial setting, which is more intuitive. If I proposed a business proposal wher you put in Ea = 0.25K per month and I put in En = 0.5k + t*k/10 per month, but took out Un = Ea + En if En + Ea < k and otherwise took out Un = (En + Ea - 0.2k), would you say that I was responsible for the increase in our assets? If I suggested that we let the scheme run for 10 years, and you could keep all of the assets at the end, would you take the deal? Surely you ought to if I were respondible for the increase in the balance? I don't know why, but many people seem to apply different meanings to the idea of "causing the increase" in the two scenarios. To me they seem equivalent. You can only be the cause of an increase by putting in more than you take out, otherwise you are using a rather subtle and counter-intuitive definition of "causing the increase". [incorrect statement snipped for clarity] I would agree with something like "natural emissions were allowing anthropogenic emissions to cause atmospheric CO2 to increase", but I can't see how the rise is caused by natural emissions in this scenario. I don't really understand how mass balance is an inductive argument, since we start with premises (conservation of mass and that observed increase is less than anthropogenic emissions) and deduce from that that natural uptake must be greater than natural emissions. Unless the pemises are false, or there is an error in the deduction, then mass balance is sufficient as far as I can see.
56703. Esop at 19:26 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       So Giæver is holding a presentation in front of Nobel Laureates based on information that he found by googling? Was the conference held on the day that takes place between very late March and very early April?
56704. Dikran Marsupial at 19:14 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac (i) Yes, of course the required runs could have been performed earlier, but what would be the point. IN those years, climate modelling has also moved on, so the time, money and energy would be better spent running those models instead. The only value in re-running the original Hansen models would be to answer "skepic" claims that the models performed poorly, which quite rightly waslow on the agenda (as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that NO answer will ever satisfy them while there is ANY residual uncertainty). I suspect running the original set of models was extremely expensive. Running the ensemble 5-6 years later would be equally expensive (i.e. at the limits of what was possible). Who do you think should have paid for that, and at the expense of what other climate project? These days computing power is sufficiently cheap that it would make an interesting student project for the purposes of public communication of science, but if you think validating 30 year old models, where we are already aware of the flaws is actually science then you are deeply mistaken. If you think it is so necessary, why don't YOU do it? The main uncertainty that I can find when Hansen refers to his 1988 model is that sensitivity is likely to be 3±1°C. In that case you fundamentally don't understand the issue. Climate sensitivity is uncertainty about the forced response of the climate. The difficulty in determining whether there is a model observation disparity is largely due to the uncertainty about the unforced response of the climate. Until you understand the difference between the two, you will not understadnd why Figure 1 is the correct test. It isn't in any way unusual that runs were not done. Go to any research group and ask them to ru-run their 5 year old studies again taking advantage of greater computing power, and they will tell you to "go away". Science is not well funded, scientists don't have the time to go back and revisit old studies that have long since been made obsolete by new research. Expecting anything else is simple ludicrous.
56705. Tom Curtis at 18:42 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @54 cont.:

       "As well, you ignore that water has an anomaly, what means that the highest pressure always guarantees liquid water at 4°C (pure), respectively at about 0°..-2°C (salinity level dependent). High pressure also lowers the freezing point of water (which is naturally the lower the higher salinity is)."

       (My emphasis) I find this defense of your claims utterly baffling. Water at the surface of the Ocean with no atmosphere is not under "the highest pressure", it is under no pressure. And because of that it boils while freezing. Because of that,it does not matter if the water remains liquid in the ocean depths. Either those depths will become the surface as the water above it progressively boils away; or the surface will become ice covered, thereby preventing the ocean from boiling but also insulating the surface from warmer liquid water beneath the ice and massively increasing the planetary albedo. Equally puzzling is your claim that:

       "in your last passage you again ignore the cooling of clouds (what is an amount of ~80W/m² according to Trenberth's energy budget) as well as the radiative behavior of water, what never can be like this of a black/gray body."

       First I note that anything that is neither a black body nor a grey body is perfectly reflective by definition. That is certainly not the case of water, and were it the case its albedo would be 1. Second, in my final comment of the post in question I supposed the Albedo of the Earth to be 0.1. A reduction in albedo from 0.3 to 0.1 represents a 70 W/m^2 warming effect due to reduced albedo, and by hypothesis the only reduction in albedo is the clouds. How then have I ignored them? Worse for you, according to Trenberth the surface itself reflect 23 of 184 W/m^2 of incident radiation. In other words it has an albedo of 0.125 If, then, we where to assume no increase in albedo due to extended ice sheets of sea ice; and no increase in albedo due to loss of vegetation, we should assume an albedo for the Earth of 0.125. To do otherwise is to assume that while the clouds no longer contribute to the Earth's albedo, the incident sunlight at the surface (and hence the reflected sunlight at the surface) does not increase. So, rather than ignoring significant factors in my final calculation, I have been excessively generous to your assumptions.
56706. bill4344 at 17:27 PM on 13 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       The link in first and in the third-last paragraph is missing a '/'.
       Moderator Response: Thank you for pointing that out-- several other URLs were also mangled.
56707. Tom Curtis at 16:40 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @54, I concluded that radiative cooling would be more efficient not because of the lack of the atmosphere per se, but because of the absence of heat distribution that follows from the lack of an atmosphere. If you have a planetary body tide locked to the sun, and with no atmosphere or ocean, than the side facing the sun will rise to a very great temperature. Assume the body is at the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and has an albedo of 0.11. Then the side facing the moon will receive an average insolation of 1368*0.89/2 W/m^2, or 608.9 W/m^2. Converting that to a black body temperature, we have (608.9/s)^0.25 where s equals the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which equal 321.9 degrees K. Ignoring geothermal energy and the background radiation for simplicity, the temperature of the other side of the body will be 0 K, which means we have a global mean temperature of (321.9 +0)/2 K, or 160.95 K. For comparison, the mean surface temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 K, and that at 85 north is 130 K, which means the global means surface temperature of the moon is around 180 K. As can be seen, the formula does much better at predicting the surface temperatures of airless planets than does the standard equation for planets with atmospheres. That equation makes the simplifying assumption that all points on the globe have the same surface temperature - an assumption that is not too much of a distortion on the Earth, but would be absurd on the Earth with no atmosphere as it is on the Moon. Please do me the favour of actually looking at the Lunar temperature data and telling me how you reconcile that data with your predicted lunar temperature (using the standard formula for planets with atmospheres) of 270 degrees K. If you cannot reconcile the data, and as that is at minimum 20 K above the mean temperature for the Moon's equator, then you should recognize that your theory has been falsified,and admit it.
56708. WheelsOC at 16:04 PM on 13 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       See this statement from the ATI's David Schnare as quoted by Popular Science: David Schnare heads the Environmental Law Center at the ATI, which since its inception in 2009 has sued the employers and former employers of a number of climate scientists, including Mann and James Hansen, the outspoken head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The ATI wants the researchers’ correspondence and research records. “We are not a venal organization,” Schnare says. “Our law center seeks to defend good science and proper governmental behavior and to expose the converse. Citizens have the right to know how government money is spent. Scientists who feel they shouldn’t have to respond to these requests shouldn’t be working in a government institution, because this is the price of entering.” The whole thing could basically be re-worded as "Anybody thinking of getting into climate research had better get used to our legal harassment!" Given their inability to assess the scientific content of any communications that fall into their hands, they clearly aren't able to live up to Snare's description of the mission. The whole operation is pretty transparently about intimidation and the threat of harassment through the courts rather than making sure scientists aren't trying to pull a fast one. The message is clear: get into climate research and they'll try to make your life harder for it. So we've had Jim Inhofe publicly call for investigations of climate scientists (and succeeded in at least one case), Ken Cuccinelli (now a gubernatorial candidate) leading the way with baseless fishing expeditions, and obsessed lawyers picking up where he left off. This is what it's come to for climate scientists today; death threats from the peanut gallery; persecution from legislators and state AGs; a crusade of self-styled litigious vigilantes. All putting their cross-hairs on any researcher who speaks openly to the public somehow, regardless of how impeccable their scientific output (which should be all that matters). Something to remember whenever fake skeptics try to claim the plight of oppression for themselves.
56709. JoeRG at 14:39 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       Flakmeister @51: 29% of surface is solid. Only for this the 270K can be valid. The other 71% are oceans where the regular blackbody equation cannot be used - as explained, there is a huge difference between SW and LW, but the blackbody equation requires that both are similar. IanC @52: The albedo increase would be true for land, but not for the oceans. There the average equilibrium temperature would be between 280k and 300k. Remember, that you cannot use the cloud albedo to reduce the incomming radiation and that you require much more energy to reach the required surface temperature to re-radiate the same amount of it beacuse heat transport in water works as well to the depths, not only to the top. Tom Curtis @53: Your argument in @40 is wrong, because with the IR transparent atmosphere you have alredy the most effective state of re-radiation, means that nothing at all will be blocket and you get 255K. How did you come to the conclusion that the re-radiation would be even more effective without an atmosphere when there is already nothing that can hinder radiation to go out in this fully transparent atmosphere? Highly illogical and physically an impossibility. Your equation in @42 is of course wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann-Equation for the equilibrium temperature is: T= (P/(A*[sigma]))^.25 where for P (1-a)*(TSI/4) is to use what already covers the surface of an orb including day/night. Otherwise the 255K were wrong and no energy budget would work. As well, you ignore that water has an anomaly, what means that the highest pressure always guarantees liquid water at 4°C (pure), respectively at about 0°..-2°C (salinity level dependent). High pressure also lowers the freezing point of water (which is naturally the lower the higher salinity is). The deeper you get the temperature will always converge to the respecting temperature, depending on the salinity of course. So, there is no chance to "boil away" or, in the other case, for a deep freeze. Without an atmosphere the water will be lost anyway, but by evaporation. But, if we speak about equilibrium temperatures of the current state (and exactly this matters), this is not of importance. Even if the albedo of the solid content is higher than this of the oceans, this counts only for 29% of surface and does not matter at all for the oceans. Finally, in your last passage you again ignore the cooling of clouds (what is an amount of ~80W/m² according to Trenberth's energy budget) as well as the radiative behavior of water, what never can be like this of a black/gray body.
56710. scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       "Hansen or his colleagues at GISS at any time during the last 5 or 6 years". Just possibly, GISS have better things to do? (Like AR5 models). What would be the gain to science by doing this? Would you change your mind on anything? Does any climate scientist need this? That said however, I am interested in getting Model 2 running on my machinery for my own entertainment but it wont happen before the end of month of earliest. The "scenario" is the emission(forcing) scenario. "Unusual that is wasnt done" - um, how about a lot more useful to run it through latest version of modelE instead?
56711. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly @49 a person with $18,000 a year taxable income in 2011/12 would pay $300 tax after taking account of the 15c per $1 over $6,000 tax rate plus the $1,500 low income tax offset (LOTO). That same person would not be eligible for any tax in 2012/13, a compensation of $300 dollars, of $50 dollars more than the compensation paid to pensioners. What is more, in 2012/13, taking into account the LOTO, that person would not start paying tax until their income rose over $20,400, at which point their advantage would have increased to $660, approximately the maximum compensation under the scheme. Thereafter the compensation progressively declines until it reaches zero at an income of $80,000. Your claim that people on $18,000 per annum "... will get nothing from the carbon tax compensation" is simply false, and can only have been made by ignoring the available evidence from relevant government bodies, not to mention all the daily newspapers when the tax was passed. There is no justification for asserting such easily checked falsehoods.
56712. angusmac at 12:50 PM on 13 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dikran Marsupial @ 77 Your comment appears to argue two threads, namely: • Hansen's lack of computing power to depict uncertainty. • My lack of understanding of the physics. I shall deal with lack of computing power and uncertainty here and physics in a subsequent post. Computing Power Given Moore's Law and Scaddenp's post @39 that Hansen's model, "could probably run on their phone these days", I would have thought that the required spread of model runs could easily have been done by Hansen or his colleagues at GISS at any time during the last 5 or 6 years. These runs would have the additional advantage that they would have the GISS stamp of approval and there would be no need for the 0.9*3.0/4.2 kludge (fudge factor) used by Gavin Schmidt at RC or Dana1981 in the SkS spreadsheet. Uncertainty The main uncertainty that I can find when Hansen refers to his 1988 model is that sensitivity is likely to be 3±1°C. However, the public pronouncements do not emphasise this, not insignificant, degree of uncertainty. For example: • May 1988 (publication acceptance date) Hansen stated that Sceanario B is, "perhaps the most plausible." • June 1988 congressional testimony Hansen emphasised that Scenario A, "is business as usual." • Hansen (2005) states that Scenario B is "so far turning out to be almost dead on the money." • Schmidt (2011) states that Scenario B is, "running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10%)." All of the above statements are statements of near certainty. Error bars or other sources of uncertainty are underplayed. I reiterate that the increase in computing power from 1988 through Hansen (2005) to Schmidt (2011) could easily allow for the required model runs and the error bars to be shown explicitly. It is unusual that this wasn't done.
56713. Sceptical Wombat at 12:34 PM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       I like the way that adaptation is a simple matter of engineering whereas mitigation is seen as impossibly expensive and civilisation destroying. If we can adapt to a mush hotter world why can't we adapt to a carbon free economy?
56714. dissembly at 12:03 PM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       "I'll also point out that low income people who don't receive welfare will get nothing whatsoever in compensation. I'm not sure I raised that specific outcome yet. There's just so much to cover on this topic." - to clarify that statement; the reason for this is that the lowest income brackets are immune (to various degrees) to tax breaks. Those earning under 18,000 a year in Australia (the tax-free threshold), who are not on welfare, will get nothing from the carbon tax compensation. They will still have the pay the same price rises as everyone else. Those in slightly higher tax brackets will get something back, but depending on which bracket you look at, the amount you get back can be proportionately less than those earning more, who pay more tax which can be returned to them.
56715. dissembly at 11:55 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @#45 scaddenmp; "There is almost no practical barrier to the pigovian tax other than government will want to take a portion to cover admin. Other jurisdictions have done it (eg BC). This is what you want to fight for." BC is an interesting example for you to raise (not just because the carbon tax was political suicide at a federal level for the party that raised it - resulting in no action on global warming at all - as is likely to happen next election here). It has been in place a few years now (approaching half of the ten year period that has been estimated as a realistic timeframe for the change to alternative energy infrastructure within Australia), and there has been very little sign of any substantial change in the nature of energy production. But it's also resulted in employers using the tax as an excuse for sacking workers. This underlines a flaw in the carbon tax model that I haven't yet harped on about. Market-cased measures lack co-ordination. Under a hypothetical public scheme, job losses in polluting industries can be made up for in a coordinated way with job growth in alternative energies; but a market-based scheme relies (assuming it works as intended) on a market-based death for polluting industries, with little chance of sacked workers being offered re-training or public compensation packages. "If you are on low income side, then probably not jetting round world etc. so very likely on the lower-than-average side of carbon usage. Works that way." I think that's an unrealistic assessment of the spread of impacts on low-income people. Prices for average goods go up, even in the best-case-scenario. That's what people are worried about, rather than being slightly-less-likely-than-before to go to Paris. I'll also point out that low income people who don't receive welfare will get nothing whatsoever in compensation. I'm not sure I raised that specific outcome yet. There's just so much to cover on this topic. I wrote "every competitor is incentivised to do exactly the same thing right now" and you said, "That's a "markets-dont-work-to-keep-prices-down" statement implying business conspiracies" - but it isn't. There is no conspiracy in the fact that business owners have n incentive to raise prices when they are given the pretext for it, it's a basic law of how markets function in practice. There's also no conspiracy (well, not a cloak-and-dagger sort) in the fact that most soft drinks or snacks you'll see when you walk into a 7-11 are owned by a single company, or most of the goods in supermarkets are distributed by a couple of large companies; again, it's just a result of how the market works. I'm not saying there's any secret cabal sitting around deciding things like this, it's just the way the incentives work in the real world, outside of university econ textbooks.
56716. dissembly at 11:32 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       @ #44 Sphaerica; "I have no idea how your ideas would go over in Australia, but they'd never, ever get past square-one in the USA." The political party I'm affiliated with has a U.S. section that puts forward similar demands, and does get an echo for them. I'm not saying they're winning elections, but it wasn't that long ago in the US that these ideas did have a much greater influence. Times change. But the key thing is, if you get a solid plan in place, hold rallies, talk to people (in a way that takes their economic concerns into account), you'll get a response (and i'm not just talking out of my back-end here, this is exactly what me and a few others have started to do; we've had 400 people sign up to our campaign in 4 months, a pretty striking rate of growth). I've seen it happen; until the carbon tax came in, the anti-global warming movement was actually growing in my city. This is how governments are ultimately pressured to do anything at all, regardless of which party is presiding. You wrote: "What I did mean is that nationalization is inefficient. It is more prone to corruption and waste than the free market, because when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits." I don't believe the evidence backs that up at all. I know this is a common belief (especially in the US, but throughout the western world post-Reagen/Thatcher-era), but i've yet to see any empirical example that supports it. I live in a state (Victoria) in which both electricity and public transport have been partially privatised, and both have seen massive wastage, over and above anything seen under public ownership. I don't have the exact figures on hand for electricity, but for public transport, the cost of running the system rose by 200 million a year (just short of doubling) in the years immediately after privatisation, and has now blown out to around a billion annually (from a pre-privatisation level of about 350 million, adjusted for inflation). At the same time, services have declined, and, more frightening, assets have been sold off completely, meaning we'll have to spend even more to ever actually recover the infrastructural capacity that we once had. The country-next-door (New Zealand) had a similar experience with a raft of privatisations. They've actually suffered fairly significant energy shortages as a direct result of electricity privatisation (in the most famous case, private owners decided to sell off energy generating capacity while rainfall was high (and hydroelectric power was ample), causing energy shortages as soon as the first drought hit; interestingly for our discussion, some of the generating capacity that was done-away-with was geothermal power :/ ). On a smaller scale, the municipal council in which I live privatised (outsourced) previously in-house services, and we've seen dramatic drops in quality and service (one example involved mulch with fragments of glass and metal being spread onto playgrounds), while costs continue to rise. This isn't even using the model of public ownership i would advocate (a transparent, more democratically accessible one, with positions in the bureaucracy being publicly recallable); - this is comparing a typical Western bureaucratic model to private ownership, and the latter still costs more and delivers less in every case. You wrote, "when you remove the profit incentive, people just stop trying, or start trying in in favor of the bribes that give them personal profits"; i don't think that's true at all. To begin with, the majority of people running any given service don't operate on a profit incentive to begin with - only the highest levels (and the owners) do so. I work within the public transport sector, and train stations were always run better when the staff where involved in decision-making. These people don't simply not-care about their work - apathy only sets in when all their say over their work is taken away from them, as it has been, increasingly so, as parts of the system have gone into private ownership. Then you see real apathy develop. My partner works in the public sector as well, and her entire department care profoundly about what they are doing. The idea that it is the profit incentive that inspires creativity or good work is just a legend, as far as I have seen. Whereas the idea that it encourages scaling-down necessary operations, losing co-ordination between different parts of a service, putting up prices whenever possible (regardless of any operational necessity), is something proven in practise time and time again. This is all extremely relevant to the goal of building zero-to-low carbon energy infrastructure!
56717. Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 13 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Dikran Marsupial @48, you are correct, I forgot to retain the condition that En-Un < 0. Try this: En = 0.5 k prior to 1850, and increases by 0.1k per annum after 1850. Ea = 0 prior to 1800, and increases 0.25 k at 1800 If En + Ea < 1k, Un = En + Ea If En + Ea > k, Un = (En + Ea - 0.2k) In this scenario, atmospheric concentration begins growing in 1851, and continues to grow thereafter; but at all times Un > En, and during the period of growth is always greater by 0.5 k. Never-the-less, the growth in CO2 concentration is, intuitively, caused by the growth in natural emissions rather than by the anthropogenic emissions, which are not growing. This, of course, is rather irrelevant. We both agree that bizarre non-physical scenarios can falsify the mass balance argument, and that therefore it is an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. We also both agree that no scenario that has actually been presented seriously does falsify the mass balance argument; and that alternative explanations to anthropogenic emissions are falsified by other evidence in any event.
56718. Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @47, you are ignoring the points raised in my post @40 and in my calculation @42. Had you paid attention you would notice that your argument does not fly. Using the formula corrected for an albedo of 0.3, the expected mean surface temperature would be 151 K; corrected to 0.1 albedo (less than the moons) the result would be 162 K, still equal to a reduction in global mean temperature of >120 K. I notice in your 59 that you continue to assume the existence of liquid oceans for heat transport, but liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum at Earth surface temperatures. Therefore with no vacuum, the Ocean must either boil away, or be frozen. In either event it will not longer contribute to heat transport; and in the later event it will massively increase albedo so that albedo is likely to be above 0.3. Even if you allow your model to be unphysical by retaining liquid oceans, you are neglecting the fact that bare rock has a much higher albedo than does grassland, which has a higher albedo than forest. In fact, observations have shown the Sahara (with effectively no clouds) to have the same albedo as the Amazon (with a massive cloud cover). Further, with any decline in global mean temperature, sea ice extent will increase, increasing albedo. Your assumption that albedo will decrease, is therefore dubious at best even in an unphysical model. Finally, even if the albedo were to decline to 0.1 (less than the Moon's albedo, so certainly a generous assumption) and with retained heat transport, global mean surface temperature would decline by about 20 C, more than enough to initiate a massive glaciation such as at the Last Glacial Maximum, and probably enough to initiate snowball Earth. In other words, any low albedo condition is dynamically unstable with cooling.
56719. skywatcher at 09:00 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience, you're demonstrating a fair bit of missing elementary knowledge on your part. Some examples - not understanding glacier mass balance (#158), confusing glaciers with sea ice (#158), not understanding what a feedback or forcing is and their implications (#159), or not having even read or comprehended the studies involved (apparent from e.g. #140, #148, #158). These may or may not be intentional, but in this light, it is hard to take seriously your various hints that Mann et al, and the dozen or so papers that followed his, have not just followed the data. You've suggested, directly or indirectly, that they have either deliberately muted the MCA signal, or that they have failed to take into account the full body of evidence, yet it's apparent that you're unaware of the contents of the full body of evidence. We have some idea of the forcings involved during the MCA - see Figure 6.13 in IPCC AR4. You might note that the forcings all have a magnitude in watts per square metre. That means that if we are to accept your hypothesis (despite the lack of supporting evidence) that the MCA was globally uniform and large, we still need to find a large enough forcing that operated in the MCA but not today. As detailed by many people, not least in some detail by the IPCC in Chapter 6 above (and more recent papers continue to support this), the MCA is now well-known to be spatially and temporally heterogeneous, consistent with smaller solar/volcanic forcings. Esper's recent paper, another regional study, didn't change this (good discussion at RealClimate). At least I'd agree with you that: "I would not expect that our best average estimates [of equilibrium climate sensitivity] would strain far from 3 degrees c for a doubling of CO2." I'm very glad we agree on that. I'll add a further example of a climate response that has been greater recently than during the MCA - Arctic glaciers and ice shelves, a number of which are exposing land or breaking up for the first time in several thousand years (see section 4.4 in Polyak et al).
56720. IanC at 07:20 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, The 12% figure is the average albedo over the entire surface, ocean included, so 270K will be the average surface temperature. When you cool the average surface temperature from 289K to 270K you are bound to significantly increase ice coverage over land and ocean, so the albedo will have to increase significantly as well. As for the rest of your argument, it appears that you are arguing that sea surface temperature must be higher than land temperature, but your argument is not correct. While the differential absorption in the ocean will affect the vertical profile, the sea surface temperature, which is relevant to sea ice formation, is set purely by the incoming solar radiation. You can go through a detailed model with layers, but the crux is that at equilibrium, whatever solar energy that is not absorbed by the top layer must be balanced by heat flux of an equal magnitude from the deeper ocean, so it is no different from the case where all of the solar energy is absorbed at the surface. Your last point doesn't really prove anything, as during the day the land the temperature is much higher than the ocean,
56721. Daniel Bailey at 06:36 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Would you like a red pill with that...or a blue pill?
56722. scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP" Not to mention relying on them believing what Idso tells them the papers say instead of actually reading them.
56723. Rob Painting at 06:13 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience - The best global paleo-temperature proxies, the great polar ice sheets and tropical glacial ice disagree. These are all currently melting at an accelerating rate and significantly contributing to sea level rise, yet in the roughly 500 year-long Medieval Period, global sea level never rose at all. In fact, sea level rise stopped around 4-5000 years ago and was static until humans began to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels - releasing planet-warming greenhouse gases. Current sea level rise, and consequently current global warmth, is anomalous within the context of the last 7-8000 years.This refutes the notion of a warm Medieval Period. I note that you dodged this issue when I previously raised it. For a person with such a pseudonym you don't seem particularly interested in real science.
56724. Flakmeister at 05:58 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       @47/49...JoeRG Maybe it's the sun or I am getting old and thick, but I keep getting 25% in my head and not 29%... What am I missing?
56725. Roger D at 05:23 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       sorry - just a clarification to my comments above: the report itself was from "the late 1980's or early 1990's", not the anticipated seriousness of AGW. That was in the future.
56726. Roger D at 05:19 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       An interesting observation (maybe) that I recall from reading Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's book "Merchants of Doubt": It is from a part of at the book about US government sponsored reports on the likely seriousness of AGW during late 1980's or early 1990's, and the response of those who got to write the summary (I'm going from my memory of the book, so apologies for not remembering specifics regarding specific personalities, committees, official report names). Anyway, what I recall is that the book documented that when the climate science was largely confirming what is more certain now some 20 years later, the then-proponents against contemplating mitigation did not argue against a synthesis of the science. Instead, they accepted it and simply attached a summary, without any references to support it, stating that we can just adapt by picking up and moving to more preferable living/ growing conditions. The difficulties and specifics involved with this "plan" were not elaborated on. Thanks to Mr. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil is back to where the anti-mitigation proponents where something like 22 years ago. It seems like Déjà Vu all over again.
56727. Daniel J. Andrews at 05:06 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       I feel a bit like a broken record, but we adapt to the consequences, not before the consequences. That means if adaptation is the plan, it will be after there's been massive floods, droughts, famine and loss of life--much of that loss could have been avoided if we decided to reign in our fossil fuel dependency.
56728. vrooomie at 04:37 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       For sphaerica@66...>;-) Head bangingly good!
56729. vrooomie at 04:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       muoncounter@55 and scaddemp@60...methinks you reference this, in your comments... 'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff," Some, "An ambulance down in the valley." But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became full of pity For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. "For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said, "And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much As the shock down below when they're stopping." So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would those rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he, "Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley." "Oh he's a fanatic," the others rejoined, "Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works in the valley?" But the sensible few, who are practical too, Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure, And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence On the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling. "To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best To prevent other people from falling." Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley. -- Joseph Malins (1895)
56730. Rob Honeycutt at 04:08 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience... My biggest objection to your comments is that you've inferred that Dr Mann was somehow attempting to hide the MWP. That's not at all accurate. If you read Mann's recently published book you find out that he was actually skeptical about global warming, like any good scientist. The whole point to his research was to understand what role natural variability played in climate change today. He says that the hockey stick is merely what arose from the data. And in fact, what he was trying to do with his work was to "contain" the MWP, as in, get statistically significant data that reached back to before the MWP. That is what Tom's chart at 153 shows.
56731. Mike3267 at 03:57 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       As the denier camp morphs into the staller camp the arguments for mitigation will get trickier. Economic models are not reliable. It is one thing say 97% of climatologists think X, but quite another to say most economists think we should do something about X. It is even easier to troll out pseudo-economists before the public than quack scientists. (Just look at the budget debates.) We've spent a lot of time thinking about how to explain the science but very little on how to explain policy choices. Among those who favor mitigation some are for cap and trade while others are against this approach; some are pro nuclear power while others are anti-nukes; some see natural gas as a helpful bridge while others do not. It will be very easy for the stallers to use divide and concern tactics.
56732. michael sweet at 03:22 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Realscience, As I recall, Mann used over 2000 proxies in his 2009 analysis. Do you really think that adding 3 more will make a significant difference? Will they overcome the hundreds of other proxies that suggest the MWP was a local anomaly? Your assertion that Mann is somehow in error because he does not publish a reanalysis every time a new proxy is published is simply uninformed. New proxies are published every month. Mann has undoubtedly added the data you like to his data base and looked at the new graph. It is not worth publishing yet. Mann will likely publish a new reconstruction around 5 years after his last paper (earlier or later depending on how interesting it is). He will include all the new proxy data. If for some reason Mann is not able to publish an update, someone else will.
56733. Rob Honeycutt at 03:11 AM on 13 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       realscience @ 159... The papers I've read say that the MCA was "heterogeneous." So, while you can find proxies all over the globe that had a MCA you also find proxies that show no MCA, or you find temporal shifts in when the MCA occurred. What often happens, and is even presented on the Idso's CO2now CO2science website, without reading the literature people see regions of a strong MCA at widely distributed points around the globe and come away with the assumption that the MWP was global and warmer than today. They don't know enough to look closely at the time frame during with warming in each proxy occurs and they don't know that there are 100's of other proxies that show no warming or even cooling during medieval times. In that way, people like the Idso's prey on people's ignorance to create a false impression of the MWP. But what you never get is the Idso's or McIntyre ever producing a real multiproxy reconstruction.
       Moderator Response: [RH] Correction: The Idso's site is CO2science.org, not CO2now.org.
56734. Esop at 03:09 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       It truly is sad to see Giæver putting so much effort into thoroughly destroying his future reputation as a brilliant scientist. Interestingly, he only achieved mediocre to poor grades in college. Could seem that he is extremely talented in a very narrow field, but much less apt at absorbing knowledge in others.
56735. LarryM at 03:04 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Tillerson: "We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that." I wonder how farmers (not to mention coastal inhabitants and others) like the cavalier attitude that their individual livelihoods and lives don't matter at all...they can just adapt. Also, by analogy to the reckoning that ultimately came to the tobacco industry, one day there will be lawsuits assigning blame for the damage caused by industry obstructionism and lying, and we need to remember facts such as ExxonMobil's 20 years of climate modeling that indicate they knew what their product was doing to the planet.
56736. JoeRG at 02:29 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       IanC @48: As told, the 270K are only valid for 29% of the surface. Given the current conditions, the value for the other 71% would be somewhat higher because SW radiation is absorbed at greater depths down to several tens or even hundreds meters. Contrary, LW can be radiated to space only from the uppermost layer. So there must be a transport of heat to the surface before it can be re-radiated. The energy remains in the system and therefore the inner temperature raises to a level where a freezing is impossible for most of latitudes - remember, the cooling effect of clouds is not existent. Given that oceanic currents are running as we know it, this heat (OHC) is transported to the poles too. Therefore the albedo would not be as high as you expect. You can prove the behavior of water quite easily: Imagine a coast where the surface temperatures of water and the shore are equal at dusk. The water will always be warmer during the night because of the stored heat. With or without an atmosphere doesn't matter at all.
56737. BWTrainer at 02:13 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Good rebuttal, but one minor quibble... Saying that "Tillerson's job is to maximize the company's profits" undeservedly lets him off the hook for many people. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but it has that affect for some people. They say things like "well, it would be nice if the corporation could do something, but it's not allowed to because it has to maximize profits, and action would cost money". It grants an excuse for inaction. But there is no law declaring that the sole objective of a corporation is profit maximization. Milton Friedman popularized this line of thought in the 70s, but it has no legal basis. Corporations are capable of engaging in all lawful activities. It's inherently contradictory to say "profit maximization" anyway. For whom? A day trader wants maximum profits now. If I'm retiring in 20 years, I want it maximized at that date. If I'm a pension plan representing people retiring tomorrow as well as people retiring in 30 years, I want it as high as possible now while at the same time not preventing it from staying/rising higher for the 30 year period. By destroying the environment which allows his company to make money, Tillerson is doing a great disservice to his company's long term ability to not only maximize profit, but even stay solvent. These people need their feet held to the fire as much as possible, no excuses.
56738. IanC at 01:59 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG, If the average temperature of the earth were to be 270K, much of the water will be frozen, and thus the albedo will certainly be higher then 12%.
56739. Composer99 at 01:55 AM on 13 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Tillerson appears to try to infer, given sea level rise predictions being "all over the map", that the lower estimates are therefore the most likely. Obviously, this is a non sequitur. Even assuming his premise is correct, without any further analysis any single predicted sea level rise by, say, 2100 is as likely as any other. And by that reasoning there are a lot more alarming, high end predictions (such as the .75 to 1.9 m range given from Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009, which I'm sure I was led to from here on Skeptical Science than soothing, low-end ones.
56740. JoeRG at 01:18 AM on 13 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       I'm really astonished how many of you came to the conclusion that an atmosphereless earth would be colder. You miss something important unnoticed: no atmosphere means no clouds and therefore a reduced albedo (about 12% according to Trenberth's Energy budget). This gives an absorbed energy of 300 W/m² for which the equilibrium is 270K - only valid for 29% of Earth surface, of course. For those who argue that ~240 W/m² were to use: guys, this value depends on cloud albedo! And don't forget that comparisons with the Moon will fail for 71% of the Earth due to the radiative behaviors of water are largely different between shortwave and longwave. So, the blackbody/graybody equations don't work at all. But, this is a different story to be told another time. -funny-
56741. Daniel Bailey at 23:32 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "I would completely discount the glacier study." I take it you refer to Kinnard, the study of Arctic sea ice cover. It is the height of irony for someone proclaiming skepticism to ignore data inconvenient to their position. "Would not glacier extent have to do with precipitation not temperature." Glacial advance and retreat is governed by mass-balance. Mass-balance is the balance between depositions in the glacial accumulation zone and losses in the ablation zone. It is a dynamic measurement and differs for each and every glacier in the world. It is affected by temperature, altitude, season, precipitation and insolation. It is quite possible for some glaciers to advance in a warming world or retreat in a cooling world. Given the volume of glaciers in the world, there is an ample record of advancement & retreat going back multiple millennia. Some support a warm MCA, but only in certain time periods, some the opposite. The overall glacial record suggests regional warmth for the MCA, with a varying temporal placement. It is thus most inconvenient to the fake-skeptics, who wish to ignore it or to wish it away. Between sea ice, stalagmites, glaciers (ice cores and moraines), trees, CO2 and CH4 proxies, there exists a converging and strengthening consensus of record showing the MCA to be a general period of warmth largely centered in the North Atlantic and Europe. Heterogenous, but not homogenous.
56742. realscience at 23:16 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Rob, As tom has corrected me, it was mbh '99 not mbh '98. I read them a long time ago and I'm not great with dates. tom and Skywalker, I am not accusing mann of a secret agenda. Jones and Mann talked about it, and defining the terms. It was discussed with cook. Esper publicly disagreed. We do have private correspondence that goes to reasons, but lets not rehash it. As to high MCA meaning high sensitivity, it does not follow. Let's go to the discussion of what forcings might be involved. First changes in albedo, but those are stronger today as there is less ice. Solar, volcanic activity, and ocean circulation and heating patterns. If these can be modeled better, then sensitivity can be nailed down better. More variability that is not well modeled does give more uncertainty to the range. I would not expect that our best average estimates would strain far from 3 degrees c for a doubling of CO2. I certainly am not saying that a hotter MWP means less forcings from ghg, only that the data seems to be going there. I am also not saying that the MWP was warmer than today, only that it likely was global, and that because of the high uncertainty in these temperature reconstructions we should not rule out that it was hotter than today.
56743. realscience at 23:03 PM on 12 July 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Daniel, Thank you for the studies. I would completely discount the glacier study. We have a much more direct proxy in ice cores that seem to disagree. Would not glacier extent have to do with precipitation not temperature. That would explain the difference. Perhaps with the ice cores the glacier extent can help with precipitation patterns. The stalagmite is more interesting. I have not sen that proxy before. Certainly this finding disagrees with sst of southern spain, but water and land temperatures often diverge. Thank you for that. I will look into it.
56744. jhint at 21:44 PM on 12 July 2012
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Why not include Tony Abbott's photo on this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php Why just limit these polis to USA? You have him here at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Tony_Abbott.htm
56745. Tristan at 21:19 PM on 12 July 2012
       Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
       yeah, ie Nigeria subsidises fuel alone to the tune of $8B.
56746. ajki at 19:27 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       When I read about Molina's presentation, I noticed he was talking at least in parts about concerns of scientists about public misrepresentations and severe misunderstandings, taking "climate change wars" as an example for this phenomenon (I remember Hansen talking about the same issues lately; SkS is currently running a support list for Jones, who was/is a target of hate&flame mails for just doing his job). Perhaps the Giaever presentation was meant as a practical demonstration of the before mentioned reasons. If so, the attending audience could indeed have learned something.
56747. Dikran Marsupial at 18:17 PM on 12 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Tom, as far as I can see your countexample is incorrect. Prior to 1850, Ea = 0; En = k/4; Un = k/4; C' = 0 In this case, mass balance tells us that the natural environment is neither a net source nor a net sink, which is the correct answer. After 1850 (first scenario) Ea = k/2; En = 2k; Un = k; C' = 3k/2 In this case, the mass balance tells us that the natural envrionment is a net source and is contributing to the rise in C (in fact we can see that it is responsible for 2/3 of it as net natural emissions are twice Ea). After 1850 (second scenario) Ea = 0; En = 2k; Un = k; C' = k In this case, the mass balance analysis again gives the correct result that the natural environment is a net source and is responsible for 100% of the observed increase. After 1850 (third scenario) Ea = k/2; En = k/4; Un = 3k/4; C' = 0 In this case the mass balance tells us that the netural environment is a net sink and has exactly opposed the rise that would have been caused by anthropogenic emissions. Which is correct. Now, as you say, it is possible to make a bizarre non-physical scenario where nature is set up in a way in which an increase in natural emissions were necessary for a rise in CO2, but in both of the examples you gave, when atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the natural environment was a net source. This is not what we observe, we observe that the natural environment is a net carbon sink. Can you give a counter example where the natural environment is a net carbon sink, but where the cause of the rise is natural?
56748. scaddenp at 15:11 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       Sphaerica - I heard enough of American rhetoric to believe you on chances of setting up a supertax in States. However, down here its harder for the rich to buy a government so a lot easier to get votes for eat-the-rich schemes. That said, I think the left in Aussie is way too weak to get the political capital for any kind of nationalisation. Too much evidence that it works badly for one thing.
56749. scaddenp at 15:05 PM on 12 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly "In an idealised, textbook-model world - which we don't occupy." There is almost no practical barrier to the pigovian tax other than government will want to take a portion to cover admin. Other jurisdictions have done it (eg BC). This is what you want to fight for. If you are on low income side, then probably not jetting round world etc. so very likely on the lower-than-average side of carbon usage. Works that way. "And every competitor is incentivised to do exactly the same thing right now." That's a "markets-dont-work-to-keep-prices-down" statement implying business conspiracies. I dont think you can support that. "I've outlined at least two substantial sources for it," Fair enough but I was objecting to your wartime-munitions model.
56750. Dave123 at 14:20 PM on 12 July 2012
       Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
       Considering the long held position that somehow climate skeptics can't get funding Exxon's admission of funding climate model studies for 20 years at MIT is useful to note in rejoinder. More interesting is who there is doing the work (Lindzen? I didn't think he did GCMs) and whether they are publishing and whether they are acknowledging E-M as a source of funding. Project for John Mashey). But here's the real takeaway as far as I'm concerned: Exxon Mobil isn't saying/can't say that "we've done our own climate modeling and our rise is temperatures is due to X and not increasing CO2 in the atmosphere." You can bet the folks and Shell have been trying too. Where's the model that doesn't involve CO2? And in the 2nd largest privately held Oil Company (Koch Brothers), their foundation helped fund the BEST study that ended up showing that all those climate scientist were doing it right. As a starting point- in 2011 this was published: Reference Type: Journal Article Author: Prinn, Ronald Author: Paltsev, Sergey Author: Sokolov, Andrei Author: Sarofim, Marcus Author: Reilly, John Author: Jacoby, Henry Primary Title: Scenarios with MIT integrated global systems model: significant global warming regardless of different approaches Journal Name: Climatic Change Cover Date: 2011-02-01 Publisher: Springer Netherlands Issn: 0165-0009 Subject: Earth and Environmental Science Start Page: 515 End Page: 537 Volume: 104 Issue: 3 Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9792-y Doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9792-y Abstract: A wide variety of scenarios for future development have played significant roles in climate policy discussions. This paper presents projections of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, sea level rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melt, oceanic acidity, and global mean temperature increases computed with the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM) using scenarios for twenty-first century emissions developed by three different groups: intergovernmental (represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), government (represented by the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program) and industry (represented by Royal Dutch Shell plc). In all these scenarios the climate system undergoes substantial changes. By 2100, the CO 2 concentration ranges from 470 to 1020 ppm compared to a 2000 level of 365 ppm, the CO 2 -equivalent concentration of all greenhouse gases ranges from 550 to 1780 ppm in comparison to a 2000 level of 415 ppm, oceanic acidity changes from a current pH of around 8 to a range from 7.63 to 7.91, in comparison to a pH change from a preindustrial level by 0.1 unit. The global mean temperature increases by 1.8 to 7.0°C relative to 2000. Such increases will require considerable adaptation of many human systems and will leave some aspects of the earth’s environment irreversibly changed. Thus, the remarkable aspect of these different approaches to scenario development is not the differences in detail and philosophy but rather the similar picture they paint of a world at risk from climate change even if there is substantial effort to reduce emissions.

Prev  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  Next