Recent Comments

Prev  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  Next

Comments 68451 to 68500:

68451. skept.fr at 12:23 PM on 14 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       #70 Sphaerica : one step back ! Clearly, we disagree. Forgive me if I am misinterpreting your attitude, but "the very first priority is ... to reinforce the R&D..." is exactly my problem. I also write just after : and before all to price carbon externalities so as to give the good signal and improve RE competitiveness. So, unless my English is still more incorrect than I imagine, you retain what you mostly disagree with, but you do not correctly represent what I wrote. (As a citizen of UE, I’ve no problem with high tax on gasoline, Kyoto, etc. we have an energy-climate plan for 2050 with a first step in 2020 and the ultimate target of 1 tCO2/c/y. Your concerns for inaction in my case are strawman, and I would add that I personally and already produce less than 1tCO2 each year). For R&D, it is a urgent necessity because RE have quite poor energy and power densities, storage, etc. They are not sufficient in their current technologies for providing enough energy to the world in 2050 (best estimate of RE in the mix in 2050 : 250 EJ/y according to median value of IPCC SRREX 2011 scenarios, current production approx. 500 EJ/y). Facts are stubborn things, that’s true for climate, that’s true for energy too. Specifically, I do not "accept the fact that a part of the climate change is tolerable". De facto, you accept this situation if not you would simply require the global prohibition of fossil extraction. It is by far the simplest solution of you want to stop carbon emissions and climate change induced by the emissions. If you tell me that fossil prohibition would have too many adverse effects, it means that you implicitly prefer a fossil-fuelled world with a changing climate than a non fossil-fuelled world with a stabilizing climate. So do I, but I’m coherent and I explain my position, or at least I try. For the rest, I’m all but at ease with your discourse. Peters et al 2011 graph is crystal clear : 7 billion people need fossil energy, and mainly the poorest 5 billion that engaged recently in development and that are responsible of nearly all the 49% increase of emissions from 1990 to 2010 (the poorest among the poorest haven’t been involved in these emissions, and for this reason among others, their quality of life is generally tragic). A discourse that doesn’t address precisely this reality and doesn’t explain how to deal with these energy needs is a dangerous discourse, the fact that it pretends to avoid another danger doesn’t make it less dangerous. Indian citizens are basically unconcerned by US wastes, they have a mean 25 GJ per capita per year and a decent quality of life would imply rather 75 GJ (US citizens have 330 GJ, you observe that my target is far from imitating Western wasteful way of life). So, unless you explain precisely (not with effortless rhetoric on ‘magnats’) how to produce this energy without the abundant coal in India ground, you cannot have the lesser hope for a drastic change in carbon emissions. And secondarily (forgive me if I misinterpret you attitude), you cannot convince me that you’re really interested in the development of the second and the third world.
68452. Eric (skeptic) at 12:22 PM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       skywatcher (#78), I agree with your assessment of the Shaviv graphic (lower graphic in #38) and I answered in #40. The pacemaker question is important and GCR coincides somewhat with Milankovitch as explained by Mercurio. CO2's control knob works best in cold conditions like the present or colder. My source is simply the logarithmic curve that we all have seen. There is no ceiling like you say but a gradual switch from CO2 causation to temperature causation in the amplification effect. I will elaborate more on a CO2 control knob thread if you want me to. Back on topic, my conjecture about the cosmic ray mechanism is that it shows up in the long term (e.g. upper graphic in #38) so therefore must act through the oceans which are really the only plausible long term actor. I would expect that given a particular rate of overturning, a very subtle warming of SST's would be possible (on average) in a low GCR (lowered cloudiness) regime which over time would warm all ocean layers and aid a flip out of glacial into interglacial. Of course the coincidental increase in TSI is important and may well be the only necessary factor or the main factor. It's not easy to determine.
68453. DrTsk at 12:21 PM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       My hat off to you Sphaerica for your patience!!! TOP, if your experiments are so great that invalidates more than a hundred years of knowledge go ahead publish and become famous. Atmosphere is NOT opaque no matter how you look at it. The spectrum emission might look continuous but it is not. Atmosphere is NOT densely packed with water vapor. It is densely packed with N2 and O2. At 20oC the saturation at sea level is around 20,000 ppm of water, and we are now around ~400 ppm of CO2. I would say HARDLY densely packed. Actually above a certain height there is ONLY CO2 in the atmosphere (from the GHG ensemble). CO2 is much better well distributed compared to H2O.
68454. skywatcher at 12:12 PM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       #80, I agree that other aspects of the carbon cycle would change too. I'd hang my hat on the primary trigger being a disruption of circulation in the Atlantic, but this would surely then drive changes in other parts of the carbon cycle as unglaciated parts of Europe and America cooled. Presumably Be10 is a better indicator as there is less exchange between ocean and atmosphere? Not sure on chemistry for Be, but clearly C14 record is complicated by the 2-way exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere, hence its use in seeing ocean circulation change.
68455. muoncounter at 12:02 PM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Eric: My main criticism of Dragic's result was the fact that in a 41 year database, they can show only 35 events producing an identifiable change in temperatures. At less than 1 per year, that's not much to hang a hat, let alone a theory, on.
68456. scaddenp at 11:58 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Thanks skywatcher. I guess I am in the mixed camp. When temp goes down it seem to me that many other aspects of carbon cycle are also changed (eg vegetation uptake, swamp venting). Be10 looks to be a better indicator of GCR in the long run.
68457. skywatcher at 11:55 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       {#78 is in response to #71 BTW}
68458. skywatcher at 11:55 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Eric, did you read sphaerica's response to your #38 in #39? I'm not going to be in a hurry to trust that graph in #38 at all. The necessary conditions for an interglacial are suitable orbital forcing - or do you think Milankovitch was wrong and the pacemaker pattern of 100k, 41k and 26kyr cycles is entirely coincidental? CO2 only a 'control knob in cold conditions'? That's a new one - source please. The saturation effect only means that there is a reduction in forcing per tonne of atmospheric CO2 as you increase, not that there is a ceiling above which there is no forcing. For the same reason, methane is much more powerful a GHG - the spectral line is less saturated. The rest of your post is conjecture - can you provide sources (e.g. Lockwood and demonstrated effects). The biggest unresolved question is what is the mechanism by which GCRs can affect climate, don't you think?
68459. TOP at 11:51 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1160 Sphaerica The atmosphere is densely packed with water vapor and CO₂? Just what is the volume percentage of CO₂ in the atmosphere? a) 40% b) 4% c) .4% d) .04% e) None of the above Hint: You will find the answer in G&T, Table 4, p.8. And I am glad you agree with G&T that the box experiment is not a good representation of the atmosphere. It is good to know G&T got something right. Now if you had said the box experiment did not agree with how greenhouses operate that would be a great flaw in G&T.

       2.6 Glass house summary
       It is not the “trapped” infrared radiation, which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse, but it is the suppression of air cooling."Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, p34

       The purpose of the Wood experiment is singular, to determine whether radiation or convection controls the temperature of the air inside the box. The simple conclusion is that radiation has nothing to do with it. Glass completely blocks the escape of radiation. Rock salt allows all radiation to pass freely. With rock salt the box actually heats faster because the IR from the sun is allowed in as another forcing. @1157 muoncounter Sure I know how IR thermometers work. Can you explain to me how not to point an IR thermometer at something? Is the stratosphere a vacuum? Can you explain why pointing the IR thermometer at the sun does not register 5,800K? The IR thermometer integrates thermal energy within it's view cone by focusing it onto an IR sensitive transistor after filtering visible light. It uses the Stefan-Boltzmann law to back out the temperature (T&G eq.28, p.20). It doesn't care where the thermal energy comes from. Thermal energy doesn't carry little tags on it with it's origin stamped on it. Since pointing it at zenith allows it's view cone to take in the whole sky the area/radiant energy being integrated compensates for the low emissivity of the gases in the atmosphere above it. After all the reciprocal of the area of a 15deg included angle cone 29,000 ft away is about 2.2E-8 which is on the order of magnitude or smaller than the emissivity of the stratosphere. The farther away, the greater the area seen, and the more the low emissivity is compensated. The sun's emissivity is extremely low and it's apparent area is extremely small so it just doesn't register. So it is no coincidence that taking a reading of clear sky registers -55F or so on the IR thermometer which is experimental evidence that my hypothesis is right. Similarly when cloud if fully covering the view cone the thermometer measures something around freezing which is what I would expect cloud temperature to be (rain clouds anyway). And this line of reasoning is further backed up by the frequent formation of frost on my cars even when the air temperature is above freezing. The surface of the car and windshield radiates heat to a colder object, that being the stratosphere and space. If the car is under a tree, the frost won't form. In fact wikipedia mentions that IR thermometry is used to detect the presence of clouds. Same thing that I am doing.
68460. Tom Curtis at 11:43 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1152: 1) You misquote Connolly as saying the troposphere is opaque to IR radiation. What he actually said is that it is "largely opaque to IR radiation". (My emphasis). That is easily verified by examining the downward IR radiation at the surface, as for example in these two spectra: You will notice that even with low humidity (Barrow Island), the atmosphere is essentially opaque to IR radiation outside the bands between wavenumber 800 and 1000, and between 1100 and 1200. With high humidity (Nauru) there are significant local emissions even in those bands. These facts were first discovered by the US Air Force, which conducted experiments in the IR transmission properties of the atmosphere so that they could effectively deploy heat seeking missiles. Consequently heat seeking missiles, and IR cameras, and IR thermometers are all tuned to the bands of low IR emission by the lower atmosphere. This model, for example, is tuned to the entire band of low atmospheric emissions, 8 µm to 14 µm (see spectral response under specifications). Arguing the atmosphere is not largely opaque to IR radiation because you can use an instrument tuned to the wavelengths in which the atmosphere least opaque is bizarre, although certainly not unique to you among fake skeptics. Neither is misquoting a source to strengthen your case. I hope both were accidental, and that you will now recognize that Connolly's claim was correct. 2) If known temperatures and humidities (from observations are fed into a Line By Line (LBL) radiation model, the result looks something like this: This is the result of an actual comparison between a LBL model and observations over the Gulf of Mexico. This is the same comparison with theoretical and observed spectra offset for clarity: Here is a detail of the first image with black body curves shown for clarity: You will notice that the absorption band of CO2 emits radiation consistent with a black body curve of 220 degrees Kelvin. As the Earth must on average emit energy equivalent to a black body curve of 255 degrees K to not continuously gain heat, it follows that that low emission must be compensated for by a higher emission somewhere else. Because of the absorption by water, the band in which that higher emission can come from is largely restricted to the area of IR transparency, ie, in which the radiation is coming from the surface. In order to emit IR radiation with a black body equivalence greater than 255 degrees K, the surface of the Earth has to be at at temperature greater than 255 degrees K. Ergo, the absorption of IR by CO2 forces the temperature of the surface to have a temperature greater than that which it would have had in the absence of the CO2. That was all simple physics, and follows immediately from the observed emissions, and the conservation of energy. No amount of experimentation with a toy box can prove these observations false, and therefore not amount of experimentation with a toy box can show that the greenhouse effect does not exist. In case you think that that observation/model comparison was cherry-picked because it was an unusually good fit, here is the scatterplot of 134,862 comparisons between measured, and modeled Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) measurements: 3) A very minor point, but Wood's experiment was designed to show whether or not greenhouses warmed because of increase IR back radiation from the glass panels. His experiment successfully showed that they do not. It does not show, and is incapable from its design of showing, that the greenhouse effect does not exist. People who think it does do not understand the physics of the greenhouse effect. In order to successfully test whether a slab model of the IR effect is physically sound, you need to isolate the radiated surface (floor of the box) and the window (top of the box) by means of a vacuum. I do not believe it is possible to model the actual greenhouse effect as seen in Earth's atmosphere in so small a physical model. 4) Names are acquired through history and retained from convenience. Yes, the "greenhouse effect" is not in fact the effect that warms greenhouses. But neither are tin cans made from tin, nor are rubber ducks either rubber, or ducks. Get over it. If such trivia are all you have to criticize the theory, then that theory is very well grounded indeed.
68461. Eric (skeptic) at 11:43 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       muoncounter, that's reasonable but it is difficult to discern effects in noisy measurements. My engineering approach would be to describe one or more models of potential physics (e.g. some aspect of clouds), what input measurements are made and how they map to the model (e.g. proxy measurements), and what the model outputs are (e.g. types of cloud cover over various areas) and how those can be mapped to real world measurements (e.g. satellite measurements). I don't think it is possible to map a model output to GAT in a short or medium term, there is too much short term variation from other factors. My cloud cover example should be the easiest one and even that is hard in step 3 (obtaining suitable measurements and determining the mapping). I think that in the Dragic et al paper the diurnal temperature range link is rather diffuse. But your critique of the delay seem unwarranted since the cosmic ray created particles take time to grow (days seems reasonable). As Pierce points how, the higher the initial nucleation rate, the slower the growth rate. So a higher event (7% vs 5%) may be more detectable because there is more lag. Love (above) may be in the worst measurement regime namely decade timescales containing numerous natural cycles.
68462. skywatcher at 11:40 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       scaddenp - The plausible mechanism is that of disruption of North Atlantic ocean circulation by a freshwater pulse, leading to a reduction in the exchange between ocean and atmosphere of C14, causing the plateau. The bipolar seesaw (Broecker 1998) of Antarctic warming at the time is strong evidence for ocean circulation changes, rather than an overarching global cause (solar/GCR/impact (impact discussed by RC here and in internal links). For ocean ventilation, references might be the Hughen ones linked in my #51, or Keigwin and Schlegel 2002, but there are dissenting voices, suggesting a much more mixed ventilation/other cause (e.g. Marchal et al 2000. A few references on the YD in this NOAA perspective article too. Wally Broecker on his flood hypothesis provides a very balanced discussion of the distinctiveness and of possible problems with a flood hypothesis. It may even be the last Heinrich event (see the refs via this Wiki page). What is clear about the YD: It's abrupt, and apparently a very unusual event during deglaciation. It is most pronounced around the Atlantic. It's not global, and abundant evidence exists for a 'seesaw' between NH and SH, suggesting changes in global oceanic heat transport via the Atlantic. Whether the trigger is massive flood, other freshwater discharge, ice sheet dynamics, or some other cause, the ocean circulation is altered, and there seems reasonable evidence that this drives the delta C14 changes. It's not a closed book, however, but there is no evidence that GCRs triggered it!
68463. Philippe Chantreau at 11:21 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       "the clouds have to be at a temperature above freezing to exist." That is incorrect. Temperature has to be at or below the dew point for any visible moisture to exist. Clouds can and do exist at temeratures at or below freezing. Liquid water can exist at air temperatures as low as -40 deg Celsius.
68464. scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Gee, where to start? Did you look at SoD? How about (from SoD) "In any case, a larger portion of the incoming sunlight lies in the infrared range than in the visible range. In most papers discussing the supposed greenhouse effect this important fact is completely ignored." Talk about a completely unsupportable (and wrong assertion). However, the core would be about validity the RTE and (to quote SoD) their "imaginary 2nd law". Again, conventional text book physics has no problem producing predictions that match observation. If G&T were right, then this would be impossible. I'll stick with the text book thanks.
68465. Bob Lacatena at 10:20 AM on 14 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       69, skept.fr, I want to find some common ground, but you're putting words into my mouth, or at best over-interpreting what I am saying. Specifically, I do not "accept the fact that a part of the climate change is tolerable". I simply accept the reality that too an abrupt a transition from fossil fuel use would be just as intolerable as climate change. What I do not agree with at all, however, is your seemingly blasé and sluggish attitude towards getting started. Forgive me if I am misinterpreting your attitude, but "the very first priority is ... to reinforce the R&D..." is exactly my problem. This is an excuse for doing nothing else, for waiting while fossil-fuel magnates make trillions of dollars and the clock ticks ominously. R&D, yes. Application of available clean technologies on a much broader scale, right now, yes. Quick and meaningful changes in societal and individual behavior against grotesque and unnecessary waste, yes. And none of these solutions would in any way damage economies. They would help economies. They would mostly create jobs. But the profits would shift away from national and global conglomerates and into the hands of the people that actually do most of the work, because you'd be eliminating that international middleman that packages and transports the goods thousands of miles across continents for little reason other than the fact that it seems to be cheap... but it appears cheap because the externalities of the expenses are not applied now, to the transaction at hand. That is left to you and I to pay ten, twenty or fifty years down the road. But it's not that the expense isn't there. It just isn't obvious yet. It's rather like one of those deals with the devil where the poor guy is all shocked and upset when the devil shows up at the end to collect. The USA is abysmally behind in every possible tangible approach to the problem. In the USA, it is very rare to see a car more than 10 years old. If people had been serious about the problem, 80% of the personal vehicles in the USA could already be hybrids, just as a matter of people having purchased them as they retired their old vehicles, and this could have come with accompanying advances in the transportation of goods and a reduction in costs due to mass production and volume. But people aren't serious about doing things. They want to do what you propose, which is to pretend to invest in R&D. What they'd like is for scientists and engineers to work for decades on finding easy, painless, and virtually expense-free solutions so that they can keep living their lives in oblivious — but expensive — bliss. That may not be what you intend, but it is the ultimate outcome of your position and your attitude. You can say that you want action — but do nothing of meaning for far too long. And if you wait, you will find that both climate change and the economic catastrophe that you so fear will both fall upon you at the same time.
68466. TOP at 10:16 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1162 scaddenp Maybe you can tell me in what section of their paper they propound a misconception? The paper has 115 pages. I'd like to know one misconception and the page and section it occurs in. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
68467. Zen69 at 09:53 AM on 14 December 2011
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       CBDunkerson Thanks. I have checked the references you gave me and I certainly took note of the passage on page 12 of the Schweige study which states "These results demonstrate that the model captures ice thickness variability beyond the annual cycle, suggesting that long term spatial and temporal variability may be well represented." The problem I am having is that I am not very scientifically literate, so when it comes to descriptions of models and stats I am liable to just glaze over. This is certainly the case with the above study. Is there any possibility that you could give me a brief summary of the process that is being described in the study and its overall findings, but in laymans terms and as simply as possible. I would be very grateful. Thanks.
68468. scaddenp at 09:26 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Skywatcher - you say "We have a very plausible mechanism in place for the observed changes of C14 and of regional cooling, in the form of changes in oceanic ventilation driving changes in delta C14". Do you have reference for this please? I'm interested in isotope variation by swamp methane (eg Petrenko) cf ocean ventilation.
68469. muoncounter at 08:44 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the necessary condition for Eric's necessary condition is that GCRs have a demonstrable impact on climate? or even on just the weather? Neither of those have been substantiated as of yet - and there is considerable evidence to the contrary: Dragic's disappointingly scant results, Pierce on aerosol nucleation (at RC) and Love et al's lack of statistical significance.
68470. Rob Painting at 08:33 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Steve L @ 3 - Points 1 & 2 fixed. Thanks. 3. Higher water temperatures ramp up metabolic processes in the 'sea butterfly', which means they chew through their energy reserves (lipids) much quicker. In this particular experiment (Lischka [2011]) the sea butterflies were not fed. It's a bit of a no-brainer, but it is relevant because this species overwinters and relies on stored body reserves to last through winter when there is no food available. This animal has a 1 year life cycle, and exists in a larval form prior to overwintering. Warming of the sub-surface ocean suggests they'll be less likely to survive the winter, and continue to develop into mature adults (that process requiring the considerable expenditure of energy). But this all depends, of course, on how the pattern of ice cover (among other things) responds to warming in the future. Anomalously warm patches in the sub-surface ocean over autumn/fall are already being observed though, as detailed in Lischka (2011), and at a time when the sea butterfly was in a pre-wintering phase, and likely to have ceased feeding.
68471. Composer99 at 08:19 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       So, on the one hand, we have: - empirical findings of IR backradiation from the atmosphere measured from the surface; - empirical findings of IR wavelengths being blocked by IR-trapping (aka greenhouse) gases measured from satellites - empirical findings showing an energy imbalance at top-of-atmosphere, measured from satellites - empirical findings showing extra energy is rapidly building up in the Earth climate system (e.g. measurements of ocean heat content, ice melt, temperatures climbing) - other empirical markers of a rapid warming from meteorology and from ecology - experiment and known physics backing up all of the above And on the other hand we have TOP trying to tell us all that is wrong, wrong, wrong based on a few handheld IR thermometer measurements.
68472. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP, G&T spend about 18 pages telling us what is already well known and understood as if they had some shocking new insight before getting into their own misconceptions. Science has known for a long time that the "Greenhouse Effect" is poorly named. The article is only about what is new that G&T assert.
68473. scaddenp at 06:41 AM on 14 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       "The necessary conditions for an interglacial appear to be consistently low GCRs for some period of time." Am I to understand that you think the driver for interglacial/glacial is GCR flux instead of the existing milankovich theory? ie we are in a glacial until GCR values drop?
68474. muoncounter at 06:39 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP#1157 IR handhelds don't work that way. If you're not pointing at an object, it's not measuring anything. To claim a handheld can take the temp of the stratosphere is preposterous.
68475. Bob Lacatena at 06:32 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP, You put words in my mouth. I never said the term "greenhouse" was a misnomer. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, because as Riccardo says, who the h-e-double--climate-hockey-sticks cares? It's a pointless debate. But you seem to have missed the point. Yes, you understand the purpose of the Wood experiment, but you have failed to understand why the design of the experiment was flawed. Please go back and read what I wrote. You are completely missing everything. As far as an IR-opaque atmosphere leading to global cooling... how the h-e-double-climate-hockey-sticks do you get that?
68476. Tom Dayton at 05:59 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP, the term "greenhouse effect" is perfectly legitimate and useful for its intended use as a teaching and communication analogy for the high level mechanism: More energy comes in than goes out. You are obsessing about something of absolutely no consequence.
68477. Riccardo at 05:39 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I can't belive that the meme "greenhoue effect is a minomer" keeps poppping up. It really tells nothing about the science and is a distraction that no one nedd, not even the sceptics/deniers. If Arrhenius (who probably was the first to use this analogy) knew, I'm sure he would not use it. And who's going to tell Tyndall of the new findings that "That is hardly a troposphere opaque to IR"? Luckly, we have comforting breking news: "Greenhouses warm because convection is prevented and not because IR radiation is blocked." Who could immagine that! Sorry for the sarcasm, TOP. But really the knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere and of radiation is way beyond that. Maybe you're right that it's not denialism but sure enough it's not "experiment" either.
68478. TOP at 05:32 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1154 Composer99 My experiment with the IR thermometer showed that the troposphere is not opaque to IR. Someone mentioned that I was measuring the temperature of the air around me with the IR thermometer. That is incorrect, I get essentially the same readings on a clear day whether the outside temperature is 90F or 20F. When clouds intervene the sky temperature goes up because the bottom of the clouds is lower and the clouds have to be at a temperature above freezing to exist. So, Connelly was wrong to say the troposphere is opaque to IR. G&T also talk about this in their discussion about how there can be frost on the ground when the air temperature is above freezing.
68479. Yvan Dutil at 05:30 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       "Trying to look on the bright side, perhaps these regions provide a window to the future to see how higher oceanic CO2 concentrations can be expected to affect these productive ecosystems." Yes, but this is not the kind of experiment I think we should do!
68480. TOP at 05:23 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1153 Sphaerica I'm glad you agree with G&T. The term "greenhouse" is a misnomer when talking about the atmosphere. G&T propose using the term "atmosphere effect".

       Fleagle and Businger (1963) [125] devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that radiation trapping by the Earth’s atmosphere should be called ‘atmosphere effect’ to discourage use of the misnomer. Munn (1966) [126] reiterated that the analogy between ‘atmosphere’ and ‘greenhouse’ effect ‘is not correct because a major factor in greenhouse climate is the protection the glass gives against turbulent heat losses’.[G&T quoting Lee, 1973]"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, p37

       Further, the purpose of the Wood experiment was to determine whether it was radiation or convection that caused a greenhouse to warm. The results of the experiment were that a)it was convection, or the lack thereof that caused the greenhouse to warm and b)the heating of the greenhouse was influenced by IR from the sun causing the rock salt greenhouse to be warmer since rock salt allowed more IR radiation into the greenhouse.

       When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65◦C, the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.[bolding mine][G&T quoting Wood, 1909]"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, p33

       Indeed, if the atmosphere were opaque to IR (longer wavelengths) we would expect global cooling based on this experiment.
       Moderator Response: [JH] There is no need for you to use a small font size for citations. If text is so tiny to be unreadable, it has no value.
68481. Steve L at 04:59 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Yvan, I wonder how much of the methane is converted to CO2 before it bubbles to the surface? Trying to look on the bright side, perhaps these regions provide a window to the future to see how higher oceanic CO2 concentrations can be expected to affect these productive ecosystems.
68482. skept.fr at 04:54 AM on 14 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       Sphaerica : Absolutely, yes. But that basis can no longer be fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the investment and infrastructure for fossil fuels is so entrenched in our civilization that it will take many decades to replace it all... unless we try to do so in a too-rapidly painful way that will be as disruptive as climate change itself. Oh nice, we perfectly agree on that and so was my main point ! When you speak of a ‘painful’ and ‘disruptive’ decarbonization, that is exactly what I mean by ‘human evaluation of climate change’. You accept the fact that a part of the climate change is tolerable because a too abrupt energy change would be comparatively less tolerable. By doing so, you evaluate what is (more or less) good or bad for human society exactly as I suggest we should do. This does’nt mean you consider climate change as good in itself, but better (or not worse if you prefer) than an abrupt energy shortage. About climate, you’re projecting death and suffering in a possible and future world, but when it comes to human welfare, I’m personally speaking of death and suffering in our present and real world, for which certainty is 100% from observations, not X% from models. I confess that I‘m suspicious (and often irritated) toward climate-centered views that seem to ignore or relativize the other problems of humanity, the orders of magnitude of human needs in our world, the potentially damaging conflict between climate goals and energy supply, as I gave a concrete example with Indian dilemmas after Durban. But if your position is a realistic one, as it seems to be with this quote, there’s no problem : we agree. When it comes to solution, you must note that even if OECD divides by two its carbon emissions, what I hope we’ll do as fast at possible but what will already be a great challenge, this leave us with a 2 PgC decrease each year : but this quantity is what is henceforth added to annual emissions from developing countries in less than 10 years (see Peters et al 2011 in the carbon discussion) and this development is just the beginning of the great leap forward modernization of their societies. So let’s be clear : if we don’t want a ‘disruptive’ and ‘painful’ carbon plan, it will be very difficult to prevent a CO2 doubling. That’s why the very first priority is to ease the access to non-carbon energy everywhere it is possible, to reinforce the R&D in that domain and before all to price carbon externalities so as to give the good signal and improve RE competitiveness. At least I prefer this kind of clear way that to lose precious years with discussions around an unrealistic world 450 ppm target, not even mentioning the 350 ppm Hansenian ideal. PS : You point out the risk of fossil ‘near exhaustion’ : I suggest this could be another very good argument for a huge effort in decarbonization – and perhaps the future deus ex machina for a rapid (but if so difficult) energy transition. Tom Curtis seems to be very optimistic about fossil reserves, when suggesting in #44 we’ve enough for CO2 4600 ppmv, and CO2 1000 ppmv in this century. These ‘geologic’ quantities from USGS Survey (or ‘cornucopian’ estimates of Lomborg’s style) are IMO far from the real quantities we can extract and use at a sustainable cost for our economy. But we'll check that point well before 2050, or even 2030.
68483. Steve L at 04:52 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Thanks for the update on ocean acidification. I look forward to the next post on oysters in the Pacific Northwest. A couple of editorial comments on this post: 1. "colder water being able to absorb more CO2" -- the water isn't getting colder, so "cold water" may be less confusing. 2. "further melt-induced warming feeds more nutrients" -- not sure what is meant here ... perhaps warming-induced melt increases run-off? 3. "warm seawater both contribute to higher mortality" -- could you expand on this? By what mechanism does warmer water influence mortality? Is it just quicker life cycle turnover or is it higher metabolism interacting with carbonate undersaturation? Thanks!
68484. Jim Powell at 04:44 AM on 14 December 2011
       Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
       Excellent job, Dana.
68485. CBDunkerson at 04:32 AM on 14 December 2011
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       peacetracker, some information on Arctic volume uncertainty and validation can be found here and here. The point your 'sceptic' is making about 'estimates vs actual measurements' is belied by the fact that the estimates closely match the actual measurements where those are available. Basically, it is like claiming that if we have a +/- 0.01 C uncertainty on the precise global temperature anomaly at any given time then we should ignore the +0.8 C total change in the anomaly. The 'uncertainty' around Arctic ice volume is mis-used in exactly the same way... we might be slightly off the exact value at any given point, but there is absolutely no question that the volume has dropped precipitously.
68486. Yvan Dutil at 04:26 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       To the list of arctic environmental pressure you can add massive outgasing. Warning! Dont read the following if you are depressive! http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
68487. MasterLionel at 04:19 AM on 14 December 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       DSL, wow that IS a bit odd. Antarctic sea ice is expected to eventually start declining, but this seems more likely to be some sort of short-term fluctuation. The 'growth' in Antarctic sea ice has been small enough that the current year amount still drops below the long term average semi-regularly. This contrasts with the situation in the Arctic where skeptics got excited earlier this year about the extent coming CLOSE to the long term average for the first time in years. Make sure to read this: get far cry 3. Thus, the current dip is unusual, but not unprecedented. Looks like the Southern melt season started about two weeks early for some reason.
68488. TOP at 04:17 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1150,355 muoncounter I'm talking about those responding to the original post. In fact I wonder if the OP actually read G&T. As for comment #2, that post says G&T is completely wrong. That is a pretty broad statement. It means that the experiment that they did to show what the greenhouse effect is was wrong. And it means that in your quote of Connelly, he was wrong. The posts seem to wander away from dealing with G&T ad nauseum.
68489. Pete Dunkelberg at 03:59 AM on 14 December 2011
       Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
       Thanks for this very educational post. Slightly off topic but there has to be a place at Skeptical Science to mention this educational asset: Serendipity gives us a treasure trove for educators. Does SkS have a way to bring this to broader notice?
68490. Zen69 at 03:55 AM on 14 December 2011
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       I am currently engaged in debate with a sceptic over this issue and he maintains that sceptics do not accept the data when it comes to ice volume due to the great uncertainties involved. His main problem seems to be the fact that there are many data points that are estimates rather than actual measurements.I have asked him to provide me with some peer reviwed science that would justify this claim but he has not yet got back to me, although I only posted him yesterday. I am aware that there are indeed uncertainties in this area and that estimates need to be used but are there any papers that demonstrate the reliability and valdity of the data used in measuring sea ice volume? Thanks.
68491. BillEverett at 03:53 AM on 14 December 2011
       It's not bad
       Regarding the entries about western tree mortality, pine beetles under the Environment negatives in the Intermediate tab, I quote from a blog post by a fellow I've known for more than forty years. This is not peer-reviewed science, but I think it reflects a human perspective on those environmental negatives (the ellipses in the post are his, and I have omitted nothing): "I got lost in the details of travel and the hassle of finding places to work on the blog/sort pictures and talk about the travels. The massive environmental upheaval caused by global warming in the pine and spruce forest of Idaho and Montana is stunning. The forest is dieing. Pine Beetle and Spruce Moths are unchecked by the long frosts of winter. The result is hundreds perhaps thousands square miles of dead and dieing forests. There is the loss of the wood and timber...the water holding of the trees, the air purification, the oxygen generation but, more.... The millions of pine and spruce needles in the waters have changed the PH of the lakes and streams. The water born insect life is gone. Three different streams, three hoops set out for three days each ... less than 20 insects collected where there should have been thousands. Breeding salmon seen but no fry, no first or second year fish, no trout, no white fish, no suckers...the streams are dead. "Sorry my mind is still struggling with the facts and unsure as to how I will deal with those who say my truth is lies. Will they come walk the streams, roll the rocks, hang the hoops, count the insects, float the rivers and prove me wrong or will they simply move their mouths in denial? I was unable to write this last summer and do not know what I can do this year."
68492. Composer99 at 03:19 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP: Even contrarian scientist Roy Spencer points out that the physical basis for global warming (outgoing longwave infrared radiation being trapped by the atmosphere) is correct. Both surface-measured backradiaton from the atmosphere and satellite-measured reduction in radiation at greenhouse gas-related frequesncies are empirically documented in the literature. The simple fact is that physical theory, experiment, and empirical evidence show that, however misnamed, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap outgoing heat and cause warming. Also, did you not actually read the quote you cited? It states, right there that "the troposphere is largely opaque to infra-red radiation". How could that be, I wonder?
68493. Bob Lacatena at 03:18 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       105, TOP, The Wood experiment is invalid and you misunderstand Connelly. SkS will have a post on it soon, but in a nutshell the problem with the experiment (actually, there are a few) is that the model is not an accurate representation of the atmosphere exactly because convection and other mechanisms in the experiment are allowed to heat the glass and rock salt plates, which removes any temperature gradient between the heated "surface" and the covering "top of atmosphere". Basically, the glass and rock salt both radiate at the same temperature as the inside of the box because they've been allowed to warm by means other than radiation. The atmosphere does not work this way, and the model represented by the experiment therefore does not accurately represent that actions of the atmosphere. More importantly, the experiment is therefore not properly controlled to be certain that the effect being measured is only that of infrared radiation versus other means. It basically tests if convection occurs in a closed box -- not a very useful thing to know. To perform the experiment correctly the transfer of radiation by means other than radiation must be inhibited (as it is in the atmosphere, where convection is not efficient or active enough to transfer that much energy to the point in the atmosphere where heat radiates away). In the case of the more correct experiment, the rock-salt plate will remain cool and IR will be emitted through it according to the temperature of the "surface" which is heated only by the incoming short-wave radiation, while the surface within the other box will heat further until an equilibrium is reached where the "surface" warms further than the rock-salt box and the glass plate itself has warmed — purely through absorbing IR — and is emitting infrared both up and down. On your own experiment... you are not measuring the temperature of the stratosphere. The air around you is densely packed with CO₂ and H₂O which are radiating in the infrared and contaminating your experiment. You are merely measuring the emissions of the atmosphere immediately above you.
68494. TOP at 02:52 AM on 14 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1150,355 muoncounter I looked at a particular reference you cited, W. M. Connelly, June 2000 in which Connelly takes exception to Woods (1909) statements in the 2nd to the last paragraph while disregarding the implications experiment with the rock salt greenhouse. G&T performed the same experiment and got the same results as Wood. Note: Both G&T even refined the experiment so that the two "greenhouses" achieved much closer agreement in temperature by blocking IR from entering the rock salt greenhouse. Since Connelly was taking exception to the 2nd to the last paragraph and not the results or implications of the experiment it isn't much of a rebuttal. The results of the experiment which Connelly seems to be in agreement with is that the "greenhouse" effect has nothing to do with radiation being trapped on it's way back to space which is born out by the fact the plate glass is perfectly opaque to IR while rock salt is perfectly transparent to IR.

       Third, in contradiction to his assertion about "the very low radiating power of a gas", the troposphere is largely opaque to infra-red radiation, which is why convection is so important in moving heat up from the surface. Only in the higher (colder) atmosphere where there is less water vapour is the atmosphere simultaneously somewhat, but not totally, transparent to infra-red and thus permits radiation to play a part. [bolding is mine for emphasis]

       The "greenhouse" effect has everything to do with the prevention of convection from cooling the surfaces on which radiation impinges. In other words the AGW crowd in incorrect in applying the term "greenhouse effect" to anything to do with trapping radiation. That pretty much renders useless much of the discussion in this thread having to do with radiation. And as an added bonus Connelly attributes the opaqueness of the atmosphere to IR to water vapor, not CO₂ I will also add that if anything was done incorrectly in the experiments of Wood, G and T, it was in not also measuring the pressure and hence the enthalpy change inside the greenhouse. And I have from time to time done an experiment of my own that contradicts Connelly's assertion that the troposphere is opaque to infrared. I simply went outside with an non-contact IR thermometer and pointed it at the sky on a clear day and a cloudy day. On a clear day, even with sun at noon you get something on the order of -55F while on a cloudy day you get something on the order of 32F. In fact today, while it is lightly raining the "sky temperature" is 27F. So on a clear day I can easily measure the temperature of the stratosphere from the ground with an IR thermometer and on a cloudy day I can measure the temperature of the bottom of the clouds. That is hardly a troposphere opaque to IR. So you have to deal with two experimental pieces of evidence that show that Connelly is right and in agreement with both Wood and G&T, that is, convection or the lack thereof, not radiation that is responsible for controlling the temperature in the atmosphere. G&T, Connolly and Wood are in agreement that "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer and should not be used in the context of global warming. Greenhouses warm because convection is prevented and not because IR radiation is blocked. There is no "greenhouse" effect in the atmosphere. This is not denialist, it is experiment.
68495. Bob Lacatena at 01:40 AM on 14 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       67, skept.fr,

       ...over-anthropomorphized nature...

       Anthropomorphization is a literary and rhetorical tool. Nothing more. I don't really think it can be "overdone" because it's niether good nor bad... it's just a writing style.

       ...the ultimate qualification of good/bad relies on human evaluation...

       If you believe this, then you really do not understand either the science or the implications. Please understand this, even a result that only takes us 1/4 of the way to the sort of change implied by my article will be very, very bad for a whole lot of people. Human beings adapt, but they do not deal well with adaptation. Adaptation means death and suffering. Resource pressures mean wars and suffering. Major, outwardly forced change means economic and social upheaval -- and suffering. Throughout human history this has been the case. If you actually believe climate change will be even remotely good for civilization or for most individuals, you need to study the science more and you need to think it through more completely. You are stopping at the obvious, easy, pleasant conclusion without getting all the way to the end. Man does not deal well with change. Climate change will mean suffering. There is no way around that.

       ...fossil-based development during the last two centuries is one of the most astonishing accomplishment in human history...

       Absolutely, yes! Industrialization advanced civilization and society by leaps and bounds, but at the same time it lead to the suffering of masses and masses of people in the 18^th century. It was a good thing that came with a lot of evil. Fossil fuels (and other advanced technologies) freed us from much of that burden. There is no question that the use of fossil fuels for the past century were a tremendous boon to quality of life and the advancement of our civilization. It does not, however, logically follow that we must then insanely follow that course to the point where it damages or even destroys the very same civilization that it advanced.

       ...fundamentally, I believe economy and society depends on their energy basis...

       Absolutely, yes. But that basis can no longer be fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the investment and infrastructure for fossil fuels is so entrenched in our civilization that it will take many decades to replace it all... unless we try to do so in a too-rapidly painful way that will be as disruptive as climate change itself. It will take a very long time to replace all of the power plants, engines, vehicles (cars/ships/planes), fuel-transport systems and more. But replacement is ultimately necessary anyway, because machines age and require replacement. It's just a question of what you replace it with, starting soon enough, and having viable things to use in their stead (such as hybrid cars, which have been readily available for a decade and yet are woefully uncommon on the roads). And that's why we have to start now, and that's why people who now say (this is you) "it may not be bad" or "it's not happening" or "we can't afford to change" are only making the problem far, far worse than it already is or needs to be. The world does not need more excuses to fly someone across the ocean for a 1-hour meeting (my brother used to do that regularly), or to drive 3-ton SUVs 1 mile to the store to pick up one loaf of bread after that loaf was baked 500 miles away using grain that was grown 1,000 miles from there, only to throw away half of the loaf because it got a little stale, all using an energy source that we know is (a) near exhaustion and (b) dangerously dirty... it's insanity!!!!
68496. Adam C at 01:02 AM on 14 December 2011
       Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
       5. Agnostic, with regards to cloud albedo. Water droplets are more effective reflectors than ice crystals, which should explain why higher clouds have lower albedo than lower clouds.
68497. skept.fr at 00:51 AM on 14 December 2011
       (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
       Sphaerica : to continue with the playing matches / Anthropocene debate, and to understand our divergence, you seem to assume that climate stabilization would be good thing in itself. In the same spirit, Steve L @6 also suggested that you ‘over-anthropomorphized nature’. Maybe I’m wrong, but this the impression I have. It is clearly not the way I approach the question : climate change is not a good or bad thing in itself, the ultimate qualification of good/bad relies on human evaluation about the consequences of climate change on human society. I assume this is an anthropocentric point of view, and I think such an anthropocentrism is the rule for a majority of humans in their personal and collective choices. It does not mean nature has no value at all, to the contrary. A majority of humans can value biodiversity (for example) but this value is ultimately human-based. That is the sense of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment , which analysed changes in ecosystem in the perspective of human (not animal or vegetal) well-being. So, I’m not satisfied at all with fuzzy predictions / estimations that warming may be 2 to 8 K, biodiversity loss 10% to 70%, crops productivity change +5% to -40%, ultimate cost-accessible fossil reserve from 600 to 6000 GtC, climate equilibrium sensitivity pace decades to millenias, 2100 sea level change 40cm to 160 cm, and so on. Because usually, the lower and the higher extremes of these ranges have not the same consequences for the human choices in term of evaluation of well-being. Usually, I’m answered something like : “OK but the only fact that there is a X% probability for the most adverse hypothesis should be the guide of our action”. But that could be true until you prove that the action in question has not itself a higher probability of adverse effect on human well-being. If your prior assumption is that action is risk-free, your value judgment is unbalanced. If you assume (as I do) that the fossil-based development during the last two centuries is one of the most astonishing accomplishment in human history, and a huge amelioration of human well-being for those who have benefited of it, the simple idea that we must cut very fastly the fossil (80%) basis of this long term trend is to be analysed very carefully. And particularly when the majority of humanity just begins to access the welfare Westerners already enjoy. Because a bad idea could easily produce a bad outcome, and human history is very clear on that point (for example near thirty million Chinese died of famine in 1959-1961 because of Mao’s delirium about agriculture, Hitler’s ascent because Germany was stupidly humiliated after 1918 and because of 1929 crisis, etc. Unintended consequences are unhappily a constant of human fate, and that’s not just true about externalities of fossil use!) Of course, the secular progress I refer to is due to energy, not fossil in itself. And to many other factors like democracy, education, trade, etc. But fundamentally, I believe economy and society depends on their energy basis, if you have just biomass and human-animal muscles as sources of energy, you’ll just produce something like a feudal society, with no means to transform nature and society, to create wealth and all the interesting things we can do with wealth (for example sophisticated study of climate). That’s why I say that climate challenge depends now mostly on energy challenge : you have to produce a mostly non-carbon base for the development of 7 billion humans now and 9 billion in 2050, you have to convince now the less-developed societies that their well-being will be more affected by a future climate change due to the use of a certain quantity fossil rather than by a present socio-economic change due to the non-use of the same quantity of fossil, etc. For that purpose, proposals like ‘There will be more droughts, floods, species losses (and whatever you want)’ is a far too undefined threat, you need to specify the ‘more’ in question and translate it in a kind of human welfare equivalent. That is the IPCC WG2 and WG3 assignment, by the way. So, I hope these points have specified the way I interpret your article and the objections I formulated to it. To be clear, I strongly favour energy transitions toward non-carbon economy, with some constraining instruments to achieve that goal, but I don't think the 'obsession' of a particular (450 ppm) target is of real utility. I'm sure everybody here is already convinced that this concentration will be exceeded, so we need to understand more precisely why it will be, so as to prevent far higher concentrations in the future. We must not be fatalistic and w climate casualties is the sole argument for change (eg things like 'there will be megadroughts in the 2020s or 2030s, and then maybe humans will understand') PS : for more precise dilemma in the new era of climate negotiation, like the concrete Indian choices for 2012-2030, see for example my comments in the other thread about Global carbon emissions .
68498. CBDunkerson at 00:37 AM on 14 December 2011
       Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
       DirtyDigger, that same link is included in the article above... and the text of the link itself claims that Hansen's prediction has already failed... which is impossible given that it was for a future event which might still occur.
68499. DirtyDigger at 23:14 PM on 13 December 2011
       Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
       Yes, they did http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
68500. skept.fr at 22:52 PM on 13 December 2011
       Global carbon emissions reach record 10 billion tonnes - threatening two degree target
       From the Peters et al 2011 paper in Nature Climate Change, here are the carbon emissions from production and consumption for developing / non developing countries, 1990-2010: The interpretation is quite clear: developing countries more than doubled their carbon emissions in 20 years, while developed countries have known a stagnation, or a small increase when consumption is included. The 2008-2009 recession had no effect on the emerging economies, contrary to a slight fall for the OECD. So, the decoupling of economic growth and fossil energy use is still to be invented, and the very first concern in term of emission is for the non-OECD countries, because if we keep this slope, emissions for non-Annex B could be as high as 10 or 15 PgC in 2030, largely outweighing the accessible emission's cuts of 1 or 2 PgC in OECD in the same period.

Prev  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  Next