Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 Next
Comments 96651 to 96700:
-
Phil at 23:30 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I think there's a misunderstanding of what a "sink" does. My understanding is that a stable forest won't remove CO2 from the atmosphere (as BillyJoe points out, certainly not on a short term basis). It's just that if the forests go then the stable carbon that was locked up the (considerable) biomass will enter the atmosphere as more CO2. The "sink" is a sink, not a sponge :-) -
Dan Olner at 23:26 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I need a new word for the feeling this kind of story gives me. It encompasses a vertigo-like sense of "oh my Christ, this is really actually happening on the one and only planet we have" and "yet there are people willing to ignore it or argue it's not happening for their own psychological convenience, votes or just plain money." It makes the pit of my stomach fall right through to my feet. It also makes me see the appeal of believing that, surely, it must just be *impossible* for little old us to damage the one and only collective space-suit we're ever going to have... Think I need to go for a brisk walk! -
BillyJoe at 23:13 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I'm no expert but this is my take on this. Hopefully, others will contribute also. pikaia, Part of the increasing amounts of CO2 emmitted by humans by the burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests. It is true that the forests release CO2 as a result of rotting vegetation but most of it is stored as humus and in roots systems within the soil. Even the ashes resulting from bushfires do not convert back to CO2 without a significant time lag. sgmuler, Coal takes too long to form to be of any use in helping to store part of the anthropogenic CO2 formed over the past few decades. -
sgmuller at 23:03 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
So how id all those coal deposits form then? I thought that they were the compressed remains of dead forests. -
d5vid13 at 22:30 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
An inspiring documentary, it makes one realise mankind needs to change its' ways particularly the wealthier countries. -
pikaia at 22:07 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I have never understood how the forest can be a carbon sink. In a stable world the amount of carbon in the forest would be constant, with carbon absorbed by growing trees balanced by carbon released by dead trees as they rot. If the whole area was once forest then the best you can hope for is that the forest remains carbon-neutral; it cannot be a carbon sink unless it increases in size, which is nor going to happen in the foreseeable future. -
heystoopid at 20:09 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
Truly makes one think. In the same documentary format an 87 minute film was released by Godfrey Reggio in 1982 called "Koyaanisqatsi" or Life out of Balance. This was part of Qatsi Trilogy, with Powaqqatsi(1988) and Naqoyqatsi(2002) these three films depict a relationship between humans, nature and technology. Here is a section from youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFwR1c-cdFw&feature=related -
garythompson at 16:48 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
wow, that is a great video and thanks for sharing. we humans have been here for only about 0.005% of Earth's existence. the more we learn about carbon based life the more we realize how rare it is. we owe it to ourselves, if not the universe, to be good stewards of this rock we find ourselves fortunate enough to be residents of. we are born of star stuff and when we realize that it took over 13 billion years to get us to this point, it should give all a sense of responsibility to put politics and personal agendas aside so that we as a species can progress. -
Stephen Leahy at 16:34 PM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Glenn, that's the clearest explanation I've seen. Thanks -
Stephen Leahy at 16:07 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
It is a beautiful and moving film. The photography is like artwork and our planet is incredible and breathtaking. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:14 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
It was certainly the best 1:33 I've invested in a long time. Highly recommended. (Nice screencaps, John!) The Yooper -
villabolo at 13:53 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
I've made the time. So far it's 15 minutes into the video and it's fantastic. Thank you John. -
actually thoughtful at 13:05 PM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - I actually had a more sympathetic view of your comments than did some other posters. I can accept that "threat to civilization" is a political fallout from the scientific reality of climate science. Can you? And, once accepting that, I can accept that dynamic problem solving could be applied. But it seems a bit late. I have noticed that hungry people and people in pain find logic and long term problem solving quite challenging (I am here thinking of my immediate family). I always find it easier to feed first, then discuss the future. What do we do when that is not possible? It is possible that "dynamic problem solving" will carry the day when food supplies are dramatically less than that required to feed the people. But is it likely? -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
"If you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly." This is a strawman argument on a Wicker Man level. -
Phila at 11:51 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
If you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly. Wow. Somehow, I missed that statement when responding to HR earlier. That is an absolutely colossal strawman, even by "skeptical" standards. -
muoncounter at 09:05 AM on 6 February 2011It's a natural cycle
#4: Nicely done. His myths page is quite nice: even a slot for der Beckster. Surely Bill O's who-put- the-moon-there deserves one. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:52 AM on 6 February 2011It's a natural cycle
Playing the pile-it-on game, here's a composited version of muoncounter's graphic:Courtesy John P. Reisman (his site is an excellent resource, BTW) The Yooper
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 07:27 AM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
There often seems to be some confusion about what is meant by future warming 'in the pipeline' so perhaps this might clarify things a little. Before the advent of AGW, the oceans and atmosphere were at temperatures which represented a thermal equilibrium between them. Net energy flows between them, as part of the broader range of energy flows in the environment, kept them at equilibrium and their respective average temperatures, and the temperature differential between them reflected this. Then along comes AGW and they start to heat and their temps are rising. The atmosphere relatively quickly but the oceans far more slowly due to their much greater themal mass. So the temperature differential between the oceans and atmosphere starts to grow. The atmosphere is now warmer, relative to the oceans compared to what it was at equilibrium. So the net energy flow between them starts to change due to this altered temperature differential. Relative to the equilibrium case, more energy is flowing from the atmosphere to the oceans than previously. So the oceans are having a cooling effect on the atmosphere, partly offsetting the warming effect of AGW. So the atmosphere hasn't warmed as much as it would have due to AGW as a consequence of the oceans cooling effect because of the increased temperature differential between the two. So the common characterisation that the extra temperature increase in the atmosphere that is 'in the pipeline' will be because the oceans when they have warmed further will start heating the atmosphere is not quite correct. Say rather that in the future the oceans will STOP COOLING the atmosphere. Heat wont start to flow out of the oceans. It will stop flowing out of the atmosphere! -
scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 6 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Henry, you seem to be having trouble understanding the objections to you link. Consider a linear trend like: Year 1 10 Year 2 20 Year 3 30 Year 4 40 Year 5 50 Now, instead look at year minus previous year. Year 1 10 Year 2 10 Year 3 10 Year 4 10 Year 5 10 See? Taking differences de-trends a series. You can make no conclusions about a trend from data like. Your desire to find contrary evidence for climate theory is clouding your judgement. -
Bibliovermis at 06:42 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR, It is rather difficult to be a problem solver when you don't acknowledge that there is a problem. How society goes about implementing solutions is political, but the empirical research that shows a threat to civilization isn't. Disclaiming a field of science as politics in defense of preconceived notions is political. -
scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
f you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly. Sorry, but the historical evidence is that civilisations have failed before and all the dynamic problem solvers of the day didn't save them. There is no magic rule written into the universe which says we are able to solve all problems. I please stop using "CAGW". What is the point of term for which there is no definition? (And no meaning in science since I challenge you find a single peer-reviewed piece of science which uses the term). I ask you again - do you accept that a threat to food production would also endanger civilisation IF we couldnt solve that problem? -
Phila at 06:15 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Humanity Rules: I happen to think that the politics of climate change is a continuation of the irrational aspect of society that we both possibly dislike. We do both dislike it. The problem, of course, is that I (sometimes) see your remarks here as typical of that irrational aspect, in that you allow generally unexamined ideological assumptions to trump peer-reviewed science, as well as the logical conclusions of what that science is telling us. To me, that's a totally untenable position, philosophically and ethically. And frankly, I'd continue to believe that even if the inactivists turned out, by some miracle, to be correct. That would simply be an exceedingly lucky guess on their part, kind of like winning the lottery; it wouldn't be the result of having more information, a coherent alternative theory, or a superior understanding of the science. There are plenty of reasonable grounds for debating how to deal with AGW. But my feeling is, we have to start from a position of accepting the science as it stands, and the recognition that there's really no other game in town, theory-wise. Simply suggesting that "humanity rules" because we're "problem solvers" is naive; it belongs to an earlier, more childish outlook that we can't afford right now. My response to AT isn't based on emotion it's based on a recognition that we have different views of human nature and social relations. As I said that particular aspect won't be solved by trading science. "Trading" implies that something of value is being exchanged. I haven't seen much that I'd call science on the "skeptical" side. And when it comes to economic arguments, I've seen little but handwaving and the repetition of paranoiac talking points...most of which only cohere if you begin with the assumption that the consensus is wrong or fraudulent. The only way to discuss risks, costs and benefits is to have an accurate picture of the science. In that regard, the concept of "trading science" is basically meaningless to me. On the one hand, there's what the vast majority of the experts say. On the other, there's a bunch of carping and wild speculation and witless red-baiting. So what's to trade? Also, saying that you simply have "different views on social relations" doesn't really answer the charge that those views are basically emotional or irrational. Statements like "I see us as dynamic problem solvers" gives me a pretty good idea of what those views are based on, and it ain't science. Also, social relations depend on what people see as fact, how they assess risk, and so forth. So again, the science is crucial in determining what responses are and aren't possible. A "threat to civilization" is basically a political position not a scientific one. Again, it's not either/or. It'd be easier to take your views seriously if they didn't seem to be founded so often on hypersimplistic binary thinking. -
Papy at 04:56 AM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#21: "How about 'observed warming' for the part we've already seen and 'committed warming', as suggested by Wetherald et al 2001?" Is it for 'TCR' and 'additional warming commitment' like in the IPCC TAR-O9, figure 9.1 ? -
muoncounter at 04:14 AM on 6 February 2011It's a natural cycle
Another illustration of why its not 'natural cycles.'
-- Figure 4 from Dr. Thomas Karl's testimony to US Congress, July 2006
(originally IPCC, 2001)
As an example of how models are used to detect human influence on the climate system Figure 4 shows that without including all the observed forcing mechanisms the models cannot replicate the observed global temperature changes.
-
JMurphy at 03:45 AM on 6 February 2011It's not us
Julian Flood wrote : "Argument from absence is a new one on me." I haven't come across any papers that demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution is false : is that an "argument from absence" or a demonstration of the facts ? -
Henry justice at 03:40 AM on 6 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Arrhenius's finding that more CO2 causes more warming is incorrect and not scientifically valid. More CO2 does not mean more warming. In the Greenhouse Effect (GHE), you must add photons to get the warming. Shut off the photons and our nights are still colder than our days despite adding more CO2. It's the photons that create the warming, not the CO2. With such an excess of water vapor and other GHGs, the reality is, because CO2 temperature increases are logarithmic, there are not enough photons available for absorption by CO2 to cause a meaningful increased warming above about 100 ppm. Warming during the day and cooling at night is still a reality. Check out this site: http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-confirms-recent-global-temperature-change-is-historically-small-warming-is-decelerating.html The NOAA/NCDC dataset chart shows the annual global temperature change from 1880-2010 vs. the rising levels of CO2. Note that these rising levels of CO2 have no impact on the annual global temperatures. To claim unprecedented global warming for the last decade is wrong when, clearly, the temperature changes are within natural variability.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This is your 3rd posting of a link to a total misinterpretation of basic data. Repetition serves no purpose other than to undermine your own credibility. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:20 AM on 6 February 2011It's not us
Julian@35 wrote "Nice try! Argument from absence is a new one on me." Experience has told me that when genuine attempts to explain the science in a friendly and open manner get a response such as the one given above, it is not worth the bother continuing. This is especially true of those who (a) don't give answers to questions intended to clarify someones position (you did not answer the questions posed in post 31) (b) do not acknowledge when evidence is presented that answers an argument that they have presented (for instance the Canadell paper that demonstrates that the airborne fraction has been pretty constant at about 45%) and (c) do not pay attention to key issues (for instance that the volume of fluxes are irrelevant, whether atmospheric CO2 rises of falls depends only on the difference between total emissions and total uptake). You have done all three of those things in this discussion. If you don't understand the mass balance argument, you may want to consider that perhaps the problem might be at your end of the discussion. BTW, you wrote: "No, you can't assume that." - I didn't assume that, it is a direct (and rather obvious) consequence of the principle of conservation of mass. -
John Hartz at 02:27 AM on 6 February 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The link to Ramanathan's paper provided under the Further Reading's tab does not work.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The free abstract can be found here. -
RickG at 02:01 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR @64 "It would have been near impossible to predict global food production thru the 20th century maybe even 30 years in advance given the non-linear development of agricultural practises and global distribution. Why should we hold anymore belief in present future predictions? These predictions have to assume a passive role for humanity in this process because there is no way of predicting where future generations will take these. Consider migrating climate zones, especially in commercial agricultural areas. As they move are they going to move into areas where agriculture can be conducted or will those areas already be in use for other purposes? Also factor in the growing world population which not only demands more food but land area use as well. Your scenario seems to suggest that climate change is chasing food production but will never catch it. To me it looks like they are running at each other rather than one after the other. -
HumanityRules at 00:57 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
56 Bibliovermis If you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly. It would have been near impossible to predict global food production thru the 20th century maybe even 30 years in advance given the non-linear development of agricultural practises and global distribution. Why should we hold anymore belief in present future predictions? These predictions have to assume a passive role for humanity in this process because there is no way of predicting where future generations will take these. War - where to start? All the dirty little wars of the late 20th century can't be explained from within their national borders never mind anything to do with their national climate statistics. They're all proxy wars serving the interests of powerful nations, the cold war period is an obvious example. You won't find the cause of 21st century civil wars and border disputes by limiting your analysis to anything that is happening on a local level, that includes looking at climate. It would be a simple observation that societal problems do not have to be resolved through war, including those future predictions presented by the IPCC. What makes me want to scream is that 'naturalizing' the cause of war is letting the warmongers off the hook. Phila we might agree that social problems should be solved thru rational action. But first we have to agree the cause of those social problems before we can come to some agreement on the path we should take. I happen to think that the politics of climate change is a continuation of the irrational aspect of society that we both possibly dislike. I don't mean that we have rationalists and irrationalist, I mean both sides are using the issue to argue their own particular interests. In the wider world, outside John's blog, climate change is about politics not science. My response to AT isn't based on emotion it's based on a recognition that we have different views of human nature and social relations. As I said that particular aspect won't be solved by trading science. A "threat to civilization" is basically a political position not a scientific one. -
Marvin Gardens at 00:53 AM on 6 February 2011Climate's changed before
Clearsight @ 152 Why are the plankton living deeper? Doesn't make sense for them to try and live somewhere they can't. With all your degrees and smarts you should be able to spell Stanford. ;)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] This offers up a good summary of the 40% decline in oceanic phytoplankton since 1950. -
Riccardo at 23:33 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
HumanityRules Trenberth's missing heat and the heat in the pipeline are two completely different things. The formes is already here and we are not able to track it; the latter is what will be here to restore the radiative balance. -
HumanityRules at 22:12 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#6 KR "I keep seeing skeptics yelling about the "in the pipeline" heating, as if the energy discussed were somehow already here, hiding under a bush or something" I thought it was Trenberth who first started yelling about the energy hiding under a bush. If by bush you mean the abyss or arctic ocean. If Trenberth has to look under bushes to find the energy to make his calculations work then where is this fraction accounted for in Dana's calculation?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See here for context, provided by Trenberth himself, on the quote so many use out of context from the stolen emails. -
MarkR at 21:33 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#43 Agnostic: "Why? Do feedbacks already contribute to global warming? Will that contribution increase significantly as a result of on-going global warming?" It's quite complicated. Many models (AOGMs etc) don't include a proper carbon cycle but you determine expected CO2 levels from a carbon cycle model based on expected emissions and then prescribe them in the model. New models (so called ESMs) often include a carbon cycle model. But they often don't capture features which we suspect are there but haven't managed to constrain. Most don't capture how the Amazon became a net CO2 source in '05 and '10 or tell us with good confidence if and when other stores or sinks might 'fail'. That's why we can't be sure that models are doing a good job here. And measurements of carbon cycle feedbacks now are unlikely to be representative of carbon cycle feedbacks in a world with 1200 ppm CO2 and 5 C higher temperatures. So that's why recent measurements don't capture them. -
Riccardo at 20:28 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
The heating we are experiencing now is definitely due to what happened in the past. This is the same reason why the radiative imbalance we're experiencing now will affect temperature for many decades. Just to put a number, if the response time is 50 years, what we see now is due to what happened in the last 50 years and the radiative imbalance we see still now will affect temperature for another 50 years. Reality is much more complex than my trivial example. The oceans respond on several different time scales and it's impossibile to reduce them to a single accurate response time. -
Ken Lambert at 20:08 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
KR #47 Quote "You appear to be claiming that "in the pipeline" energies are not evident, and hence GW is false". endquote. I did not claim that at all. I said in #45 that "The energy absorbed from future forcing imbalance will cause 'future' temperature rise as KR#6 correctly says." I think that the lack of understanding of the 'terms' is in your court if you can't follow plain language. My piece does not deny GW up until now - nor that the current purported imbalance of anywhere from 0.4 up 0.9W/sq.m will not cause future warming if it continues. I criticised dana1981's original piece because he made errors which finally suggested that 1.1W/sq.m of warming was lurking somewhere 'in the pipeline' IN ADDITION to the 0.4- 0.6W/sq.m already claimed to be measured in the oceans. Clearly incorrect. -
jyyh at 18:38 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
My prediction is this article will be quotemined by some. I'm not going to comment this more. -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
johnd - "Unrealized heating" is my term; one of a number I proposed as a replacement for the easily mis-interpreted "In the pipeline" phrase. It's the heating required to cancel out the radiative imbalance currently seen. Nothing more, nothing less. The timeframe is primarly determined by the thermal inertia of the oceans with regard to the (rather small by comparison) radiative imbalance. No hand waving whatsoever. -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
johnd - The question (are current variations due only to recent heat content changes) is reasonable. The assertion (that there are >100 year OHC changes) is unreasonable given a lack of evidence. If you have an alternate explanation, please provide it. If you have no evidence of such an alternative, why are are you asserting it's possibility? -
johnd at 17:35 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
dana1981 at 17:07 PM on 5 February, 2011, precisely, and it was the hand waving about some indeterminate "unrealised heating" "in the pipeline", two unknowns, that I was seeking to be clarified by an explanation of the mechanism involved which should include a timeframe, both looking forward, and looking back to the origins of what is supposedly yet to be expressed. -
2010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
johnd - My apologies; I was going from a "Recent Comments" listing showing a graph of Southern Australia rainfall. That's not appearing now; I suspect an error on my part. Mea culpa. -
johnd at 17:21 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
KR at 17:09 PM on 5 February, 2011, it can't be considered both a fair question and a strawman argument. It is indeed a fair question to seek clarification as to that if "unrealised heating" has been identified as presently being "in the pipeline", what evidence is there that it hasn't always been "in the pipeline" After all, I am responding to your earlier statement "I have spent a fair bit of time point out that "in the pipeline" means unrealized heating that will occur given current circumstances, but hasn't yet." -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
OK, in the absence of vertical circulation ocean warming (based on thermal conductivity) would have a time constant of 230 years. But we know there's vertical circulation, there's already benthic heating, it's on the order of 75-100 years from what we've seen. Again, johnd, please don't make assertions without evidence. It's the equivalent of "crying wolf", and does not dispose anyone towards taking subsequent statements seriously. -
johnd at 17:10 PM on 5 February 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
KR at 16:55 PM on 5 February, 2011, KR, if you go back through the thread, you will find that your questions are not relevant in the context of the matters being discussed. -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
johnd - A fair question. Do you have evidence, a physical model, or other indications of a >100 year thermal inertia? After all, we do understand where global warming is going, and the cycle time is <100 years as far as anyone can tell. After all - "Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens) Please don't post such strawman arguments. -
dana1981 at 17:07 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
johnd #48 - warming requires a mechanism. And thermal inertia acts on timeframes of decades, not centuries. Waiving your hands around and saying "maybe global warming is just the result of a centuries-long lag due to some unknown cause" is not scientific. -
johnd at 16:57 PM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
KR at 16:11 PM on 5 February, 2011, regarding "in the pipeline" energies, what evidence is there that any of the warming experienced in the most recent past, say 100 years, is itself not unrealised heating from a time even further back. Given that the heat content of the ocean is yet to be adequately quantified, and that of past centuries is even less sure, how can we know that the unrealised heating anticipated looking forward, is not already constantly being expressed from some time back? -
2010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
johnd - Two questions for you. How does the area of South Australia compare to the surface are of the globe? What are the global figures on precipitation? Given that we've had ~4% increase in specific humidity since 1970? -
johnd at 16:32 PM on 5 February 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 31 January, 2011, Tom, the precision of definition you require may be appropriate in the world of laboratory experiments and formulas, but when applied to the real world and weather in general, then terms such as below average are well understood, as well as self evident, as is the term "similar period". Real world weather by nature is not commanded by clocks or calenders, or even precise formulations and statistics, even though some observers seem to imagine it is. Perhaps the map below courtesy of BOM will illustrate how the terms "below average" and "similar periods" express themselves in real world observations, be it over short terms in decadal time frames, or over the longer period of a century if you draw a line through at 383.32mm which is the average rainfall for the period displayed.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed URL link. -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Ken Lambert - Nooooo, I don't agree. You appear to be claiming that "in the pipeline" energies are not evident, and hence GW is false. I have spent a fair bit of time point out that "in the pipeline" means unrealized heating that will occur given current circumstances, but hasn't yet. Your statements to the contrary seem to indicate that you don't understand the terms. I do not agree with you in any fashion regarding your post here, and disavow your claims thereof. If I agree with someone, I'll say so. I have not said that I agree with you.
Prev 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 Next
