Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Settings

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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


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



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  Next

Comments 109151 to 109200:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, when a site such as WUWT includes work such as Steven Goddard's pieces along with other content, how are readers to feel confident they're learning anything trustworthy if they do not already know enough of a given topic to distinguish between fact and fiction? What is the point of reading articles there? For instance, let's say that I'm intrigued by a story on Arizona's big meteor crater presented at WUWT but I don't already know much about Arizona's big meteor crater, not enough to distinguish truth from fiction. Let's suppose I do know enough about climate to know that Steven Goddard's depictions of climate science are generally unreliable, in many instances are downright incorrect, that this has been shown to be the case many times, yet WUWT continued to publish Goddard's work, refused to help readers by making corrections. Knowing how WUWT lends a patina of authority to unreliable work, why would I want to read about meteor craters on WUWT? How would I know I'm not being told something wrong? Why would I want to waste my time doing fact checking on my own, or trying to tease out the truth by following a thread of dozens or hundreds of comments? Once a track record of including Steven Goddard-level material has been established, once we -know- there's fiction styling itself as fact infecting the content of a site, for any topic with which we have little familiarity how do we know whether or not we're not only wasting our time but having our minds filled with errors? There's no way of telling short of reading about the topic somewhere else, meaning the site is essentially useless as a fundamental learning tool. How can such a site be termed "very good?" It's not a matter of any single or occasional mistake condemning the reputation of a publication; the very best publications sometimes must issue retractions or correctons. In the case of WUWT we see an extended history of publishing what is clearly incorrect and-- worse-- a general refusal to acknowledge error once it's been identified. In the matter of climate, WUWT has refused to help its readers understand the topic, to the contrary appears to have frequently actively promoted misinformation. That's not "very good," that's very bad.
  2. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Re: CoalGeologist (40,41) Thanks for posting the links. I pulled this statement out of the Opening Statement by Representative Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:
    "Meanwhile, concentrations of heat-trapping pollution continue to rise in our atmosphere, committing us to further warming in the decades ahead."
    Strong statement from a politician. Thanks again! The Yooper
  3. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    @angusmac: "The point that I am trying to make and that you, and some others, are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. This is a case of right emissions in - wrong (too high) temperatures out." We understand your point, it is simply wrong. We perfectly understand that Scenario B is a case of right emmissions in - wrong temps out. What the article tries to explain is how wrong (and how right) Hansen 1988 was. The only way to find out the divergence between his predictions and reality is to pick the scenario that uses parameters that are closer to reality. That scenario is scenario B. The fact that scenario C looks closer to reality is that it contains *two* erroneous components that cancel each other out and make it appear similar to real-world outcomes (for a while, at least). It is a curiosity, a coincidence, nothing more. "What is required is a model that gives real world emissions in - real world temperatures out. I have not seen one yet, probably because this would mean revising radiative forcings and/or temperature sensitivity downwards from currently accepted norms." Did you even read the article? The reason Scenario 2 (near real-world emmissions in) gave inaccurate results was because of a wrong climate sensitivity value (4.2C instead of 3.4C).
  4. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    UPDATE: Unless I missed it the first time, the hearing proceedings have just been posted: http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0023#main_content
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz: "As you see if you look there now (as I just have) WUWT run non-climate pieces very often like the present Google-Earth meteor crater, and solar storms." Must be a slow news day in the denialosphere. "I certainly wasn't rude (I never am)" Saying we were close-minded for not being WUWT fans is quite rude. So is suggesting that people with no statistical background might better analyze the temperature record than eminent statisticians. "On the subject of Open mInd, no the 'typo' wasn't fixed while I was there, but I never went back to find out. I couldn't even hope to find it now." How convenient. "Archie, you've achieved what you wanted. I'm leaving this forum as I cannot devote my precious time to construct meaningless posts like this that serve no purpose in AGW debate." None of your posts in this thread have helped move the AGW debate forward, because (as you admitted yourself) they were not logical arguments. We all tried very patiently to explain to you why you were wrong in your original assertion, but you refused to hear it. Anyway, you're mistaken (again): my goal was not to make you leave, but simply to admit you were wrong. It seems you are incapable of this, and that's sad. "As an ad hominem is just not me, I'm going to leave it there for you to think over." This is what I don't understand: either you want scientific discussion, or debate opinions. You made it clear this was about opinion for you - even if it isn't the goal of this site - but then acted in one of the most hypersensitive ways I've ever seen someone react in an opinion debate. All in all, it becomes clear you probably weren't here to learn, or listen, and you began to pump out the faux outrage when confronted to this simple fact.
  6. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I've learned from an informed source that at hearings on "Extreme Weather in a Warming World" held two days ago (Thurs., 23-Sep), convened by the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that one Committee member requested that the scientists' rebuttal of Monckton be entered into the official record. The importance and value of this document is that it directly addresses Monckton's arguments, without requiring people who are less well grounded in the scientific evidence to juxtapose this evidence on their own. Bravo, again, to the climate scientists who worked on this. By the way... This led me to an interesting and potentially valuable information resource related to climate change I hadn't seen previously, providing a compilation of testimony presented before the Committee, plus lots of other multi-media resources. Nothing posted yet from Thursdays hearings.
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (350) Baz, despite our early differences, I've grown to enjoy the exchanges between us. I think early on we got off on a wrong foot because there were clear differences between how we internalized knowledge, but I also think that to some degree we've managed to work around that. You display a clear interest in learning, which is why sites like this exist. Which is also why I'm here. I'm still trying to increase my knowledge and further my understanding of the science as well. Which is also why I do not frequent sites like WUWT, which you aptly describe as not scientific. The problem we here have with WUWT is this: they knowingly masquerade AS a scientific site. Too many unknowing people, looking for understanding and knowledge, go there and either fall behind where they should be, or are lost forever to science. And that is a travesty. As would be your leaving Skeptical Science forever. I am not one to ever readily give up on someone, Baz. I think you really want to know and understand. When you're ready, I hope you come back here to learn and to help others learn. And I will still be here to welcome you back. BTW, I hope temps do not rise and OHC is flat as well. The science, however, says differently. Our descendants will inherit a very different world from that of our parents. The Yooper
  8. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    44: "Since we see locally elevated amounts AND a positive trend it is clear that carbon sinks are not able to handle all of the additional CO2. " Agreed. But if elevated amounts of atmospheric CO2 are in close context with power plants, urban areas, etc, on the local level, it would be completely illogical to insist that the global total fossil fuel emissions does not result in increased global atmospheric CO2.
  9. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    The actual acronym is IPoCC not - as miekol @1 implies - IPfCC. Roger @4 is right- it should have been defined. If it had been then RSVP @8 wouldn't have needed to do the research he clearly didn't do. So although the advice "The Yooper" @9 presents is good, actually simply reading the correct title (rather than miekol's misrepresentation) would have been sufficient. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  10. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    muoncounter, that's an interesting point. We hear so much about how human CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions, but when looked at geographically there is a very clear human signal in the CO2 satellite maps (and the earlier data). Presumably this is because natural emissions are spread out around the globe and balanced by natural sinks in nearly equal measure. However, human emissions are comparatively very concentrated... and the areas with the greatest emissions (cities) also have the most minimal carbon sinks (because there are few plants). Still, this does NOT (by itself) prove global atmospheric CO2 increases are due to humans. If global carbon sinks were able to absorb the extra amount we'd see locally elevated CO2 from humans, but the long term trend would be flat. Since we see locally elevated amounts AND a positive trend it is clear that carbon sinks are not able to handle all of the additional CO2.
  11. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #41: "there were also alot of outliers... all on the high side and all downwind of major industrial centers." Isn't that direct experimental proof that increased atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
  12. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    angusmac #119: "The start date is from 1988 not 2010 and therefore is significantly longer than the 5 years mentioned in your post." Yes, but from 1988 through 2005 actual temperatures were consistent with scenario B. Ergo... 5 years of divergence (2006 - 2010).
  13. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    "Precisely, its a politcal committee, enough said." I love this kind of approach. It's like reading a paper then finding a sentence like "the uncertainty range is..." and nailing it: "aha! they just don't know it!" To be a denier, you must carefully keep distance from the big picture.
  14. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    1 miekol -- "Precisely, its a politcal committee, enough said." No, it's an apolitical panel of scientific experts. The only way the panel and the experts are political is in the way they are used as political footballs by politicians and economically vested organisations.
  15. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    CBDunkerson #118 see angusmac #101 in which I concur with, Hansen's (2006) comments on the 1988 models that,"… a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions, but distinction among scenarios [B & C] and comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade [2015]." What Hansen was saying in 2006 is that "within a decade" means 2015 - 1988 = 27 years which is a reasonable time period to compare the scenarios. The start date is from 1988 not 2010 and therefore is significantly longer than the 5 years mentioned in your post.
  16. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    GC - do really believe that quote (which I think is accurate about misuse of statistics by politicians) applies to science? Science in all fields absolutely depends on statistics. How else to understand error? Your quote illuminates nothing in my opinion.
  17. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Meikol - to call it a "political" committee would require you produce some proof that it advocates some political perspective. Instead the panel seeks to inform the political process by reviewing the best opinion of science. Can you honestly say that you dont think WG1 represents the published science?
  18. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Would it be reasonable to compare the IPCC process with the way Wikipedia tries to collate knowledge in general, trying to have a neutral point of view, and not contributing original findings, but to refer to information published elsewhere. Only the IPCC work is not done by random volunteers, but by actual experts in the field. And the requirements for the referenced literature are much more serious. And the editing process is more strictly defined and negotiated.
  19. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    angusmac #117: "The point that I am trying to make and that you, and some others, are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. This is a case of right emissions in - wrong (too high) temperatures out." Actually, 'scenario B' emissions were slightly higher than actual emissions have been... and the temperature divergence is of such short duration (5 years) as to be meaningless. This should be obvious from the fact that there are divergences that great between the scenario B temperature line and actual temperatures in the years BEFORE the paper was published.
  20. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    #102 archiesteel. Scenario B is also incorrect – it uses the right emissions but over-predicts current temperatures. #105 Dana, you don't need to explain. I already understand the theory (hypothesis?) of AGW. The point that I am trying to make and that you, and some others, are ignoring is that the real world is not following Scenario B. This is a case of right emissions in - wrong (too high) temperatures out. My Figure 2 clearly shows that Scenario C is tracking the real world temperatures much better than Scenario B. This is a case of wrong emissions in - right answer out What is required is a model that gives real world emissions in - real world temperatures out. I have not seen one yet, probably because this would mean revising radiative forcings and/or temperature sensitivity downwards from currently accepted norms. Your statement that, "There is simply no chance that Scenario C will continue close to reality because it does not reflect real-world emissions or radiative forcings" is extremely brave. I prefer Jim Hansen's stance to wait until 2015 to differentiate between the outcomes of Scenarios B and C. This would enable us to assess whether or not current assumptions are correct. If Scenario C still gives correct predictions then the assumed radiative forcings and/or climate sensitivity would need to be revised downwards.
  21. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    PS: I should have also mentioned ice core CO2 records... direct readings of CO2 levels in air bubbles. Which ALSO verified Callendar's results and made Beck's analysis obviously false before he even published it.
  22. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Yes, three years ago Beck picked a fight with a dead man... and lost. Apparently this nonsense is coming back up again because Beck died this week. In brief, decades ago Guy Stewart Callendar took atmospheric CO2 readings by various people all over the world (see the list of name at the bottom of Beck's chart) and analyzed them in an effort to determine if there was any trend in CO2 levels. He found that alot of the readings showed a steadily increasing trend line, but there were also alot of outliers... all on the high side and all downwind of major industrial centers. He therefor reasoned that these high readings were being caused by recent emissions that had not yet mixed through the atmosphere and excluded them. Beck, forty years after Callendar's death, called this 'scientific fraud' and insisted that the only proper way to do a scientific study is to include ALL of the data... even that which is clearly erroneous. His results, based on including readings from right outside coal plants (which were, of course, one of the places such readings were taken) yielded the graph above... further skewed by the fact that there were very few readings available for the early part of the chart and almost all of them were from industrial regions. Of course Beck's paper was provably nonsense the day it came out. Multiple stations around the world have long since validated Callendar's results and satellite analysis has also confirmed it in recent years. There is no greater proof of the deficiency of the 'skeptic' position than their insistence on holding fast to pure fiction.
  23. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Cruzn @ 39 - is that by that German school teacher?.
  24. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Yet again I have to post a reply that clarifies what I said! I find this very tiresome. I think that WUWT is a very good website, not scientific like this one, or Tamino's, or Climate Audit. As you see if you look there now (as I just have) WUWT run non-climate pieces very often like the present Google-Earth meteor crater, and solar storms. If you read back you'll see that I was berated for going there! I find this behaviour very odd, to say the very least. I certainly wasn't rude (I never am) and there's a huge case of kettle/pot there! On the subject of Open mInd, no the 'typo' wasn't fixed while I was there, but I never went back to find out. I couldn't even hope to find it now. Archie, you've achieved what you wanted. I'm leaving this forum as I cannot devote my precious time to construct meaningless posts like this that serve no purpose in AGW debate. As an ad hominem is just not me, I'm going to leave it there for you to think over. Thanks to everyone for being patient and clarifying points. If we don't get the peak in temp that the UK Met Office is predicting in 2014, or if we get falling OHC, then I'll pop back to get your opinions based on that. However, if temps rise, and OHC goes up, then you won't need me back here. I hope, not for personal reasons, that I'm right and you're wrong. Thanks to 'the moderator' for allowing me my posts. Cheers.
  25. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Anyone seen this?
  26. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    MattJ #1 "I do not agree with Dyson, and am I mystified and disappointed that he objects." As per your comment, his interview on YouTube may help. To see, just google his name, etc. I dont think he is saying global warming is not real as much that stratospheric cooling might be a bigger problem. Similarly, while he plays down the imperative to reduce fossil fuels (towards the end of the video), in his book, Disturbing the Universe, he pretty much writes that humanity missed its opportunity in the sixties to go nuclear due to unwarranted alarmism, such that he was more optimistic about the ability to build safer reactors.
  27. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Well Dunkerson, you think it is all us? I mean think about it. How can they claim that a change in temperature is completely or even mostly the responsibility of man when we are not even at the point when we truly know what makes our temperatures change and how much they change anyway. We have never been around at this point in a glacial period, so who are we to know what happens when it gets to this point?
  28. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    #8 RSVP What I get out of this article. The IPCC is an impartial bureaucracy with a name that implies climate is changing. Sounds like what you get out of it is what you bring to it.
  29. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Re: RSVP (8) Perhaps you should read more than just the title then. Or if you'd like a different place to start to learn about our changing of our climate, ask. "Fill your mind with the coppers of your pockets and your mind will fill your pockets with gold." The Yooper
  30. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Tariscio - I would love to read your comments, but find your translations difficult to follow. I would suggest including both your native language (Spanish?) in appropriate detail, and using Google translate to produce an additional English version. Many of us can read or at least puzzle out other languages.
  31. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    What I get out of this article. The IPCC is an impartial bureaucracy with a name that implies climate is changing.
  32. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    gallopingcamel #5 Presumably this is because that quote can be used in an ironic / self deprecating sense, or it can be used in an attempt to reject the entire field of statistics. This latter usage is destructive solipsistic nonsense. As someone who is reasonably experienced at using statistics, I can assure you that used appropriately statistics can be highly informative. Understanding how to do so is a fairly arduous task, and I have particularly enjoyed teaching undergraduate science some of the core skills for the appropriate use of statistics.
  33. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    Re: gallopingcamel (5)
    "On a couple of occasions when the subject has been Tamino and his ilk you have deleted my use of the quote attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." "
    GC, your usage of "ilk" in conjunction with your quote should be in violation of the comment policy, as it is tantamount to an accusation of deception and/or dishonesty. The fact that you openly admit to doing this previously and having it deleted each time is troubling enough. It is hard enough to maintain one's own decorum & be a positive factor on this blog without comments like yours inviting a likewise response. I've already "really not helped" once tonight. And you're not helping me now. The Yooper
  34. How you can support Skeptical Science
    Re: John Cook
    "So I'm just laying the offer on the table for anyone interested in proofreading any skeptic arguments to contact me."
     I have experience in proofreading and quality control. If you still have a need of this service, let me know. The Yooper
  35. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    John, On a couple of occasions when the subject has been Tamino and his ilk you have deleted my use of the quote attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Now you are paraphrasing the quote to head this post but I do not object. You hit the right target!
  36. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Ned #58 Thanks for this. Any chance you can post the csv file of the raw data that you used up to a site like this one so that I can take the regression diagnostics a bit further. It looks like with a correlation coefficient of 0.23 uncorrected for autocorrelation while statistically significant, is of very little practical significance. BP's mistake has been to assume that his estimate of the slope is not an estimate but is the true value of the slope, and so therefore has not accounted for uncertainty in his estimate. This appears to be an excellent example of confirmation bias in action.
  37. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Thank you Rob re: @38. - that makes sense. Also - Thanks John C for the website
  38. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Re: Tarcisio José D'Avila (32,34) and Tom Dayton (33) If I understand Tarcisio José D'Avila correctly, he is postulating the existence of a broken "climate thermostat". Broken, because it is not correcting for the actions of man's fossil fuel CO2 emissions. An iteration of the Gaia hypothesis, I believe. He believes the science of anthropogenic warming is right, but that it only is warming because the thermostat itself is broken. Or something like that. If I've misunderstood, I apologize. The Yooper
  39. There is no consensus
    Well that awful Inhofe 400 is now over 420 as in the time it took for you to complain about the one that didn't sign 20 more "scientists" did
    I'm 2 years late to the party, but for the record... Nobody signed Inhofe's list. It was created by garnering selected quotes and adding the person saying/writing them. A good number of the people on it actually endorse the IPCC general conclusions, and some have even written to ask to be taken off. Inhofe's 400+ is not a petition or a declaration, just a concoction of names and highly elided quotes.
  40. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    You use IPCC without defining it. That is rude. It forces readers unfamiliar with the subject to go elsewhere for a definition. Always define an acronym when first introduced.
  41. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    "it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all" Nope this is incorrect. Collating the work of others, and subjecting it to analysis is an important part of the research process. Perhaps Graham means that "it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no primary scientific research"?
  42. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    @miekol: I don't get it. Aren't panel and committee synonyms?
  43. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    " it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all" Precisely, its a politcal committee, enough said. Except it should be called the ICCC. They couldn't even present their name right. Intergovernment Committeee for Climate Change
  44. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    doug_bostrom at 10:04 AM, re "or something like that" Beautiful. That drives direct to the quintessence of the dilemma as it stands.
  45. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Shorter johnd: More convection will manifest itself invisibly. Or something like that.
  46. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    ianw01 at 23:42 PM, all weather events, extreme or otherwise, are driven by the same combination of a heat differentials and moisture, and they all unfold the same way. As the water vapour picked up rises, it gradually releases heat, condensing out forming different cloud types in sequence until finally the air becomes dry above where cirrus clouds are the last to form. The albedo effect dominates the low altitude clouds, so they then provide a nett cooling effect to the Earth's climate. However uncertainty remains about the high level cirrus clouds, which alone cover about 35% of the earths surface, but as this passage from a CLOUDSAT overview would indicate, linking extreme weather events with climate change is treading on uncertain ground as you noted. (http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/overview) "Because clouds have such a large impact on Earth’s radiation budget, even small changes in cloud abundance or distribution could alter the climate more than the anticipated changes in greenhouse gases, anthropogenic aerosols, or other factors associated with global change. Changes in climate that are caused by clouds may in turn give rise to changes in clouds due to climate: a cloud-climate feedback. These feedbacks may be positive (reinforcing the changes) or negative (tending to reduce the net change), depending on the processes involved. These considerations lead scientists to believe that the main uncertainties in climate model simulations are due to the difficulties in adequately representing clouds and their radiative properties."
  47. Tarcisio José D at 09:13 AM on 25 September 2010
    The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Tom #33 I go wrait with may poor english escuseme... If the thermostat of the climate is brook or is out of range, the global warm has great potential of be antropogenic. And in this case the science is rigth. Only the target of resershing is bad. It's look to the fingeprint only.
  48. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Tarcisio, please rephrase your comment. I don't understand your point.
  49. Tarcisio José D at 07:50 AM on 25 September 2010
    The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Retification... Do you ever wonder, "Is the thermostat of nature" is not stuck? If it is stalled antropogenic actions has great potential to be the cause of all this damage. I do not believe that acts falcification of data.
  50. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    (I don't claim to be a specialist in this area but I do have a science degree ) When talking with friends and colleagues who don't have a science background I tend to use the following way of describing what a few degrees centigrade rise really means ... "The numbers one ,two , three and four don't sound much. Two centimeters seems a small number . However to understand a two degrees (c) rise in temperature think what you would say if I suggested you lift (by yourself) Mount Everest by two centimeters - it's only a small number so it should be easy . Now think about how much disruption must have occured to make a one degree centigrate rise to the temperature of the Earth .... and then project what the consequences could be of a two or three degree rise - a small number can mask gigantic changes.... This is the impact of fossil fuels on the green house effect "

Prev  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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