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  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  Next

Comments 131401 to 131450:

  1. It's the sun
    A rider....I appreciate proxy data is pretty anecdotal; but regardless of the absolute conditions pertaining at those times we DO see a trend which does not support a positive,continuous feedback causing catastrophe. The carboniferous period actually teaches us a valuable lesson about how biomass substantially impacts CO2 levels: without the CO2 locked up during that period in oil/gas/coal we wouldn't be having this debate..........
  2. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Sandy Winder: In the context of the survival of civilisation, yes I do see it as irrelevent. That does not mean I am not concerned! Bubonic plague killed over half the population of Europe in the 14th century (estimated 35 million people) and a quarter of the worldwide population. The population in Europe recovered within a century. The 634 million you mention represent 10% of the world population so the effect of that 7 metre rise ( even if it killed them all) would have less effect on civilisation than the bubonic plague. The timescales are roughly the same..100yrs, the difference is that we have the ability circumvent the effects of rising sea levels so the net outcome will not threaten civilisation. It depends on what your perpective is, survival of the individual or survival of the species; marked global cooling would be a lot more difficult to survive than the equivalent level of global warming.
  3. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    M_B: The Younger Dryas period temp changes were so abrupt it is impossible to ascribe them to 'normal' climatic modifiers. One leading hypothesis is that the rapid dumping of Lake Agassiz ( via the Great lakes) into the N. Atlantic interrupted the thermohaline circulation there. Western European climate is effectively held 4 - 5C above 'normal' by TH circulation, so any decline would seriously impact that region's climate.
  4. It's the sun
    QM: Point taken, however if you plot proxy temps from Cambrian to present you get a downward trend in GMT from around 21C GMT to present 13.8C. Also latest thinking on Venus proposes the lack of a magnetic field has allowed water vapour to be dissociated by UV and the lighter H atoms stripped away by solar wind effects thus eventually depriving the planet of any water and therefore no oceanic component to modulate heat tranfer.....connect to the impending reversal/decline of our magnetic field??? Regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 modulation: This seems to me to be considerably overstated. Again, paleoclimate proxies indicate far higher CO2 levels than now without any thermal runaway. During the Carboniferous period CO2 levels were around 800ppm yet the GMT was apparently only 14C. Later, in the Mesozoic, CO2 jumped to circa 1800ppm and the GMT rose to around 17.5C...hardly supporting the idea of thermal runaway or tipping.
  5. It's the sun
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html Glacial-Interglacial cycles
  6. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Samboc & sandy The next ice age can not begin until after the current one ends. We ARE IN an ice age, Ice Age 4 known as the Neogene-Quarternary Ice Age. This is an interglacial period within the confines of Ice Age 4. In other words this is colder than normal and slowly returning back to earth normal (hot). Before you ask what is normal, you should know that all 4 of the ice ages only constitute about 10% of the earths history (but a much higher percent, maybe 40%, if you only count from the beginning of life). That means that 90% of the earths history (or about 60% of its inhabited history) is a HOT earth (but habitable despite extremely high CO2 levels ay times). The information is available at both government and university sites. I suggest becoming familiar with the scientific terminology at these sites and then look at the graphs of paleoclimates. The alarmists like short terms, 30 years rather than say 50 or 100 and for paleoclimates no more than a few hundred thousand years rather than millions because it makes AGW look pronounced and they can't account for high temps and low CO2 or low temps with high CO2 because it does not fit their models or their agendas.
  7. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    HealthySkeptic In addition to the "Ordovician & Silurian" Ice age (Ice Age 2), the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) was also an ice age (the beginning of the "Pennsylvanian & Permian" ice age or Ice Age 3).
  8. It's the sun
    Mizimi You are talking about glacations within an ice age and yes the interglacials are longer than the glacations but there are only 4 known ice ages and they comprise only about 10% of the earths known history. I am not looking at just the 4th ice age but all of earth history when I say that hotter is normal. sandy I do not disagree with what you say except that the GHG hypothesis can not be viewed as theory due to lack of testing. It has not made accurate predictions because of the overestimated sensitivity. In other words the earth is not very sensitive to CO2 as a GHG. If it was we would have looked like Venus during the Mesozoic. So the simple answer is that the IPCC has seriously overestimated the sensitivity to CO2 while doing the opposite for TSI.
  9. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Andy Bryski Because of the predominant air currents the increased snow falls in asia (last winter was a good example). This was mentioned in a paper by Mackey last summer.
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    Nor is a seven metre rise in sea levels. Where are all the people who live within ten miles of the coast going to live? I doubt the dinosaurs worried too much about how much land they had available or how many times they were flooded out or how many died in forest fires or died of thirst.
  11. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Mizimi:Concerns about the effect of a slight rise in temperature over the next century and the consequences thereof are irrelevent in this context: our civilisation will survive the predicted global warming scenario,... This 'slight' rise in temperature could be enough to raise sea levels by seven metres just from Greenland alone in the next hundred years. Even in 2008, 634 million people live within 10km of coasts. Do you see that as irrelevant?
  12. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Where is the evidence that the next ice age is due?
  13. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    A year or so ago I watched an interview with a climatologist. (can't recall the name) He stated that the long term effect of Artic ice melt will actually result in a reversal or a balancing. His reasoning was that the melt would increase moisture in the Arctic and result in large cloudy regions with increased snowfall. This would build snow/ice fields, these in turn would act as reflectors resulting in a counter-balance and mitigate the ice melt.. This appears to make some logical sense to me because the Artic at present is considered a desert region due to the very low precipitation levels. Increased precipitation levels would therefore alter that standard and possibly have positive results that might not be foreseen at present.----Your thoughts please!
  14. Models are unreliable
    Just read an interesting abstract on the effect of the moon on the monthly GMT. "Over the past fifty years, the Diurnal Temp Range has decreased by about half a degree.Conventional wisdom blames this on the greenhouse effect. But this decrease is just a trend observed in data that vary over shorter timescales. Cerveny and Balling show that for the period between 1950 and 1995, the DTR fluctuates with the phases of the Moon. It tends to increase towards Full Moon, and tends to be lowest at New Moon. Simple monthly differences in DTR between New Moon and Full Moon may be as much as 0.309 ºC -- in other words, 60% of the entire 50-year decrease. The message should be clear: all possible sources of variation should be investigated before blaming human activity alone for observed changes in climatic parameters." There is a correlation between full moon and monthly DTR variations most of which is ascribed to the changing earth/moon barycentre. This has prompted a look at the effects of a shifting sun/earth/moon barycentre on earth climate. Another piece in the puzzle?
  15. It's the sun
    ///The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works./// Wrong question because the perspective is wrong. History shows us that ice ages are the climatic dominant feature and that warm periods are the anomalies. The question is "What causes the warm periods"?
  16. It's the sun
    You appear to be confusing prediction with science and weather with climate. The GHG 'hypothesis' is hardly that. It is like saying that the sun heats the earth is also only a hypothesis. It is true that the predictors can not be 100% sure of what the climate will be like in a 100 hundred years any more than they can tell what the weather will be like in 100 days. But they are just as likely to be guilty of underestimating the climate changes as overestimating them.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 11:45 AM on 29 August 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Almost play on words. Thanks for the reminder but stay healthy. Pointers?
  18. It's methane
    Note: Methane intially reacts with ozone in a 'chain' reaction that ultimately produces CO2 and water vapour. You could summarise the reactions into: (3)CH4 + (4)O3 = (3)CO2 + (6)H2O Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere
  19. Solar cycles cause global warming
    ourphyl: Have a look at 'It's volcanoes'. Quietman has posted some relevent and interesting information and useful links.
  20. It's ozone
    A decline in ozone levels has a direct effect on the removal mechanism of methane from the atmosphere. Ozone is split by UV and the O atom combines with H to form hydroxyl radical OH. Methane reacts with the hydroxyl radical producing a methyl radical which bonds with another hydroxyl radical to produce formaldehyde. Formaldehyde reacts with hydroxyl radicals forming carbon dioxide and water vapor. You could summarise the reactions into: (3)CH4 + (4)O3 = (3)CO2 + (6)H2O Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere
  21. Greenland was green in the past
    wp Possible but not probable. Vineland was named by the greenlanders of that time, we can't identify it to this day because the climate changed.
  22. It's the sun
    sandy winder I said nothing about what climate IS. We are all pretty much aware of what it DOES. The best climatologist is a meteorologist with a PHD (presumed). They do quite well on both short term and long term predictions (it's mid-term where they run into trouble). But there is little understanding of what really drives climate and that is what I refer to. The GHG hypothesis came and went and came back again, the level of uncertainty is quite high. They only recently discovered how vulcanism drives ENSO. There are a lot of assumptions made by predictors and most are highly questionable which is why there is not a single climate model that works.
  23. We're heading into an ice age
    I am a novice here but I have noticed a lot of technical jargon that I don't understand. "Al Gore" etc thinks it is going to get warm. The "skeptics" say it is going to get cold. I think that if I lived in the NH I would make sure I have got some warm clothes. The bottom line is that all our heat comes from the Sun. If it cools down so does Earth. Any variances due to different Ocean Currents, Magnetic Fields etc are only releasing stored energy from the Sun. At the end of the day this planet will be a Dead Rock circling a spent Sun. Lets hope it warms up, CO2 increases, Plants grow and life becomes comfortable for a while. The alternative is not nice.
  24. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Running out of fossil fuel is a certainty. Reserves of fuel on current usage will run out in a few hundred years if "Green" movements continue to restrict drilling in "sensitive" areas. I am probably wrong but I often wonder where all this fossil fuel came from. Back in my school days (35 years ago) I was taught that is was from the Dinosaur days. The Earth was much hotter, Plants grew much lusher ( More CO2) . There was abundant Plant life that grew and died and rotted in swamps eventually forming Oil. This will not happen today. This planet is cold. It has been 11,500 years since the last Ice Age. The next Ice Age is due. We need millions of years of heat and increased CO2 to give the Earth a fighting chance.
  25. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Running out of fossil fuel is a certainty. Reserves of fuel on current usage will run out in a few hundred years if "Green" movements continue to restrict drilling in "sensitive" areas. I am probably wrong but I often wonder where all this fossil fuel came from. Back in my school days (35 years ago) I was taught that is was from the Dinosaur days. The Earth was much hotter, Plants grew much lusher ( More CO2) . There was abundant Plant life that grew and died and rotted in swamps eventually forming Oil. This will not happen today. This planet is cold. It has been 11,500 years since the last Ice Age. The next Ice Age is due. We need millions of years of heat and increased CO2 to give the Earth a fighting chance.
  26. HealthySkeptic at 15:19 PM on 28 August 2008
    Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    #20 chris, It's interesting that you bring up the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures with respect to palaeoclimate. The Carboniferous and the Ordovician are the only periods in the earth's history when global temperatures were as low as they are today. The late Ordovician was also an Ice Age, while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than they are today (~4400 ppm). According to greenhouse theory, the earth should have been exceedingly hot. Obviously, other factors besides atmospheric CO2 have larger impacts on the earth's temperature and global warming.
  27. HealthySkeptic at 14:43 PM on 28 August 2008
    Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Well said, Mizimi! In addition to the emotional aspect, being the very egotistical creatures that we are, we humans are also very good at over-estimating our impact on nature.
  28. HealthySkeptic at 14:23 PM on 28 August 2008
    Global cooling: the new kid on the block
    John, I liked your comment, "The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period". In the history of the Earth, 100 years is a "relatively short period", so the same could be said about drawing conclusions about observations over that time frame. There's only one absolutely certainty about climate... and that is that it WILL change.
  29. HealthySkeptic at 14:10 PM on 28 August 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe, In #38 you said "Black carbon is nonetheless anthropogenic." Not completely... there are significant natural sources.
  30. HealthySkeptic at 13:31 PM on 28 August 2008
    Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    What about water vapour as a negative feedback, due to the reflecton of solar radiation away from the Earth by clouds? Surely if water vapour levels in the atmosphere increase then there is a greater tendency for clouds to form, reflecting more radiation away from the earth.
  31. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I apologise in advance ........... " they strain out gnats and swallow camels..." THE current estimated GMT (actual) is 14C. The anomaly 1970 -2008 is around +0.55C which as a linear trend is +0.18/decade. If that trend continues in a linear fashion, then by 2108 the GMT will be 15.8C assuming all other things remain equal. Not impressed.
  32. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    The schematic is misleading. Firstly, it is not representative of the actual processes going but only shows a snapshot in time. Secondly, there is no CO2 balance in biomass input/output: CO2 is constantly being locked up/ released at varying rates so there is no dynamic equilibrium. In (geologically)ancient times CO2 concentrations were as high as 6000ppm...for a long time high enough to preclude oxygen breathers evolving...until sufficent CO2 was locked up by plant life ( the oceans would have been more or less saturated) and O2 levels raised by algae and cyanobacteria. There is no balance! Check out the Oxygen Cycle.
  33. It's the sun
    ///The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works./// I think it is bit unfair to say that scientists know nothign about climate. They know quite a lot about it. The fact they do not everything does not mean they know nothing. Scientists don't know everything about the human body yet but doctors still perform operations.
  34. It's the sun
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-12/1039267568.As.r.html In fact, the Sun is actually getting hotter. As 4 hydrogen atoms turns into 1 helium atom, the total number of particles in the Sun's core decreases. In order for the pressure within the Sun to stay constant, and continue to support itself against gravity, the temperature of the Sun must increase. This increase in temperature results in the Sun becoming brighter as well. In turn, this makes the Earth warmer because the intensity of sunlight is increasing. It is expected that within 1 billion years or so (well before the Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel) the temperature on Earth will increase to the point that a runaway greenhouse will take place. The result is that the Earth will end up looking much like Venus today.
  35. There's no empirical evidence
    "Rising CO2 levels are based not on one station but over 300 stations in 66 countries (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases). " My count from the WDC site is 298 stations of which only 159 actually measure CO2. The others measure different gasses. Being imprecise simply gives the sceptics another rabbit trail to run down. Current models have a VERY GREAT problem with clouds; even with modern satellite imagery it is beyond our current capability to assess with any reasonable degree of accuracy cloud distribution and density and thus the effect on insolation.
  36. It's methane
    It would be better if the graph went back somewhat more than 20yrs. Preindustrial concentrations are estimated around 700ppb, just 40% of modern concentrations. Much of the rise has to do with population increase and dietary habits. Population increases in the east have demanded increased rice production and the consequent increase in methane emission. Western diets are highly biased to meat consumption resulting in huge growth in ruminant numbers since 1960, another large methane source. Also, I am not too sure if the overall effect of methane is included in models? Methane breaks down into water and CO2 and I would expect the total GG effect of methane to include the secondary effect of these. I recently read that global methane emissions is on the rise...will have to find that paper again........
  37. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Running out of fossil (and Nuclear) fuel is a certainty. BUT before we ever reach that point - however far away that may be - an energy 'war' will start,( arguably has already started)and it will escalate as the energy required to extract these fuels approaches the energy derived from them. Concerns about the effect of a slight rise in temperature over the next century and the consequences thereof are irrelevent in this context: our civilisation will survive the predicted global warming scenario, it will not survive if we do not develop alternative energy sources that are independant of fossil fuels. "Doing nothing" refers to direct action to reduce CO2 emissions; I would argue it is better to do nothing in that context and spend the money 'saved' on exploring and developing alternate energy sources. (Which has the long term effect of reducing CO2 from FF's )
  38. We're heading into an ice age
    "The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007)" Wang 2005: "The increase in cycle-averaged TSI since the Maunder minimum is estimated to be ~1 W/m2" (instead of 0.17 W/m2?) Krivova 2007: "[The model predicts] an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3^+0.2_-0.4 W/m2" (instead of 0.23 W/m2?)
  39. It's the sun
    Look here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "The existence of the impact crater, Chicxulub, was first proposed in 1980. In the 1990s, satellite data and ground studies allowed it to gain prominence among most scientists as the long sought-after "smoking gun" responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs and more than 70 percent of Earth's living species 65 million years ago." Whilst the impact would have released a colossal amount of heat energy, this would have only affected a fairly local area, so originally it was thought the dust produced caused sufficient dimming of sunlight to provoke a mass extinction event. Currently however, it is thought that insufficient dust would have been created by this impact to mask the sun long enough and attention has shifted to the possibility of massive SO2 release from local calcium sulphate deposits. SO2 effect would have lasted much longer than so there would have been considerable diminution in plant and animal activity. Bearing in mind the climate was a lot hotter then, the combined effect of dust(immediate) and SO2(longer lasting) would have initiated a rapid cooling which in turn could have been to start a climate 'wobble' which resulted in the cycle of ice ages and intermediate warmer periods. As far as I can tell, no definitive research has been carried out on this possibility.
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 03:15 AM on 27 August 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Good question TruthSeeker. However, the "if" GW is occurring, I find rather funny. The melt is in itself indication that is is occurring and fast. To get somewhat back on topic, it's worth looking at the latest NSIDC graph, showing extent getting every day closer to last year's staggering low. The overall slope for August is interesting compared to last year. So is the fact that no inflexion has started yet. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
  41. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    CCE, Your reply made sence, thanks. This topic of discussion focuses mostly on Sea Ice. If global warming is occuring, can sea ice really identify if the cause is natural or man made?
  42. It's not bad
    Mostly pure speculation; extrapolation without including negative feedbacks is useless and as WA. says, harmful to the argument. ? expanding desert areas? Look at the existing deserts and tell me how they formed and grew BEFORE any AGW effects. Oh, and right now Egypt has drilled over 100 wells into the Sahara bedrock and (so far) found sufficient fresh water for the next 500 years. Thank you satellite radar imaging which showed the underlying ancient river courses and lakes. The same technology shows similar ancient water deposits in Darfur ( the war there is directly attributable to scarcity of water) and the government there has been offered the expertise to explore it...which could end that conflict and turn the country into an oasis. My Point? All the doom and gloom projections NEVER NEVER can account for paradigm shifts caused by technology. ( NY was predicted to end up knee deep in horse **** in the 1800's because of exponential increases in the use of horses....it never happened, instead, the automobile did). My point?
  43. Greenland was green in the past
    "If it was a propaganda tool they would not have named iceland as such." Possibly because the places were named by different people, 100 years apart?
  44. Greenland was green in the past
    WA If it was a propaganda tool they would not have named iceland as such. We still can't locate vineland due to the cooling since the discovery.
  45. Greenland was green in the past
    It has been proven that Greenland was in fact greener than today. The Glaciers had receded (not disappeared) enough for the lowland areas to be fertile and climate temperate. The argument for the age of the glaciers is a little absurd since we know that it was not a hot house, just somewhat warmer than it is now, enough to be comparable with Iceland or Finland of today, ie. habitable by the vikings.
  46. It's the sun
    sandy winder Suns output increasing? Where did you hear that? The Sun is the major component in climate. Even if the IPCC figures for CO2 acting as a GHG are correct it could not work without the sun (GHGs are modifiers of solar radiation, not a heat source). In the distant past CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm rather than low hundreds as they are today. But first it was hot, and then CO2 increased, then we had lush growth, a planetary jungle, and lots of animals to take advantage of it. That was 90% of the earths' history. The other 10% (roughly) consists of 4 ice ages. We are currently in the 4th ice age. It has slowly been warming (positive slope with wide oscillations) for 5 million years. The current period is considered to be an interglacial period. This, however can only be confirmed by another glacation (interglacial means between glacations). We could just as easily be in the post glacial period at the end of an ice age and that would mean it will continue to warm. The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works.
  47. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee PS As far as this thread goes I am in agreement with John that Kay's paper does explain the melt as natural but the thinning of the ice from prior years made it worse. I only disagree that it was CO2 that was the cause. My reasons are explained in part in the above comments and in other threads, such as "It's Volcanos".
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable Actually I am not willing to concede the point of accuracy, it's just not very important to this discussion. We have already beaten this one to death on another thread. If you look at Johns "view all arguments" you will see this is a large site and John has asked everyone to keep the subject matter relevant to the thread. I am trying to comply to his wishes. As far as the solar graphs, see "Its the sun", we have not quite beaten that one to death yet. The last thread on temp measurements was "A new twist on mid-century cooling" and I think it's still active as well.
  49. CO2 lags temperature
    QM: I hear what you say and (as I have said in other places on this site) it simply re-inforces my view that the basic physical model still has some bits missing or not fully understood. We do not even have a reliable physical model for the fluid dynamics of the earth core, so how can you compute tectonic effects into the climate model that would have any real meaning? As an aside: The moon causes tidal waves in all earth's material phases, and that effect is constantly modulated by the sun all the other planetary bodies. I would not care to try and model that either!
  50. CO2 measurements are suspect
    Checking out the site: http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html simply re-inforces in my mind that the data we have collected does not reflect the real situation. Firstly, there are 298 stations listed which collect information on various atmospheric gases. Only 159 collect data on CO2. The rest sample other gases. There is a range of sampling methods from fixed low level to mobile high altitude.... The distribution of sampling stations is unrepresentative of the global state; there is virtually no coverage of: Afica/Australia/ India/ Middle east /Russia /Asia/ China/Nth Canada/ S.America/Greenland. Sampling is concentrated in the highly industrialised countries so who is going to be surprised that CO2 levels there appear to be increasing? The data cannot represent the global condition.

Prev  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us