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

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

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

Hotties vs Frosties?

Posted on 9 July 2010 by John Brookes

Guest post by John Brookes

There is much heat in the blogosphere debates between those who believe that we are warming the planet, and those who are highly skeptical of such claims. I will put my cards on the table right now, and say that I think we are warming the planet. There is a lot of mistrust between the warring factions. People like me are referred to as AGW alarmists, while people on the other side are regularly derided as deniers. So to start with, I'd like to take some heat out of the debate by giving nicknames to the combatants. Those on my side will be referred to as "hotties", while the other side will be referred to as "frosties".

What are hotties like? Hotties are latte sipping, bicycle riding, quasi-intellectual, communist, greeny idealogues who hate the modern world and want to drive us back to the dark ages. Most Hotties have been hidden away in their ivory towers for so long suckling off the taxpayers teat that they know almost nothing about the real world, the world they are trying to destroy. They want to impose more and more rules limiting what you can do. Hotties have been brainwashed by an elite who are using the threat of climate change for their own ends. The elite consists of politicians are intent on creating a world government, and tame but dishonest scientists who are rewarded financially for fudging data and saying what the politicians want to hear. Hotties try and drown out all dissenting opinions. Philip Adams is their hero. Hotties should wash more often.

How about the frosties? Frosties are chainsaw wielding, grumpy, overweight, middle-aged men who drive older model 4WDs. They have Galileo complexes and opinions on everything, are outraged by most things, rail against the youth of today, and are suckers for conspiracy theories. They cherry pick data, and use tired and discredited arguments as though they are brand new. They would argue that black was white, if they thought that admitting black was black would weaken their position. They intimidate and harass real climate scientists, while their own Plimer, Monckton, Nova, Archibald, etc are in the pay of industry and have less credibility than John Worsfold talking about the Eagles next premiership. They don't have heroes. Rugged individuals who are single-handedly supporting the whole of western civilisation have no need for heroes. Some do have a bit of a crush on Jo Nova though.

So I've spent some time on both hotty and frosty blogs, and this is not what I see. For example on Jo Nova's blog, I have found many well meaning frosties who are only too happy to help expand my limited understanding of the science of climate change. At one time I put up a post which said that most hotties and frosties did not understand what was going on, but were simply barracking for their side. Rather than wishing me good riddance, Eddy, a regular there, encouraged me to aim higher. Thanks to Eddy, I've decided to work a bit harder to understand what is going on. Many of the frosties are doing exactly the same thing, trying to work out what is going on. They think that attempts to reshape our world without fossil fuels spells disaster, and think it is their duty to fight against it. Sure there are some frosties who are over the top and abusive, but the same can be said of some hotties. Of course there are also frosties who uncritically lap up any new argument which supports their case, while demanding much higher standards of the hotties. There are also probably a few who are paid directly or indirectly by big coal.

A similar judgement can be made about most hotties. They genuinely believe that climate change is a serious problem which needs to be tackled, not because of their ideological beliefs, but because of its predicted effects. Most of the climate scientists are actually committed to finding the truth, even if it puts them out of a job. Scientists are like that, they are driven by a desire to understand, and their reputation in the scientific community, should they be found to have any other motive, would be mud. Just like the frosties, most hotties are trying to improve their understanding of climate change. Of course there are some hotties who will believe any old rubbish which says that humans are bad and the world is about to end because of it (and I blame the catholic church for this ;-)). There are also probably a few scientists who are so wedded to the idea of climate change that it gets in the way of their objectivity.

I don't think there is any hope for the lunatic fringe on either side. If your starting point is that the people on the other side are evil incarnate, then you won't move from that. But for the rest of us, maybe there is some common ground. Can we find the points on which we agree? Much more importantly, can we pinpoint the exact places where we disagree?

Say you are marking a short answer question in a students physics test, and their answer is wrong (no post modernism here). Unless the student has absolutely no idea what they are talking about you will usually be able to find the exact place they went wrong. For example, they assumed that a cube had 8 faces, rather than 6. After this mistake, even if they use the correct method, their answer will be wrong. If they want to get the right answer, they must return to the mistake and correct that.

Of course the real world isn't so clean cut. It’s not normally a simple problem where you know all the facts exactly and just have to join them together appropriately to get "the answer". Imagine our student having to tackle their problem, but with no knowledge (and no way of finding out) just how many faces a cube has. They may look at systems they understand reasonably well, and work backwards until they conclude that a cube has about 5.3 +/- 1 faces. So they'll use this range of values, and it will give them a range of values for the answer. If this range is not too large, it may be useful. Of course if they botch things up and conclude that a cube has 17.3 +/- 0.2 faces, any results based on this will be useless. It is often the case with problems that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and someone else may find a way of tackling the problem without needing to know the number of faces a cube has. If their results don't agree with the cubist ones, then there will be a bun fight until most people agree with one or other side. What if one or two people refuse to agree? Well, you just carry on without them. You are doomed to get nowhere if you need everyone to agree with you.

It follows that for many real world problems, you won't be able to "prove" anything. You will over time simply build up a weight of evidence to help you make decisions. This is particularly so for climate science, where you can't say, "Here is a world I prepared earlier".

Of course the fervent hotties will say, "But we've already done all the necessary work, and the weight of evidence is overwhelming." And the fervent frosties will say, "They haven't proved anything. They have failed to address this and this and this. Their results are meaningless". And there is validity to both of these points of view.

Let us take just one point, “Global temperatures over the last 15 years don’t show any signs of warming”. Most frosties are smiling now, while most hotties are like “WTF?” If both sides are looking at the same data, then how can they disagree? Surely one side must be dishonest or deluded. Well, no actually. Here is a graph of some data.

Up or down?

Is it increasing, decreasing or staying the same? Have a good look - take all the time you like. Don't scroll down yet. Can you draw any conclusion?

You can apply all the statistical tests you like, and draw trend lines, or trend curves or do whatever you like, and I will have no faith in any statement other than, “You can’t tell”. But that is not what I say. I say it is definitely increasing. I’m absolutely sure of it. Why? Because I know where the data came from, and I have a model in my head of what I expect that data to do, and when I look at that data, it only confirms the model.

The data is the daily maximum temperature for Perth for September 2009. Here in Perth, we get warmer during September (that is the extremely simple model I have in my head), and with this in mind, when I look at the data, that is exactly what I see – a steadily increasing trend with some unusually warm days at the start of the month, and one unusually cold one at the end.

This is why frosties and hotties can look at the same data and see different things. The frosties look at the data without any underlying model, and see no trend. The hotties look at the data in the light of their models, and see something different. The point of difference is not that they see different things, it is the presence or absence of an underlying model of what they see.

So lets sort out our common ground, and work out where our differences really come from. At least then we can have a debate which is better than, "You are a moron", "No, you are a moron".

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 124 out of 124:

  1. I admit I haven't been following this thread, partly because I've been traveling and partly because I'm not all that interested in these kinds of "meta" discussions. But I was surprised to discover that Berényi Péter is still making incorrect allegations like this: Furthermore, there is the (not well advertised) issue of different adjustment procedures being applied to US data and the rest of the world. The differences in processing between the USHCN and non-US stations in GHCN are discussed in many places, including in the primary description of the GHCN v2 data set, right here: Peterson, T. and R. Vose. 1997. An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(12): 2837-2849. Less than two weeks ago I pointed this out to BP in another thread, where he was discussing the same issues: Are surface temperature records reliable? I suppose he must have stopped following the discussion there and then decided to bring it up again here. In any case, it is completely wrong to suggest either that the GHCN data are "tampered with" or that the difference in adjustments between USHCN and GHCN is "not documented" (his emphasis). He appears to have never bothered to read even the basic introductory paper about GHCN (Peterson and Vose 1997) before flinging around accusations of "tampering". I would urge people to go back and reread the discussion of this issue in the previous thread. I'd also urge people to keep the following in mind: * The net effect of the GHCN adjustment is small, slightly increasing the trend in the early 20th century but actually decreasing the trend over the past three decades. As I wrote in the other thread: Using a gridded analysis, the actual difference in the trends is 0.04 C/century over the last 90 years. Over the last 30 years, the difference in trend between the raw and adjusted data is 0.48 C/century ... with the adjusted trend being lower than the raw trend. In other words, the "tampering" that BP has detected is, over the past 30 years, reducing the magnitude of the warming trend. * The unadjusted data are available and can be (and are) used in many of the new, independent temperature reconstructions. * You cannot evaluate the actual effect of the GHCN v2 adjustments on the global temperature trend without using some form of gridding or other method to compensate for spatial dependence in the adjustments themselves. Again, as discussed in the other thread, Treating the rest of the world as homogeneous will not yield an unbiased estimate of the global mean adjustment unless either (a) the stations are distributed approximately uniformly in space [and] time, or else (b) the expected value of the adjustment for station X in year Y is independent of that station's location. * Land represents only 29% of the earth's surface, so any artifacts present in the GHCN data (due to adjustments, UHI, or anything else) will have only a small impact on the global trend as a whole. * Finally, surface temperature analyses using GHCN (whether adjusted or not) are generally similar to those based on satellite measurements of the lower troposphere. In addition, a new analysis by Ron Broberg and Nick Stokes shows that the GHCN temperature trends are virtually identical to those from a completely different surface data set based on GSOD. The GSOD data include a larger number of stations, better coverage of the Arctic and other remote regions, and no decline in station numbers in recent years. At this time, there is really very little point in arguing about the surface temperature trends. They've been confirmed over and over again; none of the various criticisms leveled at them has been shown to have any substantial impact at all on the final outcome.
    0 0
  2. BP, JMurphy, kdkd "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). That is a profound statement of scientific truth. I have found BP's contributions very informative and obviously backed by a serious amount of work. I agree with much of his analyses. The OHC issue is critical to the whole theory of AGW by the enhanced CO2GHG effect. One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise. When an accurate and repeatable measurement of OHC is available, then we will know the true extent of global warming or cooling.
    0 0
  3. Ken Lambert (and others) Your post at 102 suggesting that we do not know the extent of global warming because of uncertainty in OHC is extraordinary!! The claim that we must have every piece of the puzzle exactly in place in order to understand what the picture is has been used for decades by deniers to argue that we should not take action about global warming. In the 1990's they said that we needed to know surface warming. Look at Watt's pictures! Forget the confirming satalite data. Now that surface warming is known beyond resonable doubt (as described above by Ned) the deniers want OHC. Once that is known they will want advance, certain knowledge of sea level rise, confirmed prediction of all rain changes or some other obscure item. It will never be enough. "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). What a waste of space. Some data will never be as sure as other data. OHC is very difficult to measure and will have uncertainty for decades. It is the combination of mulitple lines of evidence that is convincing. How many times has John said that we must look at ALL the data and see the whole picture, rather than focus on a single uncertain item and say that is more important than all other data combined.
    0 0
  4. Ned, Phillipe et al., BP has repeated this figure on this thread, even though John Cook advised him here that he is comparing OHC for 0-3000 m with that from 0-700 m. That is not a valid comparison, and definitely not a valid reason to strongly assert that there are issues with the data. Someone else claims that "why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise" Correct me if I am wrong but the trend in global mean sea-level rise is 3.0 mm/yr +/-0.4 mm/yr from Uni. Colorado. Or are they referring only to the contribution from thermal expansion? I am all for people making the effort to understand and even to try and reproduce scientific findings. However, when our results do not agree with those in the literature, I would caution against making statements of data fudging or conspiracies. A much, much more plausible scenario is that we have made one or more errors.
    0 0
  5. Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 13 July, 2010 Interesting, Ken. That illustrates quite a lot about certain approaches to science and knowledge, and especially efforts to misrepresent by focussing on minor areas of uncertainties. This entire thread started with a statement about context, and that (i.e. an informed consideration of context) would help you to understand, for example, the OHC measurement you refer to here: "One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise." Remember that that measurement was part of an analysis of the extent to which the sea level "budget" could be closed for a very short four year period [*]. Not surprisingly estimation of some the sub elements of this analysis (e.g. the thermosteric contribution to sea level) has a high uncertainty. That's obviously why we don't attempt to draw fundamental conclusions from analysis of very short time periods. What is the context in which it might be useful to determine an estimate of the thermostatic contribution at low precision, to a very short term period of sea level rise Ken? The answer is during a period following the introduction of new measurement technologies (ARGO for upper ocean heat measurement; GRACE for gravity perturbation based mass redistribution measurements). These analyses constitute an important initial test of the technologies and allow us to establish whether fundamental problems might exist (crudely put, if the sum of GRACE-derived mass contributions and ARGO-derived thermosteric contributions to sea level rise including error at 95% confidence overlaps with independently determined satellite-derived sea level rise, then we have confidence that there is nothing fundamentally problematic with the technologies and methodologies, although that doesn't prove that everything is working as well as we hope). So context is key. Obviously over the longer term the precision of our measurements improve (signal rises from noise as random measurement error and internal fluctuations average out). This (context) is where there are problems in your other statements: Peter: "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40)." Ken: "That is a profound statement of scientific truth." Well it certainly sounds profound Ken, but I suspect it may be one of those rather empty assertions that dissolve away when considered in the light of real world observations. Can you give us a relevant example? For example one in the context of the current discussion. "When an accurate and repeatable measurement of OHC is available, then we will know the true extent of global warming or cooling." There's no question that good OHC data will fundamentally improve our ability to test our understanding to the Earth response to radiative imbalance. But global warming can also be defined in relation to the response of the Earth surface and since (a) this is the bit of the Earth we inhabit and have a profound interest in, and (b) this is the measure that allows us to assess the relationship between changes in radiative forcings and surface temperature response in the near and deep past, it would be foolish indeed to consider that we require OHC measures before we can properly assess global warming. Remember that uncertainty in little bits of sub issues doesn't drive out certainty in the more fundamental areas of our knowledge. For example we have high confidence that radiative imbalance results in sea level rise due to land ice melt and ocean warming. We can measure sea level rise reasonably well and the measurements generally correspond to our expectations. The fact that we can only make an imprecise direct estimate of the thermostatic contribution to sea level rise during the period Jan 2004 to Dec 2007 doesn't negate our higher level certainties. [*] Leuliette E, Miller L. 2009. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36:L04608
    0 0
  6. Ken Lambert wrote : One wonders why we bother with measurements which give 0.8mm +/-0.8mm as evidence for SLR consistent with OHC rise. If you mean Leuliette & Miller (2009), it is only part of a host of measurements which, together, give a consistent picture. As they themselves state : While four years is a short period to interpret trends, the excellent agreement in observing systems demonstrates that the global ocean observing systems can be used to close the budget and verify the complementary observations. I know certain people like to pick out only one or two studies, out of the many, because they like what they see in them and then ignore all the rest, but it is always best to see what else is being said. How about more by Leuliette & Miller : here and here How about a round-up ((Contemporary Sea Level Rise) by Cazenave and Llovel : Recent results based on Argo show that since approximately 2003, thermal expansion is following a plateau (after correcting for instrumental drifts of some Argo probes: Early estimates of Argo-based thermal expansion, Lyman et al. 2006 showed a negative trend as of 2003; however, instrumental problems were subsequently reported on some probes, leading to cold bias, hence artificial ocean cooling). For the recent years, thermal expansion rates range from −0.5 ± 0.5 mm year−1 over 2003–2007 (Willis et al. 2008) to +0.4 ± 0.1 mm year−1 over 2004–2007 (Cazenave et al. 2009) and +0.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 over 2004–2007 (Leuliette & Miller 2009). The 2003 data coverage is very sparse and it is likely that the Willis et al. (2008) value is biased low for that reason. The recent flattening of the thermal expansion curve likely reflects natural short-term variability. Similar short-term plateaus are also well visible in the past. Or another one from Trenberth. Anyway, these were all given by chris here (did you bother to go and read them ? The links I give should make it easier for you) and yet you still want to highlight one particular short-term measurement. Why ? What's wrong with the big picture ? Do you also highlight problems with the Theory of Evolution ?
    0 0
  7. Albatross at 02:08 AM on 13 July, 2010 "Correct me if I am wrong but the trend in global mean sea-level rise is 3.0 mm/yr +/-0.4 mm/yr from Uni. Colorado. Or are they referring only to the contribution from thermal expansion?" That's the directly measured sea level rise from satellite altimetry. It encompasses the contributions from mass change (land ice melt) and ocean warming (thermosteric volume expansion). With the improving abilities to obtain independent measures of land ice melt (from monitoring glaciers and ice caps, and now from GRACE satellite estimates of regional mass redistribution from their effects on Earth's gravitational field) and thermosteric contributions (from direct measures of ocean heat changes), efforts have begun to attempt to do some basic "accounting" of the Earth heat and sea level budgets. The basic idea is that the independently determined mass contributions and heat contributions should sum to the directly observed sea level rise. Not surprisingly this is not straightforward, partly since the directly measured sea level rise (lowish uncertainty in this parameter) is the sum of two contributions of greater uncertainty (not to mention the potentially large contributions to sea level variation from internal fluctuations like El Nino and La Nina). Areas of uncertainty are very interesting! Scientists like them since they define arenas for potential discoveries. On the other hand they're catnip to those that like to insinuate that bits and pieces of data are incompatible with our broader understanding...
    0 0
  8. Ken's and BP's arguments seem to center on a reductionist approach, or at least the "solid science" approach generally used by people I will (IMO) label 'denialists'. Note - I want to talk about the tactics, not label people whose discussions have from time to time shown elements of these tactics. An issue (real or not) with a single piece of evidence does not invalidate an entire theory - it never has. Yet certain groups have frequently claimed this. For example: risks of acid rain, risks of smoking and secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, DDT, shortcomings of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and now climate change. Each scientific issue has been faced with shouts about singular issues, with the claim that any error whatsoever invalidates the entire issue. And oddly enough, everything I just listed is discussed here in "Merchants of Doubt, where the authors point out that exactly the same people (S. Fred Singer, Robert Jastrow, Willie Soon, and others) have been involved in almost every one of these issues. That's not a convincing track record! I have a family connection with denialists - my brother used to be one of the major public faces for a large tobacco company, denying the effects of second-hand smoke. A few months after he started that job he handed me a copy of "Thank You For Smoking", and said "This is my job - I AM Nick Naylor!" He used every one of the tactics above repeatedly - and every day political decisions were delayed meant money for his company. He never did tell us how much a soul went for, though... "Sound science", calls for absolute evidence (More study! More study!), and nitpicking individual pieces of evidence as 'proof' that entire bodies of science are invalid are all examples of 'denialist' tactics. The evidence is never 'absolute', but when a massive preponderance of evidence accumulates, we can certainly be sure enough to act!
    0 0
  9. #98 MP at 18:37 PM on 12 July, 2010 just as the Stone Age ended, not because the earth ran out of stone or a stone tax was introduced, the carbon age will end because humans will find more appropriate or cheaper alternative sources of energy rather than being subject to further arbitrary carbon taxes that generate revenue that is more likely to be used to try and address sovereign debt rather than facilitate the research and development of alternative sources of energy That's it. In the long run there are only two scarce resources. One is the span of human attention, the other is land area for neither one is subject to expanded reproduction. Both are overexploited. The first one by the unrestricted flood of commercial and political advertisement (in fact the most serious case of environmental pollution), the second one is by the so called renewable resource policy. Which in fact lays waste to huge expanses of land, either by installing useless, inefficient and ugly wind farms (on taxpayer's money, of course) or abusing it in other ways like solar collectors, flatland hydropower or fuel crops. Anyway, you can do the math, renewable energy is absolutely insufficient to maintain the necessary energy supply to world economy, even in the short run. Therefore decarbonization is nothing else but the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that. As for carbon taxes, it would be a best case scenario to address sovereign debt. In reality carbon credit fraud (158,000 hits) is fast becoming the most popular creative business opportunity. Of course, as I have already mentioned, there is a solution. Just overemotional greenies should be sent home first, who were careful to remove the only viable alternative energy source from public discourse before going for carbon en force.
    0 0
  10. MP at 18:37 PM on 12 July, 2010 MP your argument is scuppered by a fundamental flaw unfortunately. The only one of your set of possible scenarios is your scenario #1. The reason is that there simply will not be "a new glacial period" within the next 10 millenia (analysis of the Earth's highly predictable orbital properties that govern the transitions between glacial periods indicate that the present interglacial might actually last another 50,000 years). Clearly we need to address the immediate problems (increasing global warming, sea level rise, major disruption of current hydrological cycles etc.) that impact during the coming decades, and the related longer term problem (an absolute imperative to realign the powering of our societies with sustainable energy sources at least within the next few hundred years), before worrying about what might happen many thousands of years from now!
    0 0
  11. Berényi - I would completely agree that nuclear power will need to be part of the energy mix moving forward, at a much larger percentage than it is now. However, there was a very interesting article in the Nov. 2009 issue of Scientific American detailing how wind, solar, and wave energy could supply 100% of energy requirements in the next 20-40 years. Not ethanol, mind you - that would require several times the area of the Earth to match up, not to mention several times the available world-wide fresh water. You might want to look up a copy if you can get your hands on it. I believe there's a lot more potential in renewable energy than you seem to.
    0 0
  12. Here's a better link to the Scientific American sustainable energy proposal.
    0 0
  13. "Inefficient wind turbines" Well, let's consider the efficiency of a wind turbine based on the ratio of the energy it actually produces for a given wind speed vs. its Beck limit. On the table below, we find, at 10 mph wind, a Beck limit of 37.70kWh/mo and a realistic turbine output of 22.36, whcih gives an efficiency close to 59%. http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Perfect_Turbine.htm In comparison, a coal power plant can be expected to reach about 31%. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_energy_efficiency_of_an_average_coal_powered_plant If I remember, combined cycle could possibly reach 40 or 45%. Not quite as good but still more efficient than BP's rethoric. BTW, BP, thanks for the pic, with all the oil covered pelicans in the news these days, it's nice to see something aesthetically pleasing. Just to clarify: I have stated on this forum many times before that I am in favor of using nuclear energy.
    0 0
  14. And here's a better summary of the Sci. Am. article on renewables. The world will need an estimated 16.9 terawatts of power by 2030, up from 12.5 TW today. Available wind power is estimated at 40-85 TW, available solar power at ~580 TW. Cost per KW could be lower than building new coal power plants, even with the required long distance power lines. Bird deaths (an issue raised with wind farms) are estimated at ~1/10 that from coal plants (pollution), so that's not an obstacle. And wind/solar power generation is hugely less wasteful of water resources (no cooling towers or hot rivers) than coal, oil, or nuclear power, relaxing fresh water needs. Siting multiple wind/solar sources separated by a reasonable distance (~5 up and down the East Coast of the US, for example, or even a few hundred km between stations) overcomes regional wind/solar variations, allowing a fairly level supply regardless of weather. And if we move our transportation to an electric basis (that's difficult - batteries still *suck* for energy density), we could even drop our power requirements below current levels. It's not all simple, mind you - there are rare-earth resource limitations for motors/solar cells, mostly from China, and a considerable investment. But it can be done.
    0 0
  15. MP - I think you are being impressed by a denial tactic that "we saving the world from an ice age by adding CO2". This supposed touching concern for humanity thousands of years into the future is I suspect more motivated by concern about price of gas tomorrow but no matter. If this concern was genuine then it would make more sense to save every bit of carbon now for use in the future when needed. As to old saw about running out of rocks - maybe it would be better to say we will move to better sources of energy when we start paying the true cost for petroleum. Even removal of $500 billion of subsidies would be good start dont you think? BP - I find David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" a valuable analysis as to the potential for renewables. While he analysis would also suggest that nuclear has to be part of some countries needs, (Europe) he also makes a mockery of the statement of "Anyway, you can do the math, renewable energy is absolutely insufficient to maintain the necessary energy supply to world economy, even in the short run."
    0 0
  16. KL#102 After BP#140: "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). In an ideal world this statement would be true but for complex stochastic systems with high levels of measurement uncertainty this statement is merely advocacy for impasse and the weight of the evidence be damned.
    0 0
  17. I'm also impressed with the rhetorical approach that BP takes in post 109 given his repeated assertion that the only thing that is important is the evidence. It's becoming increasingly clear that as with Ken Lambert the only things important to BP are his preconceived notions of what the "correct" conclusions will be in advance. However this is usually hidden behind some technical sounding stuff illustrating small picture thinking which obscures the poor quality reasoning enough to give a veneer of respectability.
    0 0
  18. #111 KR at 03:26 AM on 13 July, 2010 there was a very interesting article in the Nov. 2009 issue of Scientific American detailing how wind, solar, and wave energy could supply 100% of energy requirements in the next 20-40 years Come on. According to this study nominal land use efficiency of modern wind power plants in the United States is 2.9 W/m2. Taking into account the intermittent nature of winds, the actual average power output is only a fraction of this figure. That's more than ridiculous. Wind power should be banned ASAP. Land use efficiency of solar power is not much better than that (at most 10 W/m2 in mid-latitudes, including losses related to storage). The only reasonable place for solar panels is on rooftops, but first the energy storage problem should be resolved (because the sun fails to shine at night and in the winter when most of the energy is used up). Even then this area is far too small to provide for a reasonable fraction of consumption. Costs should also be decreased by an order of magnitude to make this solution competitive with no subsidies on taxpayer's money. If roads would be paved with solar panels as well, captured energy stored locally in some non-toxic, not flammable but energy-rich chemical (like sugar) and microscopic fuel cells would produce electricity on demand, that could come close to a permanent solution. However, some R+D is still needed to make micron sized self replicating and self cleaning solar powered sugar factories and sugar powered fuel cells in quantity, durable enough to be used as pavement at a reasonable cost. I wouldn't bet on their large scale availability in the next few decades. That would require full scale molecular nanotechnology. However, as the main raw material for such tiny engines is CO2 in air, it's time to start worrying about irresponsible depletion of this resource up to a degree that plants would suffer. Also, MNT has its onw perils. Nuclear breeder reactor technology has the irrefutable advantage of existence. In fact it was available even thirty years ago. And its land use efficiency is simply beyond imagination.
    0 0
  19. #118 kdkd at 07:52 AM on 13 July, 2010 obscures the poor quality reasoning enough to give a veneer of respectability That's vague. Which specific step you've found objectionable? Why?
    0 0
  20. BP. depends on what you use solar for. Solar hot water, more like 40W/m2 but then that is not the major use of energy. SCP is more like 15Wm2 and to quote from MacKay, "To supply every person in the world with an average European’s power consumption (125 kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000 km by 1000 km squares in the desert." Of course that solve problem of available desert (especially for europeans), nor of storage. Nuclear would probably be better. Nonetheless, this is a problem we have to solve sooner or later as oil demand outstrips supply.
    0 0
  21. "However, as the main raw material for such tiny engines is CO2 in air, it's time to start worrying about irresponsible depletion of this resource up to a degree that plants would suffer" Umm, when you burn the sugar to get energy, then surely you release CO2 back? This appears to me to be just high-tech carbon neutral biofuel, powered by the sun as well.
    0 0
  22. BP: "Therefore decarbonization is nothing else but the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that." BP, as a new reader of this blog, I was weighing your critiques for objectivity and merit. I am not really qualified to fully scientifically judge OHC or acidification; at best I might form semi-informed opinions. For a non-specialist it can be hard to really judge the science of a particular niche accurately in the "spare time" available. A key aspect is that it's often easy to follow a given thread of argument, but without deeper domain knowledge it's harder to weigh the balances and to be sure when all relevant factors have been accounted for. This is not specific to climate science - it could have to do with setting tuna harvest quotas in the south pacific - one side can show you the facts and analysis they want you to see, then the other can, and it takes a lot of time to objectively sort out the conflicting claims. So sometimes I look for who seems to have the most rational analysis with the least unconscious baggage; it's a matter of judging credibility rather than going into each discipline's science in sufficient detail to create publishable papers. However, with these posts (109 & 118) you strayed into territory where I have more knowledge, and your lack of objectivity becomes glaringly apparent to me. This causes me to give less weight to your pronoucements where you (appear to believe you) have more expertise than I have, like OHC. Just by the way, given that a substantial number of decarbonization advocates are supporting varying degrees of increase in reliance on nuclear energy (conventional or some form of breeder, particularly thorium), for either a transition period or for the long term, your black and white declaration in this area as quoted above is blatently inaccurate and far from objective. Likewise, you appear to be selective lowballing in your analysis of renewables + conservation (to be fair, many advocates of renewables tend to highball their estimates of what's possible - see below for why). However, the quote above does potentially explain the sense of a seething undercurrent of urgency mixed with despair which I sense behind your ostensibly rational presentations. I actually find that helpful - and familiar, as your sense of "impending doom" and the vital necessity of changing course before it's too late is remarkably similar to climate change alarmists. (By which I do NOT mean all hotties. I'm using the term selectively in regard to the urgency-to-avoid-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it aspect, justified or not - not as a broad brush or put-down). For those with viewpoints similar to yours, "decarbonization" would mean the end of the world as we know it; for the hotties with a similar psychological urgency, c02 driven global climate change would mean about the same - in both cases that urgency sometimes fuels some hyperbole and lack of respect for opponents. Understanding that urgency, I can cut both ends of the spectrum a certain degree of slack. But I'm more interested in the middle, and in the audience John Brooks is seeking to reach. De-escalating the names whenever is a step in that direction. I doubt that "hotties" vs "notties" will catch on, tho I applaud the effort. While it's hard for bloggers who type a lot and prefer quick terms and acronyms for efficient communication among the in-group, often when writing for others it's useful to just avoid the shorthand and expand the text. So for example, one could talk about "those who disbelieve in human caused climate change" or "those who believe that humans are changing the climate". Yes, those are not fully accurate (eg: "via CO2 or other means?") but they can be understood without demeaning or overly stereotyping.
    0 0
  23. BP @ 99:http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=122&&n=266#18218 It's not the error that is a shame, it's the baseless accusations. The researchers of the papers you accused to be frauds are people, honorable people. They must be considered as such until proof of the contrary. You launched the accusations but dispensed from the proof.
    0 0
  24. Just a further note on CSP. According this report 25% efficiency commercial CSP is available and close to 50% efficiency is expected in future. This should yield CSP with 40W/m2 or better instead of the 15W/m2 that MacKay based his calculation on.
    0 0
  25. #121 scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 13 July, 2010 when you burn the sugar to get energy, then surely you release CO2 back? This appears to me to be just high-tech carbon neutral biofuel, powered by the sun as well. Yes and no. If you had molecular nanotech, you could manufacture just about anything using carbon and little else. Sugar (or whatever) is just a temporary carbon storage. But most of the thingies needed for a hitech environment are pretty permanent. Including molecular machinery to convert light, water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar (L-glucose may be favored, it's not consumed by bacteria), then oxygen and sugar into water, carbon dioxide and electricity. Burning all the unoxidized carbon compounds in the crust may not be enough to supply the carbon needed for an advanced economy. Then some limestone should be exploited, creating a serious ocean basification problem by releasing untold amounts of lime milk into the environment. But these are problems for the day after tomorrow.
    0 0
  26. Berényi - even at low W/m^2 total land usage there are lots of places to put windmills. This link, which includes references to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (and which also has great maps for PV and CPV power availability) indicates that the USA has sufficient land with 300-2000W/m^2 wind energies (wind incident on the windmill), within 10km of current power lines, to generate an average continuous 734 GW. The USA used 474 GW of electric power in 2007. Throw in some PV or concentrated PV energy, at up to 9 kWh/m^2/day, and a few new power lines - there is no physical issue preventing generating sufficient power.
    0 0
  27. Here's a more conservative approach: AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION - Estimated 20% of US electrical needs, including environmental and land use exclusions. North Dakota alone could (theoretically) supply >25% of US electrical needs, this takes into account a lot of land use restrictions.
    0 0
  28. #120 scaddenp at 10:30 AM on 13 July, 2010 "To supply every person in the world with an average European’s power consumption (125 kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000 km by 1000 km squares in the desert." Would you please calculate the effect on global climate of covering two million square kilometers of the most sunny places on Earth with a low albedo material? And the cost and environmental impact of creating huge temporary energy storage capacities close to points of consumption. Then come environmentalists to accuse you for killing all those desert snakes and scorpions.
    0 0
  29. #127 KR at 12:17 PM on 13 July, 2010 AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION - Estimated 20% of US electrical needs, including environmental and land use exclusions Of course they could supply that much (provided you also have the backup capacity in case of lulls). The US is still an empty country, land is cheap. But would you tolerate huge windmills in your neighborhood, blade tips speeding at several hundred km/h, throwing pounds of ice in winter to hundreds of meters and generating omnipresent low frequency noise? BTW, US population may exceed one billion by the end of century, pushing property prices up in the sky.
    0 0
  30. BP asked "Would you please calculate the effect on global climate of covering two million square kilometers of the most sunny places on Earth with a low albedo material?" How about "a solar array to generate the entire world’s present electricity consumption"? That was done at RealClimate quite a while ago.
    0 0
  31. BP #129 Personally I find the aesthetics of wind farms quite pleasing. You are showing your subjective biases again. BP #119 The most obvious objection to your approach is that you will not deal with the interdependency problem in any way other than one which is guaranteed to result in scientific impasse. This provides you with an illusion of validity but also allows you not to address your substantial and blinding preconceptions in any meaningful way.
    0 0
  32. #122 Zeph at 10:43 AM on 13 July, 2010 However, with these posts (109 & 118) you strayed into territory where I have more knowledge That's fine. You could supply a more reasonable estimate of windpower efficiency than the 2.9 W/m2 value of the technical report I have found. National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report (NREL/TP-6A2-45834) August 2009 Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States Paul Denholm, Maureen Hand, Maddalena Jackson, and Sean Ong
    0 0
  33. "But most of the thingies needed for a hitech environment are pretty permanent." But if you are talking about nanotech to provide energy, then you have to release that carbon to get energy. 1st law must apply. "Burning all the unoxidized carbon compounds in the crust may not be enough to supply the carbon needed for an advanced economy." The "advanced economy" needs to cut cloak to cloth. If you want carbon for purposes other than oxidizing it, then let me point you to some coal seams. Sounds like you have much better use for it than our current schemes. As to albedo change... well we are assuming the 0.5% of the globe changes from say perfect reflector to perfect absorber. Surface albedo reflects 21W/m2 at moment, so I'd say the increased warming effect would be way less that the 3.7Wm2 from GHG.
    0 0
  34. Chris @107, Thanks for your feedback. I really do need to write more clearly. When I said "Or are they referring only to the contribution from thermal expansion?, the "they" I was referring to was Ken Lambert.
    0 0
  35. #130 Tom Dayton at 12:53 PM on 13 July, 2010 How about "a solar array to generate the entire world’s present electricity consumption"? That was done at RealClimate quite a while ago. The question is not about the entire world’s present electricity consumption, but all the energy consumed by the global economy. In that case MacKay's 2 million km2 is a bit more realistic than raypierre's 53,333 km2. If you want to decarbonize, do it properly. It is also fit to allow for some increase in consumption for economies like China or India. If you let everyone have the same energy quota as the US have got today and consider some inevitable increase of world population, it comes close to ten million square kilometers. That still does not sound too much (less than 4 W/m2 on average over the globe), but you want to concentrate it to several desert areas. That would have a considerable impact on global circulation patterns.
    0 0
  36. MacKay's estimate was for 125kWh/p/d. Beats me how US manages to use 250kWh/p/d - we use 91. Not enough petroleum for citizens of China to reach that level of consumption with fossil fuel anyway. Suggests there is a fair bit of scope for conservation in US. Anyway, whatever happens with climate, the world will have to figure this out somehow, someday, because fossil fuel doesnt last forever.
    0 0
  37. Berényi - But would you tolerate huge windmills in your neighborhood? Already have them. There's a row of 1.4 MW windmills just outside my home town. No noise issue, and even in the US snow belt (several 1 meter snowfalls per year over the last couple years) they don't ice up and throw chunks. And if I'm not on a ladder sticking my head in the blades, the speed of the blade tips is completely irrelevant. Your prejudices are showing. I much prefer the windmills to a coal fired power plant (most likely in my region), or even a natural gas power plant. As to my previous post, the 734 GW figure was for average continuous power, which includes varying wind conditions. If the spread of wind power sites exceeds a local low/high pressure zone, you will ALWAYS have wind on some portion of the grid. That makes interconnections/power sharing important, but those issues are easy to deal with.
    0 0
  38. Frankly, it seems like the whole wind power issue is a side show. IMO, by the time we could build a working wind-based electrical system, it would already be obsolete. Solar, however, is a *much* better bet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power Cheers, :)
    0 0
  39. #136 scaddenp at 14:25 PM on 13 July, 2010 MacKay's estimate was for 125kWh/p/d. Beats me how US manages to use 250kWh/p/d - we use 91 No. In 2004 US primary energy comsumption (achievement at primary energy carriers stressed on the average) was 10,460 Watts/head. If you do the math that comes out as 251.04 kWh/p/d. In Europe it was 105.768 kWh/p/d (Hungary 82.3 kWh/p/d), China 24.84 kWh/p/d and 16.248 kWh/p/d in India. World average was 52.8 kWh/p/d. Think globally, act locally.
    0 0
  40. BP #118 & #132, I'm sorry but the 2.9 w/m^2 figure you are quoting for wind power generation is just STUNNINGLY incorrect. You presumably READ the report you are pulling it from and thus know that they differentiate between the total land area a wind farm is spread over and the total land area actually USED by the wind farm and thus unavailable for other purposes (most of which turns out to be access roads). The figures cited in the report conclusion are; 34 +/- 22 hectares per megawatt land SPREAD OVER 1 +/- 0.7 hectares per megawatt land USED Converting the average values there to the units you cited (which appear nowhere in the report) yields; 340000 m^2 per 1,000,000 w = 2.9 w/m^2 based on land SPREAD OVER 10000 m^2 per 1,000,000 w = 100 w/m^2 based on land USED This is presumably how you got the 2.9 w/m^2 figure... based on the area a wind farm is spread over rather than the area it actually USES. That's just totally unreasonable since every US wind farm I've ever seen is also used for crops and/or livestock. Indeed, many of the access roads built for wind farms later turn in to regular transportation routes... decreasing their REAL 'footprint' to just the area taken up by the base of each turbine. Then of course you are also completely ignoring offshore wind... which uses up no 'land' at all. Resorting to the citation of blatantly false/misleading statistics does not help your case. Rather it shows that you are pursuing a belief which can only be sustained via dishonesty.
    0 0
  41. I see lots of people in this thread arguing for wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever. Not many people arguing in favor of coal, at least. Could I make a modest suggestion? We don't actually need to decide a priori that the electrical grid of 2050 will be powered by x% wind, y% solar, z% hydro, nuclear, geothermal, tidal power, biomass, etc. That's really not an efficient way to proceed. If we implemented a substantial (and increasing) price for fossil carbon-based energy -- a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, whatever -- the market will then decide what mix of power sources is most cost effective in a given region. Such a pricing system can be made revenue-neutral (e.g., refunding all proceeds from a carbon tax on a per-capita basis -- in which case the average cost of energy usage doesn't change, but there's an incentive to move from fossil-fuel-based to non-fossil energy sources). It's pretty easy to imagine that in 2050 we might have a lot more solar in the US southwest and Australia, wind in northern Europe and the US/Canadian Great Plains, tidal power in Maine and the Maritimes, etc., with nuclear and (limited) fossil fuels filling in the gaps. By 2100 there are lots of different possible scenarios ranging from space-based solar to nuclear fusion to ... something else. But the point is that we don't have to have the answers worked out in 2010. Of course, there are also issues of path dependence and inertia. Actions we take today will influence the future mix of energy sources, transportation methods, etc. While a pricing penalty for carbon-based energy will benefit all the non-carbon alternatives, it's probably worth continuing to invest substantially more in research on all the major alternatives, so the market can have better information in advance on their likely future costs and capacities.
    0 0
  42. CBDunkerson's point here is a really good one. I don't know how things work elsewhere, but in the US Upper Midwest wind turbines generally are built on private farmland, with the power company "renting" the space for the turbine's footprint. It's a good deal for everybody -- almost all the land is still farmed; the payments from the power company provide an additional source of income; and (IMHO) the turbines themselves add some interest to what's otherwise a fairly ... dull ... landscape. If BP's figure of 2.9 W/m2 is for all the land area within the vicinity of the wind farm, then yes, that's extremely misleading, since other economic activities continue within that same area.
    0 0
  43. Zeph writes: However, with these posts (109 & 118) you [BP] strayed into territory where I have more knowledge, and your lack of objectivity becomes glaringly apparent to me. This causes me to give less weight to your pronoucements where you (appear to believe you) have more expertise than I have, like OHC. For what it's worth, BP's comments in this thread about the GHCN surface station data and the surface temperature record were similarly wrongheaded.
    0 0
  44. #137 KR at 15:27 PM on 13 July, 2010 There's a row of 1.4 MW windmills just outside my home town. No noise issue, and even in the US snow belt (several 1 meter snowfalls per year over the last couple years) they don't ice up and throw chunks. And if I'm not on a ladder sticking my head in the blades, the speed of the blade tips is completely irrelevant OK, let's go for a reality check. Wind Turbine noise at 1600 feet Wind Turbine Ice Throw Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin Windmill/turbine going wild and finally break Wind turbines and health problems Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker Impact Lawsuit over wind turbine noise Does an industrial scale wind turbine sound like a refrigerator to you? Wind Turbine Fire Danish wind turbine explosion slowed down Voices of Vinalhaven Part 1: wind turbine noise Voices of Vinalhaven Part 2: wind turbine noise I understand you would not like your property value to go down. In case you live more than 2 km away from the windfarm, you may be safe. But that's what I am talking about. This thing overconsumes valuable land area.
    0 0
  45. #140 CBDunkerson at 21:31 PM on 13 July, 2010 Resorting to the citation of blatantly false/misleading statistics does not help your case. Rather it shows that you are pursuing a belief which can only be sustained via dishonesty. You know what? Pay a visit to Vinalhaven, Maine, call up a townhall meeting and tell those people they are pursuing a belief which can only be sustained via dishonesty. See what you get.
    0 0
  46. I don't know what people's anecdotal opinions are in Vinalhaven. However, I have friends and relatives in Maine and there is no shortage of support for wind power in the state, though many people may have perfectly understandable reservations about siting turbines in environmentally sensitive areas. From the Natural Resources Council of Maine: A recent poll conducted by Portland-based Critical Insights shows that 90% of Maine people support the development of wind power as a source of electricity. Nearly nine in ten Mainers agree that wind power can improve energy security and reduce Maine’s dependence on fossil fuels, and eight in ten agree that wind power will produce jobs and other forms of economic benefits. [...] The level of support for wind power in Maine appears to have increased as Maine has become a leader in New England in wind power generation. [...] The poll also reveals that 77% of Maine people want Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to support federal climate and clean energy legislation. Only 13% believe that Maine’s two senators should vote against the legislation, and 10% remain undecided. A clear majority in every demographic subgroup supports passage of legislation “aimed at both reducing the threat of climate change and promoting clean energy development,” with 57% of Republicans in support. “The message from this poll is clear: Mainers in every region of the state, young and old, of all income levels and political affiliations want Senator Snowe and Senator Collins to vote ‘yes’ on legislation to address climate change and promote clean energy, including wind power,” said Didisheim.
    0 0
  47. #101 Ned at 23:04 PM on 12 July, 2010 In any case, it is completely wrong to suggest either that the GHCN data are "tampered with" or that the difference in adjustments between USHCN and GHCN is "not documented" (his emphasis) Is it? Documentation: v2.temperature.readme The versions of these data sets that have data which we adjusted to account for various non-climatic inhomogeneities are: v2.mean.adj v2.max.adj v2.min.adj
    0 0
  48. Berényi Péter at 22:26 PM on 13 July, 2010 That's not terribly logical Peter (a bit like your "Homeopathy" journal example in a post above where you hunt out bad examples with which to attempt to flay entire fields). There's no question that energy production has unintended and sometimes highly damaging consequences. Your examples might be considered rather trivial in relation to the rather regular massive outpourings of crude oil from broken pipes and foundering tankers, the (thankfully rare) example of nuclear reactor failure and release of radioactive "clouds" and the 1000's of deaths from coal mining accidents worldwide each year. Most of the annoyances in your You-Tubish examples could be alleviated by a little more sympathetic consideration of wind turbine siting. Here in the UK we have abundant possibilites for very largescale siting of wind turbines in the shallow seas around the coasts. Otherwise the few wind turbines in my immediate locale are sited in an industrial complex by the sea where "shadow flicker" and noise are of little consequence. The worlds largest wind farm to have been located on the Isle of Lewis off the Scottish West Coast was welcomed by many that wished to see a surge economic regenration and opposed by many for environmental reasons. The latter won the day. There will always be these tensions between economic and personal/environmental sides, and these tensions (so long as they are fairly and honestly pursued) will tend to benefit everyone; i.e. they will tend to promote sympathetic siting of wind turbines. Berényi Péter at 22:59 PM on 13 July, 2010 your response to CBDunkerson is illogical too Peter. What some of the residents of Vinalhaven Maine think about their wind turbines doesn't negate CBDunkerson's point about your misuse of the numbers that he pointed out. And if the wind turbines of Vinalhaven Maine turn out to be unwelcome then that's surely another argument to make a more sympathetic assessment of turbine siting. On the other hand many of the Vinalhaven residents seem to be very happy with their turbines and apparently the local people played a strong part in getting the project moving forward.
    0 0
  49. Here's another reality check, Berényi. There haven't been complaints in my area regarding noise or ice shedding, but you may have a point there - the population density on those ridgelines is fairly low. However. The only other alternative in my region would be a coal fired power plant. Soot. Acid rain and the damage to the woods. More released radioactive materials than nuclear power (radon alone!). More soot. And the associated strip mining for fuel - I've seen the landscape around my hometown irrevocably change in my lifetime, with new hills of strip tailings appearing, other hills disappearing as the mountain-tops are shredded, and dumped into what were neighboring valleys. The runoff from the tailings, regardless of laws intended to repair the damage, will poison the watershed for thousands of years. It will be hundreds of years at least before there's enough soil on the new terrain to support anything but short weeds. I grew up with our water sometimes turning orange, stinking of rotten eggs, and repeated hikes in property taxes to pay for yet another water system cleaning or upgrade. Or just being told "Don't worry - it can't hurt you. Really..." You know what? I'll take the windmills.
    0 0
  50. BP #145, you do realize that you've basically just conceded my point, right? Rather than facing and responding to the inaccuracy of your statistic on the land area needed for wind power your 'rebuttal' was to introduce a completely unrelated issue on complaints about noise from wind power. In short, you are maintaining a belief in the inadequacy of wind power by closing your eyes to information to the contrary.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us