When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Void · 2022-11-21 11:35:45

Actually, there is evidence that microbes are evolving to digest plastics, which should be expected: https://www.nationofchange.org/2021/12/ … udy-finds/
Quote:

Microbes are evolving to digest plastic, study finds
The study notes that the type and amount of enzymes correlates with location-specific pollution trends, showing just how ever-growing plastic pollution is causing these organisms to evolve.
By Paige Bennett -December 15, 2021370
SOURCEEcoWatch

Quote:

By 2020, scientists were able to engineer a mutant enzyme that can degrade plastic bottles in just a few hours, a major improvement compared to the 450 or so years it takes for plastic bottles to degrade on their own.
“Although there is still unexplored diversity in microbial communities, synergistic degradation of plastics by microorganisms holds great potential to revolutionize the management of global plastic waste,” the study concludes.

So, good, and I am also happy that the floating garbage patches are being addressed.

Society in general seems to have addressed the Ozone depletion problem to some degree, so social activity can be a good thing.

However, politics and pseudo religious activities that simulate cortisol, could acutely be counterproductive. This may be the case for CO2 and Methane issues. Turning this into a stage for "Joan of Arc" types, maybe we should avoid that.

Done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

Make me one with the whorled peas!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27210466/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … unctioning
Quote:

Children who grow up in stressful environments often have elevated levels of "the stress hormone” cortisol, which can impair cognitive development. New research shows that some children growing up with adversity actually have low levels of cortisol, which is also linked to compromised cognitive functioning.

So, always trying to solve problems while stirring too much stress might be an impediment to progress. Politics and some religious behaviors might be a source of the problem.

A little kindness might not hurt so much. Not talking about you S.N.

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-11-21 11:49:07)

Void · 2022-11-21 11:53:01

This excites me a great deal: https://phys.org/news/2022-11-ice-age-t … ucted.html
Quote:

NOVEMBER 21, 2022
Ice Age temperatures and precipitation reconstructed from earthworm granules
by Universitaet Mainz

Quote:

Summer temperatures were higher than previously thought and humidity was significantly reduced

We now know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. So, that makes sense for a climate where there is less warm water for it to evaporate from. I might speculate that the moisture deficit may have also contributed to the warmer summers.

While the extended ice over land and sea would have cooled things by albedo, also ice and snow do not send as much moisture into the air as water, and especially warm water.

Here is an example: https://www.lakesuperior.com/the-lake/l … ys%20River.
Quote:

When the lake remains ice-free most of the winter - as Lake Superior did this winter - nothing blocks the warmer water from the colder air and evaporation sucks water away. Not quite half of the water lost from Lake Superior each year leaves via evaporation. The remainder flows out through the St. Marys River.

So, we understand that ice and snow strongly inhibit the hydration of the atmosphere. And so, the reduction in that greenhouse gas would serve to perpetuate colder conditions.

The other two greenhouse gasses that at this time I am aware of are CO2 and CH4. I think that a lot has been done about understanding CO2.

Methane Hysteria has emerged as well, relatively lately.

Curiously, the march of evergreen forests northward should affect albedo and the greenhouse gasses CH4 and CO2 and H20.

Prior to the evergreen forests, the Mammoth Steppe was dominant in Eurasia and North America.

Some parts of it had permafrost under it, of course somewhat owing to the ice age itself.

I might make the claim that evergreen trees are solar collectors that also work in the winter. Grasslands not so much. So evergreen trees if they can warm a location reduce the permafrost, and so that allows their roots to go into the thawed soils.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi … 0policy%20 Quote:

In 1907, Francis W. Bushong, a chemistry professor at the University of Kansas, reported a novel finding in the journal Chemical and Physical Papers. He’d found methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, in a tree.
Years earlier, he wrote, he’d cut down some cottonwood trees and “observed the formation of bubbles in the sap upon the freshly cut trunk, stump and chips.” When he struck a match, the gas ignited in a blue flame. At the university, he replicated the flame test on a campus cottonwood and this time captured gas samples. The concentration of methane was not much below the level measured in samples from Kansas’s natural gas fields.
The finding was reported mainly as a novelty and faded into obscurity.
Tree methane is back, in a big way.

https://www.udel.edu/udaily/2017/march/ … rom-trees/
Quote:

UD researchers discover tree trunks act as methane source in upland forests
A new study from the University of Delaware is one of the first in the world to show that tree trunks in upland forests actually emit methane rather than store it, representing a new, previously unaccounted source of this powerful greenhouse gas.
Methane is about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide, with some estimates as high as 33 times stronger due to its effects when it is in the atmosphere.
Because of methane’s global warming potential, identifying the sources and “sinks” or storehouses of this greenhouse gas is critical for measuring and understanding its implications across ecosystems.
Upland forest soils usually take up and store methane, but this effect can be counteracted by methane emissions from tree trunks, the research team from UD’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources found. Their work is published in the scientific journal Ecosystems.
“We believe our work can help fill in some gaps in methane budgets and environmental processes in global ecosystem models,” said the study’s leader, Rodrigo Vargas, assistant professor in the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences in UD’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Shreeram Inamdar, professor of watershed hydrology and biogeochemistry, is co-investigator on the project with Vargas, and doctoral student Daniel Warner is the lead author of the paper. The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with additional support from Delaware’s Federal Research and Development Matching Grant Program.
Maryland study site
In a 30-acre area of upland forest at Fair Hill Natural Resources Management Area in nearby Cecil County, Maryland, the researchers tested a cluster of trees, soil and coarse woody debris (CWD)—dead wood lying on the forest floor in various stages of decomposition—to measure fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide.
The researchers used a state-of-the-art greenhouse gas analyzer based on laser absorption technology, called Off-Axis Integrated Cavity Output Spectroscopy (OA-ICOS), which looks similar to a proton pack from the movie “Ghostbusters.”
Warner visited the site over the course of one growing season, April to December, and measured the carbon dioxide and methane fluxes of the soil, tree trunks and CWD to determine whether those three components were sources or sinks of these greenhouse gases.
Soils and CWD fluxes
In terms of carbon dioxide, research on the fluxes of tree trunks, known as stem respiration, and soil, known as soil respiration, has been done for decades, but research to determine the importance of carbon fluxes with regard to CWD still lags behind.
For methane, however, it’s a different story. While studies have been done on methane fluxes in connection to soils, which usually consume the methane and are considered methane sinks, there are very few that deal with CWD and tree trunks in upland soils.
“What research has been done is generally lab incubations of wood where they measure how much methane is released over time. What we’ve found in this study is that some coarse woody debris acts kind of like the soil and consumes methane while other pieces of coarse woody debris emit small amounts of methane, which is also what we saw with living tree trunks,” said Warner.
To understand the differences between the actions of the CWD, Warner and colleagues found that fresher CWD has a positive methane flux, which is similar to how a living tree behaves.
“When a tree falls over, it’s still functionally the same in terms of methane emissions. Over time, as it decays, my theory is that it gets colonized by soil bacteria that consume methane and it shifts to behave more like the soil, resulting in a methane sink,” said Warner.
The researchers also found that CWD had a high rate of variability when it came to methane emissions.
“As it decays it becomes a lot more variable. Some of the super-decayed wood was still releasing methane but a lot of it was consuming methane,” said Warner. “If you have a CWD pool with less diversity regarding the degree of decomposition, you can expect it to play a more uniform role in terms of methane emissions or sinks.”
Tree trunks and methane fluxes
While tree trunks have been known to release carbon dioxide, this research showed that they were also releasing methane.
“The tree trunks constantly have low but detectable emissions of methane. Soils are providing an environmental service of sequestering this potent greenhouse gas, but the trunks are releasing methane equivalent to 4 percent of what could be captured by CWD and soils at the ecosystem scale,” said Vargas.
Overall, the tree trunks acted as a source of carbon dioxide and as a small source of methane, but the magnitude of gases emitted varied with the species.
Tulip poplar was one species that released a lot of methane and carbon dioxide, whereas beech trees released the most methane within the forest but emitted very little carbon dioxide.
“It might be some species-specific trait that’s controlling the flux,” said Warner.
Temperature threshold
Temperature also played a key role in regulating the magnitude of the fluxes.
“Methane in soils seem to follow a temperature gradient where higher temperatures are related to higher uptake of methane but that’s not necessarily the case for CWD or for tree trunks,” said Vargas.
Warner said it’s hard to develop a temperature relationship with methane because there are two processes that oppose each other.
“You have things in the soil producing methane—known as methanogenesis—things consuming it—known as methanotrophy—and so as you warm up, it’s more kind of like a shot gun where the magnitudes of methane scatter out more as it gets warmer; suggesting that other factors beyond temperature regulate methane emissions,” said Warner.
They found that beyond a threshold of 17 degrees Celsius for soil temperature, the variability of methane consumption expands dramatically.
“Under 17 degrees, temperature is a key driver of methane flux but above 17 degrees, there are other drivers that will influence methane production,” said Vargas.
Soil hot spots
As for where the methane originated, Warner said it’s still a science frontier, but this study provides enough clues to give the researchers some theories.
The first one is that methane is produced in hot spots in the soil.
“By hot spot, we mean a place where conditions are conducive to methane production and then that methane is sucked up by the tree roots, transported through its vascular system and released out of its trunk,” said Warner. “We know that happens in wetlands but in uplands, maybe it happens in one specific spot and nowhere else.”
The other mechanism that could be causing methane fluxes from trunks is internal rotting or infection inside the tree, which produces an environment where methanogenic bacteria can survive and then methane diffuses out of the tree.
“At this moment, the mechanisms of methane production in upland forests are not clear. Methane can be either transported from the soils upward inside the stem and diffused to the atmosphere or produced inside the stem by fungi or archaea—single-celled microorganisms,” said Vargas.
Next steps
Both Warner and Vargas agreed that the next steps should be to test the generality of these observations across different forests, and identify the mechanisms of methane production and transport in tree trunks. Finally, they suggest that global and ecosystem models should take into account methane produced from tree trunks as a new source of methane to the atmosphere.
“When people develop ecosystem to global scale methane budgets, there’s always a chunk in which it is uncertain from where that methane is coming. Methane emissions by vegetation and tree trunks are seen as a newly-considered source that might bring that budget closer in to our estimates. It’s good to keep chipping away at that,” said Warner.
White Clay Creek
Legacy sediments
UD’s Inamdar receives funding to investigate water quality impacts of legacy sediments Read More
MORE RESEARCH STORIES
Urban Air Mobility
November 21, 2022
Article by Erica K. Brockmeier
Prof. Don Sparks Named Hagler Fellow
November 18, 2022
Article by Lauren Bradford
Computational Foundations
November 17, 2022
Article by Erica K. Brockmeier
SEE MORE STORIES
SUBSCRIBE TO UDAILY >
CONTACT US
Have a UDaily story idea?
Contact us at ocm@udel.edu
Members of the press
Contact us at 302-831-NEWS or visit the Media Relations website

So, now we can see that it is possible that trees can and have been terraforming the planet with both Albedo, and Methane, and CO2, as if the Methane is digested in the bark of the trees by microbes, then CO2 is produced.

And it may be that trees are major emitters of the greenhouse gas water vapor.

I am surprised that the trees don't just digest it themselves as it should be an energy and water source. Perhaps evolution discouraged that, as it was more important to keep the temperatures and humidity up in order for the trees to induce a greenhouse effect that would allow them to spread.

It may be true that some of the current warming is due to trees still advancing north in their terraforming project.

---------

Now, let's look once more at the Mammoth Steppe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe
Quote:

Mammoth steppe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Not to be confused with Steppe mammoth.
Ukok Plateau, one of the last remnants of the mammoth steppe[1]
During the Last Glacial Maximum, the mammoth steppe was the Earth's most extensive biome. It spanned from Spain eastward across Eurasia to Canada and from the arctic islands southward to China.[2][3][4][5][6] The mammoth steppe was cold and dry.[7][6] The vegetation was dominated by palatable high-productivity grasses, herbs and willow shrubs.[3][6][8] The animal biomass was dominated by reindeer, bison, horses, and woolly mammoth.[7] This ecosystem covered wide areas of the northern part of the globe, thrived for approximately 100,000 years without major changes, but then diminished to small regions around 12,000 years ago.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park
Quote:

Pleistocene Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
This article is about the existing Pleistocene Park in Siberia. For information on proposed Pleistocene parks elsewhere, see Pleistocene rewilding

I recommend the strong study of the above article.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-21 12:32:32)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-21 12:31:34

Wood gasifiers use that methane to run engines and has been known since then plus it is still in use where wood is plentiful for the user when no other fuel is cheaply available.
I would also think that the tree roots would also have methane with in them so it being released from the ground thaw, makes sense to occur.

Void · 2022-11-21 12:36:43

That seems right to me.

Now, I recall a scientist stating, "We do not live in a natural world". I will not name him, but I agree. It may even be true that humans hunting megafauna contributed to the displacement of the grasslands by forests. As for moss, of the tundra, I don't think it would do well with big animals trampling it. That also might have promoted grass in those locations.

My idea, at least for North America is to greatly reduce evergreen trees, and to promote aspens, and grasslands. Manage the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus_tremuloides
Image Quote: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … _map_2.png

But white-tailed deer are not compatible with Moose, as per parasites the deer carry, so that has to be considered.

And it might make sense to encourage things like wood bison and others where it is compatible with other needs.

Something to ponder, not a mandate.

Aspen Parkland might be established where possible to some extent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_parkland
Image Quote: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … Island.jpg Of course you would not like angry bison on the freeways, so you have to think that part over.

I have also seen the "Parklands" described as "Temperate Savanah": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate … shrublands

I advocate the replacement of some evergreen forest with Parkland or Savanah, if possible, but not all evergreen forests.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-21 12:45:06)

Void · 2022-11-25 12:22:45

This seems like a rational opinion. Some here will like it, perhaps some others will not like it as much.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%2 … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

“There’s no emergency” – dissident climatologist Dr Judith Curry on climate change
YouTube · 7,000+ views · 11/22/2022 · by BizNewsTv

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-26 12:08:35)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-25 12:37:29

The emergency only is along the coastlines where your property is about to disappear or an island that is slowly submerging.
The real question is and are the effects of temperature rising rapidly is how quickly is this rising of temperature, and can it be slowed and by what?

Calliban · 2022-11-29 23:52:14

Negative efficacy shoukd have stopped COVID vaccine recommendations in their tracks.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/nega … eir-tracks

If something has negative efficacy, is it not a poison?

SpaceNut · 2022-11-30 19:59:56

First problem is that a vaccine at one-point meant cure but now that's not the case and that is part of the problem. Next getting the vaccines means to some that we can go back to normal of which that is silly when the virus has not gone away so using distance, masks, cleaning plus hand washing is about all that we have to help in re-establishing normalcy in the face of a continuing virus that is adapting and changing.
But our topic is about impacts of temperature change due to what is perceived as co2 caused plus others, but one can counter this with past if formation of similar levels, but these were of a different cause.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard works to become more resilient as climate changes

"We have a situation where our tides fluctuate significantly on a daily basis, twice a day, so that really only creates a scenario where our climate resiliency is at those peaking moments, twice a day during high tide," Gagner said.
A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists projects that sea levels at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will rise between 3.5 and 6 feet by the year 2100.

Void · 2022-11-30 20:20:54

Well then back to climate.

I just posted this on "Index» Terraformation» Venus"

Quote:

I guess I will put this here.

Quote:
Massive volcanism may have altered ancient Venus' climate, NASA study finds
by Nick Oakes, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-massive-v … 20suggests.
So, yet another possible way that Venus became what it is today.
There are other notions as well.
-The impactors hit with more energy, and so Venus maintained a magma ocean much longer than Earth.
-One theory has it that atmospheres at least partly depend on impactors. In that theory Mars had much of its atmosphere blasted away by an impact. Venus did not have much of its atmosphere blown away at all, and the Earth was just right. A proper sized glancing blow got rid of just enough of the original atmosphere.
So, you see the old theory of Venus being a jungle and sea world, and then greenhouse gasses building up so that the seas boiled, and the stratosphere got wet, is just that, one of the theories. And perhaps too much weight was given to it.
Done

I don't want to screw with you personally Spacenut, but here is my question therefor: "Where is our wet Stratosphere?"

I hear that China is in severe drought, and our Mississippi river is low as well, our southwest is dry. Where is all the water that the greenhouse effect is evaporating off of the oceans going? A cooling planet would be a dryer planet, not a warming planet.

And don't say the Pakistan Floods. The water evaporation from the Pacific and the Atlantic could not be likely to have caused that.

You are welcome to ignore my post or perhaps just fluff it away, as I know you cannot say what I am proposing that you might consider saying.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-30 20:26:15)

Void · 2022-12-01 11:23:26

That last post is not a denial of the greenhouse effect. I just am curious why elevated humidity does not appear to exist.

Done.

kbd512 · 2022-12-01 19:09:23

Void,

It's not there because none of these scientists actually understand what's happening. That much is obvious, because their predictions are not aligning with direct observation. I don't blame them for all of this, but some of it seems to deliberately ignore reality. They simply don't have enough direct observation data to work with, evaluating the quality of the data they do have is a science unto itself, the "signal-to-noise" ratio appears to be beyond the accuracy of completely unattended modern electronic thermometers which drift over time and have to be recalibrated, and the subject matter is horrendously complex- far too much for any single person to know in detail.

Meteorologists can't accurately predict the temperature and weather more than a few days out, and over that time scale they can still be and frequently are "off" by a meaningful value (far greater than an unmistakable "signal" of climate change). If you know basics about statistics, then you also know that even relatively minor errors are cumulative and thus become magnified over time when you attempt to project observations forward through time. If your daily temperature and weather predictions are 95% accurate, which is pretty spectacular accuracy, as you attempt to predict future temperature and weather over decades to centuries the error bar becomes so large as to make the prediction not very informative about what the future holds.

When Dr. Hansen asserted (in a recorded lecture to university students which was later posted on YouTube) that models are only skillful if they accurately predict future values, I would then assert that none of our models are skillful because none of them have accurately predicted temperature to within the 1/10th of a degree values, over a decade or more. That is the accuracy requirement for a model of the type required to follow temperature trends with fidelity. This is self-evident when they attempt to calibrate such models by reproducing a facsimile of the historical temperature records. According to their own users, none of our climate models can generate temperature values that agree with historical temperature observations, to within the 1/10th of a degree accuracy required (for me at least), to label a climate model as "skillful".

If such a model exists, then I would like to see it faithfully generate / reproduce the last 50 years of temperature observations. Thus far, our confidence interval (using existing models) is far wider than the temperature trend they're attempting to predict. Educated guesses tend to be better than non-educated ones, but in the end, it's still "just a guess". These days scientists have pretty sophisticated tools for identifying trends, but none of that nullifies the simple fact that all of these minor errors magnify over time. If you start with flawed assumptions about the nature of the system you're modeling, then that will also contribute to the total error.

It may be the case that some of these scientists are personally / emotionally invested in the outcome, but it's far more probable that there's not enough questioning of the assumptions made, a lot of the data fed into the model could be incomplete or inaccurate, especially since the data must be "homogenized" (a technical term for "we messed with the data"), a lot of rather complex interactions may have been oversimplified due to simple lack of computing power to accurately model them, and nobody is starting from the assumption that a skillful model must faithfully recreate temperatures that agree with observations over the past 50 years or so, to within 1/10th of a degree accuracy, and certainly since satellite records were available from the 1970s onwards. Unless and until that can be demonstrated, I take little stock in the predictions made by computer models.

In case the point isn't clear, this is coming from someone who has spent the past 15 years making a living off of computer models that predict future demand patterns for consumer products- foodstuffs / beverages / pharmaceuticals / consumer electronics / steel / oil and gas well material requirements / etc. I do not discount the value of models or attempting to predict the future, but at some point if the model is complex enough, then you're making a lot of assumptions and/or you require a very detailed model with a finely-tuned calibration routine to ensure that it's not simply spitting out garbage that agrees with your assumptions.

Here are some insights into what I'm talking about Evaluation of Climate Models:

To be able to forecast the weather a few days ahead, knowledge of the present state of the atmosphere is of primary importance. In contrast, climate predictions and projections simulate the statistics of weather seasons to centuries in advance. Despite their differences, both weather predictions and projections of future climate are performed with very similar atmospheric model components. The atmospheric component of climate models can be integrated as a weather prediction model if initialized appropriately (Phillips et al., 2004). This allows testing parameterized sub-grid scale processes without the complication of feedbacks substantially altering the underlying state of the atmosphere.
The application of these techniques since the AR4 has led to some new insights. For example, many of the systematic errors in the modelled climate develop within a few days of simulation, highlighting the important role of fast, parameterized processes (Klein et al., 2006; Boyle et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2012). Errors in cloud properties for example were shown to be present within a few days in a forecast in at least some models (Williams and Brooks, 2008), although this was not the case in another model (Boyle and Klein, 2010; Zhang et al., 2010b). Other studies have highlighted the advantage of such methodologies for the detailed evaluation of model processes using observations that are available only for limited locations and times (Williamson and Olson, 2007; Bodas-Salcedo et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2008; Hannay et al., 2009; Boyle and Klein, 2010), an approach that is difficult to apply to long-term climate simulations.
...
9.2.2.3 Statistical Methods Applied to Ensembles
The most common approach to characterize MME results is to calculate the arithmetic mean of the individual model results, referred to as an unweighted multi-model mean. This approach of ‘one vote per model’ gives equal weight to each climate model regardless of (1) how many simulations each model has contributed, (2) how interdependent the models are or (3) how well each model has fared in objective evaluation. The multi-model mean will be used often in this chapter. Some climate models share a common lineage and so share common biases (Frame et al., 2005; Tebaldi and Knutti, 2007; Jun et al., 2008; Knutti, 2010; Knutti et al., 2010a, 2013; Annan and Hargreaves, 2011; Pennell and Reichler, 2011; Knutti and Sedlácek, 2013). As a result, collections such as the CMIP5 MME cannot be considered a random sample of independent models. This complexity creates challenges for how best to make quantitative inferences of future climate as discussed further in Chapter 12 (Knutti et al., 2010a; Collins et al., 2012; Stephenson et al., 2012; Sansom et al., 2013).
9.2.3 The Model Evaluation Approach Used in this Chapter and Its Limitations
...
Although crucial, the evaluation of climate models based on past climate observations has some important limitations. By necessity, it is limited to those variables and phenomena for which observations exist. Table 9.3 provides an overview of the observations used in this chapter. In many cases, the lack or insufficient quality of long-term observations, be it a specific variable, an important processes, or a particular region (e.g., polar areas, the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), and the deep ocean), remains an impediment. In addition, owing to observational uncertainties and the presence of internal variability, the observational record against which models are assessed is ‘imperfect’. These limitations can be reduced, but not entirely eliminated, through the use of multiple independent observations of the same variable as well as the use of model ensembles.

Basically, what they're saying is we started with flawed data, we don't have a lot of the data needed for a proper analysis, and some of the data we need is simply not knowable. That's generally not a good starting point. I can understand why certain data are missing, but we would ideally like to know how many simulations each model has run, what the results were, was it able to reproduce values associated with the temperature record over a period of time for which observations exists, and so on.

Look at the graphs on Page 768. They're calling that a faithful recreation because the models follow the temperature record, except for the fact that some of the models are off by as much as 1C in both directions. I wouldn't accuse them of cherry picking from amongst their models if they had just 1 model, or composite, or even if they did "cherry pick" from amongst the models that actually recreated the temperature observations, but they don't even have that much, and weight each model equally, regardless of how far off it is. Granted, this was about 10 years ago, so I hope accuracy has improved since then, but if it hasn't, then we still l don't have a model that's actually skillful, merely a bunch of models that don't accurately recreate the temperature observations at various points, and sometimes by a lot. The standard should be no more than 1/10th a degree Celsius in either direction, across the entire temperature record. If you have to tweak the model or models to produce a faithful recreation, then do it.

If you have a dozen T&E rifles that all disperse shots within 2 MOA at 200 yards, then none of those rifles qualify as a "sniping rifle" by our standards and would never be accepted into service. The fact that they can all put Lead somewhere in the kill zone at 200 yards does little good when they'll frequently be called upon to deliver accurate shots between at 800 and 1,100 yards. 22 inches (2 MOA) at 1,100 yards can be entirely off-target, even if the shooter does his part and the wind cooperates. That's the entire reason that our standard is 1/2 MOA.

People will always complain about the money and time associated with "doing it right", but when lives are on the line you spend the money to do it right and whine about the cost afterwards. To that end, there should be no artificial deadlines. IPCC was formed in 1988. There's been plenty of time to determine what we're deficient in and to work on solutions to our accuracy issues.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-01 20:35:58

What does a rising temperature have to do with a drought? We know that that is a rise in energy input that will make a temperature rise.
Likewise, a lowering of energy input means less evaporation will occur. Of course, a cloud that has rain falling is a gas phase change has occurred via that cooling or loss of energy. The evaporation rate is also altered by the salt levels and other gasses that are absorbed by the oceans as well.

How Does Temperature Affect the Rate of Evaporation?

Also known is that a rising energy input for water evaporation means more is going to phase change to gas and rise faster than what would normally happen at a given rate of heat being introduced.

Evaporation is the process by which a liquid turns into a gas. It is also one of the three main steps in the global water cycle.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evap … d_690.html

The ocean influences weather and climate by storing solar radiation, distributing heat and moisture around the globe, and driving weather systems.

Natural cooling should be happening as the gas does rise into the atmosphere as the higher up you go the colder it is so unless the input energy is higher than we thought for evaporation, that cooling in the upper atmosphere is lower or there also could be something else adding in more heat to cause it to rise even higher than normal. That additional heat could be in our case coming from Yellowstone as a possibility.

New Estimate Finds More Magma Under Yellowstone Supervolcano

AA14NmX1.img?w=534&h=300&m=6&x=867&y=477&s=0&d=0

Void · 2022-12-01 21:22:08

I may not understand what you are communicating. If so, then let's see if we can get on the same page.

I will go with this number as the average height of land above sea level. 840 m I am weird and will be more comfortable with feet, as I have an approximate map of altitude in feet in my mind. So, 2755.90551 feet above sea level. (Don't bother with precision, if you like we can use 2000 feet or 3000 feet, it will support the same argument.

So, suppose it is said that the temperatures on the Earth rose 1 degree C. Would that mean the average temperature over all land and see, or the sea level atmospheric temperature? I will go with Sea Leval as 1 degree C. That would be an average taken over time.

Sea level would have the maximum greenhouse effect, except for land that is below sea level.

But the average land being 2755 feet higher, then the average land is missing 2755 feet of the troposphere, and the densest 2755-foot division of the atmosphere, ignoring below sea level areas. So, if the reason the sea level temperature rose 1 degree C is CO2 and CH4 greenhouse gasses the average temperature of the average elevation of land will have risen in temperature less than 1 degree C. (You have to ignore albedo for now. Sea water will perhaps absorb more or less sunlight than various parts of land such as desert and snowpack.

So, for every degree that sea level temperature rises, land temperatures will rise less as they have less atmosphere over them to function as a greenhouse.

So, the more greenhouse effects the greater the temperature differential, and the more vapor pressure to move warmed water vapor into the atmosphere, and so then over land where less infrared may shine up from the land than from the sea, at least at night.

And a warming planet should have an expanding troposphere, allowing vapor laden air to pass better over high mountains.

Evaporation: The land being higher up, then I suppose the boiling point will be lower than 100 C, so evaporation from the land will be somewhat facilitated. But if the Troposphere rises due to expansion of the atmospheres from elevating temperatures, then the boiling point on land should also go up just a bit, and so reduce evaporation. Greater molecular activity in sea level air will displace more air over land. Probably a rather small effect but it should exist.

Condensation: It does not matter how hot the surface of the Earth gets it will still be possible for water vapor to rise high enough to condense. Now, I have thought of a factor, nucleation points. So, possibly if that is not similar to what it was at the elevation where water vapor used to condense into precipitation, then that might skew the results. But it might go either way really.

------

To shorten it, if greenhouse gasses do warm the Earth, they will warm the sea level more than the land levels. Water Vapor tends to travel from warm places to cold places. That is why we put vapor barriers in our walls for winter temperatures, to keep the insulation from getting wet.

But I understand that weather patterns can have hidden factors that we might not see. I am presenting a simplified notion of what should happen. Even so, the concept of a runaway greenhouse for Venus is that the seas got hotter and hotter, and so water vapor rose so high that UV light could split the water and it floated off into space. That theory for Venus, I believe appeared in the 60' to 70's perhaps.

And our notion that the Earth could go into a greenhouse effect in part came from that notion.

So, is our atmosphere getting wetter? Warmer air can hold more moisture. Are there more molecules of water vapor in the atmosphere now than before. There should be, if the atmosphere is warming up. If there is more than more should rise into the sky and fall as rain, hail, and snow, and an increase in precipitation over land, on the average. Even if mountain glaciers are melting then there should be more snow or rain in the mountains, if it is warming air that is drying up the glaciers. Or is it possible that less precipitation is being delivered to the glaciers, and so that is how they are receding?

I do not deny the principal of the greenhouse effect, so if there is more CO2 in the air (About 33% more), then the atmosphere should be warmer, and the glaciers should get more snow, or at least more rain.

I just watched a video where a person identifying as a scientist, indicated that if you doubled the CO2 amount in the atmosphere from pre-industrial, it would warm the planet 3/4 of a degree, I presume C. We only have gone from 1 to 1.33 in proportions.

I believe that the reason is that if the preindustrial value blocked infrared from going out into space, an increase would not proportionally block more infrared. Maybe you can prove me wrong. That would be fine if you could explain it.

I will leave it at that and search for that video I got that from.

Done.

I will seek the video that I spoke of but for now there is this opinion, which you might view, or not. I don't know do I. But as I recall she says at one point that global warming will produce more water. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%2 … &FORM=VIRE

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-12-01 22:08:10)

Void · 2022-12-02 06:48:10

You can fish up some articles you won't like with this phrase:

Query:

Taking a closer look at climate change. And Co2 Emissions with Professor William Happer, utube

General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Taking+a+ … 9769a13127

Here is a specific video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fByLTBpWNQU

--------

You may have noticed that I actually favor alternative energy, and do think that greenhouse gasses could cause some warming.

When I say why are things dry, it is because I expect global warming to produce more precipitation, and I don't see that except in Antarctica.

Articles:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2836/anta … -snowfall/

https://indianexpress.com/article/techn … ge2995863/

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-snowfall- … c-ice.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science … -rcna21120

So, Antarctica is behaving as I would expect if the planet warmed. But why not China and North America? Well, there may be a good answer, but I don't know what it is.

So, when it is said that glaciers are running dry due to climate change, I suppose that is true, because obviously the climate is changing at those glaciers, if they are shrinking. But if they are melting faster than water is being delivered to them, it suggests less evaporation from the Oceans, and humid land areas. And that does not fit with a warming planet. And so, I am wanting a reason that it does not fit with expectations.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-02 07:04:17)

Void · 2022-12-02 10:55:43

Since I am being trouble, I might as well double down.

This one is 7 years old, and the guy had been saying very similar things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
Quote:

World In Midst of Carbon Drought (w/ Prof. William Happer, Princeton University)

So, he says you have to double the CO2 to raise the temperatures of the Earth 1 degree, (I presume C).

Water Vapor is 70% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 perhaps 30%. Of course, clouds can either hold heat or block sunlight.

Antarctica ice is "Probably growing", even if it may be diminishing in west Antarctica.

------

After all of that, I still would like to see new energy supplies developed, and those might be producing less CO2. And if making the devices creates CO2, well, maybe in time we will figure out how to convert that into Hydrocarbons.

But it does not look like panic is of much value.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-02 11:21:35)

Void · 2022-12-02 19:48:22

To make up for my recent hard commenting, I will allow that there indeed could be a shift in weather patterns. That is not proven and may not be provable.

But if we were promoted to develop alternative energy methods, I really think that will have proved to be a good thing for the human race.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-02 20:34:14

No problem as you pointed out if as indicate moisture is climbing in amount, then satellite images would possibly show this if someone had a stable starting point to compare what is happening today against, but I do not thing there is one.
We see weather patterns in the wind cloud directions but again where is that starting point to show that we have seen it change in direction, or velocity?
Seeing evaporation from ground probably is something that we might see from a shard water detection like used on mars but we most likely are not looking at earth that way.

Void · 2022-12-02 23:18:32

Thats a good thing.

Done.

kbd512 · 2022-12-03 01:27:19

Void,

NOAA - A Warming Earth is Also a Wetter Earth

According to NOAA, this now warmer / wetter Earth is seeing more big precipitation events, which also cools the land and ocean surface during / immediately after the rain falls. So, global warming heats up the Earth, the water vapor generated comes back down within a week or so, and then we have a brief cool period. Beyond that, more and more clouds would change the Earth's albedo over time, reflecting more of those pesky photons back into space before they can enter the densest part of the atmosphere for CO2 to produce its strongest insulation effect.

That's probably some new kind of emergency for these people, assuming that the net effect is that the temperature is neither up nor down. If the temperature becomes more uniform / stable, then the climate is once again changing, hence the reason that the jargon was changed from global warming to climate change. It's becoming more of the same old / boring stuff that we used to call "weather", and if the goal is to terrorize people to get them to spend money or work endlessly without an achievable end goal in sight, then status quo doesn't accomplish that.

Before the average person in Western society became disabled to the point that both their brain and legs no longer worked, if they observed that the water started rising where they lived, then they would do this crazy thing called "evacuating". Normally, that entailed moving away from the danger zone at best possible speed. They'd also work with others to facilitate the evacuation, and this was known as "cooperating". We still do this aboard ships today and it still works, believe it or not, as antiquated as evacuating may seem to an outside observer with a teleporter. If the people in question knew a century ahead of time that they'd need to evacuate to higher ground in the future, then we would call the activities / prep work to facilitate that, "planning for the future", rather than a catastrophe or emergency. It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher in my home. I don't plan on a fire starting, but I also don't pretend that it can't happen to me or that it's entirely avoidable, or if I had "only" made my house out of something unattainable like granite and marble (same concept as electronic everything with current tech), then fire was no longer a problem.

Void · 2022-12-03 10:05:01

Very good kdb512

I have seen too many articles indicating that global warming is melting the glaciers. I saw one that indicated that is happening in China. It said that the temperatures have risen 2 to 3 degrees. But that may not cause the droughts, as if 80% of the ice is still there, there should be more water being released to the rivers, not less, until the glaciers dry up.

It is possible that weather patterns have shifted, but what to blame that on, I do not know.

Now I am very willing to suppose that some sea level rise can be suspected to be from human activity, but the chart in this article suggests that some is just a continuation of emergence from the ice age: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/brie … ornitz_09/
Image quote: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/brie … /slr_s.jpg

In the last 5000 years although slowed a lot, the trend before industrialization was still up, for sea level and so presumably the trend was for ice to be melting its reserves from the ice age.

I am very happy, as it seems likely that we can say that for the globe in general "Global Warming" most likely has not created planet wide drought. The term "Climate Change" might suggest that weather patterns may have shifted, but that overall humidity did not decline, and probably increased.

Even in the case where temperatures might be higher at melting glaciers, the sky is still "Sky High", so moisture rising likely finds a condensation temperature before passing over high mountains. If the moisture should pass over the mountains, then we should see more precipitation elsewhere.

It has been indicated that the Russians among others were funneling money to activist groups trying to oppose Shale Oil. And I would not be surprised if other money from other competitors might have also showed up. And it is very likely that some parts of the oil industry may have acted against Shale, in order to protect markets that they make money from. Some companies and entities that might make money on the import of oil or take money under the table to alter business practices are suspected of being a possibility as well.

What is not quite as obvious is that those who might want to compete against us in the international markets and our own markets, might like to raise the price of our energy, so as to raise the price of our products, and make us less competitive.

There are many organizations in our society that could likely be used against our interests in such a way.

So, then when they start blaming us for drought, and try to raise our energy prices, and yet they are given an exception to be allowed to burn coal basically unopposed, then it can be understood what part of the game Climate Claims can be.

I think that there has already been talk of "Reparations". No big surprise there. Perhaps we should charge them a fee for using technology invented in places like the "West and Japan/Korea".

The slavers always wish to extract wealth without giving a value-added activity. Their big hope is always to weaken us so that they can inflict more domination on us. So, we need to be vigilant against the Word Prisons that they try to capture us into. As a phrase from Alice Cooper, I believe Halo of Lies.

OK, I misremembered that. It is "Halo of Flies". About the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_of_F … m%E2%80%9D.

But for my purposes, a Halo of Lies works as well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-03 10:28:27)

Void · 2022-12-03 17:21:10

Well, I am being obsessive, I admit.

Query: "What ended the ice age"
General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=What+ende … dbf23aa3b5

https://www.livescience.com/19481-ice-a … orbit.html
Quote:

The circumstances that ended the last ice age, somewhere between 19,000 and 10,000 years ago, have been unclear. In particular, scientists aren't sure how carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, played into the giant melt. New research indicates it did in fact help drive this prehistoric episode of global warming, even though it did not kick it off.

But this article claims that CO2 followed the rise in sea temperatures, not the other way around: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … hot-water/
Quote:

THE SCIENCES
In Hot Water: Ice Age Defrosted by Warming Ocean, Not Rise in CO2
Warmer waters in the deep Pacific triggered the end of the last ice age, preceding the rise in greenhouse gas levels
By David Biello on September 27, 2007

But that is somewhat an old article.............

But it kind of makes me think of a modification of an idea I did start thinking about today. I was wondering if water vapor in the atmosphere could in itself trigger the melting of ice on top of water, and so then expose more water and promote more water into the atmosphere in what I believe would be a positive feedback loop.

But they have provided that as the waters warmed, they would release more CO2 to the atmosphere as well. So, that is interesting.

They attribute it to:

Now, new evidence from a marine sediment core from the deep Pacific points to warmer ocean waters around Antarctica (in sync with the Milankovitch cycle)—not greenhouse gases—as the culprit behind the thawing of the last ice age.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education … eyor2.html

Quote:

The conveyor belt is also a vital component of the global ocean nutrient and carbon dioxide cycles. Warm surface waters are depleted of nutrients and carbon dioxide, but they are enriched again as they travel through the conveyor belt as deep or bottom layers. The base of the world’s food chain depends on the cool, nutrient-rich waters that support the growth of algae and seaweed.

So, in a humid atmosphere lots of rain, snow and runoff, may fertilize the oceans. If lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, then lots of photo life in the oceans, then lots of marine snow. Then a loss of CO2 from the atmosphere to the marine snow.

This article shows that they are already on to this: https://eos.org/features/dissolved-orga … rbon-cycle

(I think my head might explode!)
Quote:

Lessons Learned
Scientists now view marine DOC as one of Earth’s greatest reservoirs of bioactive and exchangeable carbon, comparable in size to the atmospheric CO2 reservoir. We now know that biological and biogeochemical processes can alter the production, removal, and storage of ocean DOC, with important implications for oceanic and atmospheric carbon exchange.
In addition, the pool is highly dynamic in the carbon cycle, cycling through the system on time scales ranging from seconds to millennia. Finally, we have learned that DOC feeds vast deep-ocean microbial populations, playing a role in controlling microbial diversity.

So, it seems as though an oscillation might be triggered in a system poised for change, by orbital patterns. Just a guess from a dummy.

Even though just now we have lots of drought on the planet, if the greenhouse effect does increase moisture in the atmosphere, and more runoff erosion occurs, then the results might be more nutrients into the oceans, and more surface photo life activity, and more marine snow, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. And more Carbon into the deep oceans.

So, a greenhouse effect on Earth that is caused by increased CO2 from humans should evaporate more surface ocean water, cause more precipitation, which should fertilize the oceans, and so promote organic residue in the oceans.

However, if the deserts are greened then less iron into the oceans and a reduced ability for the oceans to soak up Carbon.

But it really looks to me like the climate itself of the atmosphere "AND" the oceans will likely provide feedback to bring the system back into balance, on its own.

If we were to burn all available Carbon, we might heat up the Earth for a time, but most of the Carbon would end up in the bottom of the oceans.

Done.

So, would a planet without land be able to host such a process, or a similar one? Nutrient levels in the oceans might not pulse up as rain and snow increased.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-03 17:57:24)

Void · 2022-12-03 18:17:40

Well continuing with the last post, time scales really change perceptions:

Query: "Graph of CO2 levels since the ice age"

Long Scale: https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-b … 3169a68046 Image Quote: https://miro.medium.com/max/720/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif

So, we are not likely to kill the planet.

This shows sea level again: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/brie … ornitz_09/
Image quote: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/brie … /slr_s.jpg

This recent one is scarry of course: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

So, I am guessing that not all of the rising CO2 is coming from our factories. Some fear the thawing tundra but warming oceans might add CO2 and Water Vapor. But the Pacific is locked into a fossil cold from the little ice age. I guess that is good luck, but it puts a damper on water for California.

I guess that is now what I think. We need to secure alternate energy supplies, both to reserve the Carbon sources in case we want to use them later to avoid an ice age or little ice age, and I suppose we don't want to make the sea levels rise excessively. And we want lots of energy anyway.

But we might just be destined for rising oceans anyway. If we had not had the little ice age, it might be more apparent than it has been.

I think the only way to interrupt both the movement of CO2 out of the oceans and into the atmosphere would be to fertilize the oceans to promote photosynthesis. That might produce food, but it would cost a lot and the environmentalists would squeal about it.

Better to figure out how to adapt to what comes, but non-Carbon energy sources? That's OK, as long is the Luddites and Proto-Pagans are not allowed to wreck the economy.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-03 18:31:53)

Void · 2022-12-03 20:17:26

So, in continuation of the previous posts, it should have been obvious. You have the temperature of the open water as a regulator of evaporation, and also the surface of the ice bodies as a much less vigorous evaporator,

But when the water levels in the ocean rise, then you have an expanded area of evaporation. So, if that can oscillate and be triggered by something small, then as the greater water vapor to atmosphere warms up the surface of the oceans, then CO2 is released.

I wonder about the nutrients in the water that runs under Antarctica. Don't know how that behaves in an ice age. Perhaps if there is grounded ice as dams, then it is harder for nutrients to be pushed out from under the ice cap into the ocean? So then nutrient starved ocean? Unblock the ice dams and nutrients go out, and it is fresh water, so it might float with the nutrients and fertilize the ocean as the ice age wanes.

Just a guess.

Done.

So wet based glaciation might let nutrients out from under Antarctica more than would "Dry" based glaciers. But as oceans might rise, then ice dams might float up and break off in the ocean, and then as glaciers might then flow downhill, friction of the ice on rock might warm the base to melting?

Maybe.

Done.

I am sure it is much harder to understand the glaciation of Antarctica during the Ice Age. I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glac … spread.%20
Image Quote: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … hg.svg.png

So, OK, there might have been a lot of grounded glaciers even in the sea, which might have blocked the flow of fresh water from under the ice cap, and restricted nutrients to the sea water. Maybe....

-----

So, then things like this "River" may be fertilizing the Antarctic Sea at this time.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne … 180981119/
Quote:

A Massive Freshwater River Is Flowing Under Antarctica’s Ice
The 285-mile-long stretch of meltwater is longer than the Thames and could speed ice loss
Sarah Kuta
Sarah Kuta
Daily Correspondent
November 15, 2022

So, the feedback from that would be to capture CO2 into organic matter. So, if you want a bright side, presuming you don't like global warming that might do.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-03 20:36:58)

SpaceNut · 2022-12-04 14:25:55

Climate tech is not doomed, despite climate doom

As we are looking at, we just do not have the correct or enough data to prove what is the total cause.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-04 20:17:31

I believe that this is what Void was looking for Small Lakes Keep Growing Across The Planet, And It's a Serious Problem

Anew study has revealed that small lakes on Earth have expanded considerably over the last four decades – a worrying development, considering the amount of greenhouse gases freshwater reservoirs emit. Between 1984 and 2019, global lake surfaces increased in size by more than 46,000 square kilometers (17,761 square miles), researchers say. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gasses are constantly produced from lakes, because of the bacteria and fungi feeding at the bottom of the water, snacking on dead plants and animals that have drifted down to the lake floor.
In total, this lake spread equates to an annual increase of carbon emissions in the region of 4.8 teragrams (or trillion grams) of CO2 – which to continue the country comparisons equals the increase in CO2 emitted by the whole of the UK in 2012.

AA14TK05.img?w=642&h=461&m=6

This shows the redistribution as we have seen from the ground.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#626 2022-11-21 11:35:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#627 2022-11-21 11:53:01

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#628 2022-11-21 12:31:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#629 2022-11-21 12:36:43

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#630 2022-11-25 12:22:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#631 2022-11-25 12:37:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#632 2022-11-29 23:52:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#633 2022-11-30 19:59:56

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#634 2022-11-30 20:20:54

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#635 2022-12-01 11:23:26

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#636 2022-12-01 19:09:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#637 2022-12-01 20:35:58

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#638 2022-12-01 21:22:08

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#639 2022-12-02 06:48:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#640 2022-12-02 10:55:43

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#641 2022-12-02 19:48:22

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#642 2022-12-02 20:34:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#643 2022-12-02 23:18:32

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#644 2022-12-03 01:27:19

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#645 2022-12-03 10:05:01

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#646 2022-12-03 17:21:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#647 2022-12-03 18:17:40

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#648 2022-12-03 20:17:26

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#649 2022-12-04 14:25:55

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#650 2022-12-04 20:17:31

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer