Skip to main content

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I can't take seriously such an article... there is no mention of clouds as a moderating factor.

That's one of the reasons that I thought you and muf would like to "get your 'teeth' into it"!

The "blog miester" at tamino is a statistical mathematician (to the best of my knowledge), and uses whatever material they find at hand. They also seem to support warmers (if this permits me to remain "PC"). However, the choice of material leaves the blog-spot in the category of "corrupted allegorical truth" by way of obfuscation!

The blog thread is about WV feedback, but the blogger introduced a graph that has little to do with any "feedback scenario" and is unconnected with the blog-thread subject (in fact the partner to the paper that the graph included advised of the graphs misuse). More to this, the legend that accompanies the graph describes an impossible observation (much to the regret of Isaac Held I would imagine [of Held & Soden]). My comment relating to this is at #14 in the "responses" que.

I'm glad that I'm an engineer and not a scientist! Wink

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

They've taken my comment out!!
Obviously 'wankery' is a word that they take exception to

There isn't much that they don't take exception to on that site muf.


Have you guys seen this on RC yet?
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...natural-variability/
I think the guest presentation is good, but what is the recent "variability"? All I can think of is a weaker solar cycle 23 that followed cycle 22, and our new solar cycle 24 that doesn't seem to "spark" much! I can't seriously believe that ice from the North Pole has kept Earth cool, so this must either be due to solar variability, or ocean to atmosphere temp hysteresis : insolation to ocean temp hysteresis (ocean insolation to atmosphere temp change lag : lead).

Surely, this must be either a forcing change, or a lead/lag variability?

What are your thoughts?

BTW, wasn't Skippy a kangaroo muf? Smiler

Best regards, suricat.
S
Suricat
quote:
I can't seriously believe that ice from the North Pole has kept Earth cool, so this must either be due to solar variability, or ocean to atmosphere temp hysteresis : insolation to ocean temp hysteresis (ocean insolation to atmosphere temp change lag : lead).


Try this.

I found the Realclimate article you quote a hoot. If you look at their 2nd chart that shows the record from continuously monitored sites from 1900 to 1998 where they have excised the 1998 "Super El Nino" (don't you love the evolving phraseology) the trend looks pretty flat from 1930 to 1997. When they show the first chart that has all the record (full hadcrut3 from 1950) it's pretty clear that the growth has been introduced by the non-continuously monitored sites. My scepticism just grows and grows.

They claim the continuous graph is not global but anthropic CO2 is meant to be a global signature so should be clear in the continuous non-global record.
SO
suricat (just noticed the SoM spells your name with a capital 'S')

quote:
Surely, this must be either a forcing change, or a lead/lag variability?
Coming from a school of thought where by liquid bodies of water are by far and away the biggest climate drivers, then I'd hazard a guess at both Wink(Though it depends on what your definition on 'forcing' is!) Big Grin
Ensign Muf
Son of Mulder.

quote:

I found the Realclimate article you quote a hoot.

I only quoted it "a hoot" (as you say) because the region that the "red spot" is expected in is open to TOA where IR energy is "expelled" into space. Thus, it won't get warm (or red)! That is, unless the troposphere expands by a hitherto unforeseen extent (and in that event I'd expect that region to have chaotic tendencies also, unlike the "no weather strat analogy" that the tropo extends into).
quote:

My scepticism just grows and grows.

Hardly surprising SoM, but remember that language (use of the "tongue") is always evolving. Don't know about you, but I have trouble keeping up with it. This must be either the onset of senility, or the realisation that there is a need for a basic standard. Don't worry, I'm sure you are only looking for a basic standard (there doesn't seem to be one with climate science)!
quote:

Try this.

And.
quote:

They claim the continuous graph is not global but anthropic CO2 is meant to be a global signature so should be clear in the continuous non-global record.

I've linked these two together because it leads back to many moons ago when we were discussing a "pump hunt" scenario.

Unless centrifugal effects are accepted (as well as the coriolis effect) it is impossible to rationalise PDO, or AMO with the attractors that generate their existence (or to differentiate PDO and AMO as attractors, or separate systems). Earth is still "over-spun". Thus, is not in an equilibrium of any description in the long term.

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

suricat (just noticed the SoM spells your name with a capital 'S')

Yes, but I don't make issue of this anymore muf. Many word processors replace a lower case letter with upper case automatically when the word is at the beginning of a sentence, or paragraph. For example, I need to make exceptions in my "word pro" word processor to be able to address you with a lower case first letter in my response. That's life! Some people need to keep a log of things and word processors tend to just get in the way sometimes. I'm OK with this (but it reflects on the other part's ability to properly communicate on the site and I know this from "Tamino").
quote:

(Though it depends on what your definition on 'forcing' is!)

Well, that has to be mostly solar. Though "other disciplines" would include attractors as "forcings" as well.

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat (notice the lower case, apols such sensitivity has never been my strong suit).

No problemo! There isn't much comms traffic here anyhow.
quote:

Anyway have you seen this interesting aerosol article . Makes one feel warmer and warmer as it cools.

High five SoM! This brings back memories of ocean liner "smokestack IR tracings".

I've read the article, and most of the comments, now. How come nobody even mentions "global dimming" in conjunction with black carbon?

The 'global dimming' (GD) effect of 'black carbon' (BC) is an important factor for insolation biasing. Not only does BC prevent the landfall of insolation that interacts with Earth's surface, BC also prevents the landfall of insolation that doesn't interact with Earth's surface and would normally just "bounce in and out" through the "atmospheric window".

What is more, BC gets two chances of absorbing this "bounced" energy with both "incoming" and "outgoing" (after "the bounce") radiation. This makes BC one heck of an attractor for adding energy to the atmosphere and surface, whilst at the same time reducing "cloud cover" by way of increased local temp (CC relationship for humidity) it also supplies a CCN that won't facilitate precipitation. Thus, I believe, could be an attractor that increases the altitude of the tropopause (this is speculation on my part).

The "chemist joke" caused a wry smile. "Because you're worth it", or "that'll be the bounce" (based on UK adds)? Smiler


"Makes one feel warmer and warmer as it cools"? I presume you refer to ocean heat content!

This would also be a factor of the shorter wavelengths of insolation that would make Earth-fall being attracted to the atmosphere by BC and not being permitted to penetrate to ocean depths.

Astute comment!

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

Cutting back to TSI variability, have you seen this?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-official/#more-5820
It's a pity there isn't a link to the paper yet. The nearest relevant paper I can find is this pdf (less than 300kB).
http://www.nasa-news.org/resou...Soden_manuscript.pdf
The graphs on page 10 & 12 are quite "illuminating". When read with TSI in mind, it does seem that the TSI level may well tip events in "NINO" terms (both for "pump hunt" [due to WV load] and cloud cover). What's your opinion?

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat, it doesn't get more empirical than this

Ha (lol)! I do believe you've now taken the place of M Batchelor (only your posts are more realistic).

Yes, I saw this on WUWT earlier. Read the post, but haven't read the paper yet.

Well frankly, it could get more empirical if the source of the main forcing could be identified beyond doubt. However, it's just as well that I got cancer, got remission and then mum got ill, because I'd otherwise have a lot of capital invested in my concept car engine which looks like it isn't going to be needed! Though a road vehicle that can run at 90 MPH for an hour, then 40 MPH on petrol/diesel/paraffin/gas/whatever (coke if you like) until the battery is recharged/replaced still looks good on paper when the fuel economy is virtually doubled against contemporary vehicles.

Back to reality. Nice curves on the graphs and I notice that SW is more positive, whereas LW is more negative in the "feedback" category for observations. Bearing in mind trends that cover roughly a decade (a popular current subject), this looks like a positive feedback from SW "insolation" and thus the (11 year) "solar cycle" could well be involved (who am I kidding, I think this is it)!
quote:

I don't see how the AGWers will answer this new Linzen paper unless the physical measured record is completely wrong.

We've seen arguments on the physical measured record before. Be prepared for argument.
quote:

It looks like it's through peer review and about to be published.

More power to Lindzen et al for credibility?

I'm not one that puts confidence in published papers, though I think that this paper deserves to be published.
quote:

It will be fascinating to follow.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how this paper is received by the science community!


As an aside, you realise how it's virtually impossible to find a source for a global UV trend? Just look at this:
http://www.meteoschweiz.admin....ojekte/cost_726.html
The longest UV record known. I know this isn't a "global" record, but it's a local record of UV insolation. Let's face it, any "local record" is a record of TSI at surface and can be corrected for any local perturbations (like ozone and particulates) when the perturbation is known.

This source is a plump source for global UV levels to my mind.


Why am I interested in the UV factor of insolation? Because it factors in the deep ice and deep ocean part of insolation per se. This relates to the paper that you just posted for my awareness.

Can you see the relationship?

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

Global Temperature Increase Linked to 1976 Climate Shift in Pacific Ocean


Yes muf, this has diverted my attention from the paper by Lindzen et al.
Here's a copy of the paper:
http://nzclimatescience.net/im..._carter_jgr_2009.pdf
Kindly supplied by a poster at Tamino's site, which seems wholly dedicated to destroying the paper (Tamino's site that is). It seems they don't like Bob Carter there. If the download stops, just push your browser's refresh button (it happened to me).

Although the paper is quite short I haven't had time to digest it yet, but you can read my site comment @ 1:29 am. How do you feel about manipulating data to better present an effect?

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:
More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El NiÃąos"?

I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.

Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).

Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES: Shake Head

http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017

Best regards, suricat.
S
From the first paragraph
"Global surface temperature has increased 0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El NiÃąos , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."

I've bolded the relevant sentence.

Is this more Butterfly effect?
Ensign Muf
mufcdiver.

quote:

Is this more Butterfly effect?

Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!

The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").

As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.

Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).

WRT "strong El NiÃąo". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La NiÃąa because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!

Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again. Smiler

Best regards, suricat.
S
quote:
Originally posted by mufcdiver:
More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El NiÃąos"?
Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El NiÃąos events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?
Ensign Muf
Son of Mulder.

I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!

Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml

By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!

Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.

What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?

Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El NiÃąos events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?

Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.

GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).

UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?

Best regards, suricat.
S
suricat
quote:
What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?


I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).

It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.

There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.

It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.

I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.

""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""
SO
mufcdiver.

I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.

This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).

Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!

That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).
quote:

It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.

Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.
quote:

There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.

To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.

However!
quote:

It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.

I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.

I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).

Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.

But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!

Best regards, suricat.
S
suricat

quote:
UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?

I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?
Ensign Muf
mufcdiver.

quote:

I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success.

Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.
quote:

I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.

Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.
quote:

Have you had better luck?

Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.

Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O3 hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.

There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).

During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (Â―, or ž wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!

As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).

I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?

Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.

OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest

It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?

I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?

I don't think so. I only have the Internet for research and I've already knocked myself out trying to find info. The Google book was pointless and the papers were only part papers, but it does look as though UV causes a similar effect to pressure banding on radiative absorption spectra in the scant info I've seen. Nothing concrete.

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.

Of course it is, this is an old trick. It's how The House of Commons won power over The House of Lords in the UK. The House of Commons just kept making Peers until the Commons sympathisers in The House of Lords held the majority. Average biasing is rooted in politics, following a General Election the first thing the new government does is alter the constituency boundaries to bias future elections in their favour (all under the presumption of greater stability).

I saw this earlier and pondered on the point of dividing the globe into pentagonal sectors (like a football), then grid each pentagon evenly. You would still be faced with grid biasing due to differing populations within the grid. It's a bit like trying to see a digital picture with only a random 40%, or less, of the clamped texels showing in the whole picture.

Do you remember me saying to Steve_M that "I wouldn't believe global ave temps unless we had a 'one kilometre' square grid" and his response "I wish"? Smiler

Even with the '+c offset' differences on the graph between satellites, I still think the satellites are more believable.

Best regards, suricat.
S
mufcdiver.

quote:

Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything

Thanks for your sentiment muf.

Truth be known, I'm glad to get into something at times (even if I do "overdo it" a bit on occasions). This "carer" lark can get you down a bit when it's 24-7 and it also limits your plans for doing other things.


After posting on "biasing" to SoM I decided to have one more go at this, so I googled 'UV biasing' and got this:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-dis...C1292-2009-print.pdf
A discussion communiquÃĐ concerning the satellite pixel (transmitted data content) available for interpretation into surface level data.

It looks like a lost cause for satellites on surface UV. Despite my doubt that the correct sensors are being used to gather the full "solar variation", it seems that information about the atmospheric admittance isn't sent from the satellite either. Thus, ground crews need to splice other data from other satellites that scanned at other times into the mix to get a surface UV insolation level. Plenty of margin for error!

Just after I told SoM that I put my main trust in satellites too! Blush

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder, mufcdiver, et al.

It looks as though our posts are to be incorporated into another site (yet again). I would strongly advise that everyone saves copies of their posts and copies of important responses for reasons of community continuity and cohesion, if nothing else. It seems that the continuity of data, as we've discovered from the change to GaGaJoyJoy site from the C4 Communities site, doesn't comply with data protection laws. Data is lost!

Please make a backup of anything that you consider to be important.

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

Here's an interesting piece by Doug L Hoffman:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...african-dust-new-co2
Concerning dust from the Sahara to the Amazon Basin. It seems that the Sahara Desert fertilises the Amazon Basin with about 40 million tons of minerals in a year. Perhaps it helps heat the atmosphere, but it shades the ocean. That's an awful lot of global dimming!

There are also some useful links, including papers.


Hi Lucibee, nice to hear from you again. wavey

Best regards, suricat.
S
Hi, Lucibee.

quote:

OK, and what's the mechanism for the action of dust on the climate that would explain the recent increases in temperature?

I thought you were conversant with global warming and global cooling Luci. Warming may be caused by an increase in solar insolation, or a reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation and cooling may be caused by a reduction in solar insolation, or an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation (or partly by each of those mentioned before, as a mix).

There are also biasing effects that move energy from one part of the climate system to another. For example, atmospheric dust (aerosol particulates) may well (depending on the type of particulate) absorb, or reflect, more energy in the atmosphere than would be if the particulate wasn't there. The end result - whether the atmosphere absorbs more energy or not - is that Earth's surface doesn't receive as much solar insolation. Solar insolation is biased to alter from its normal surface and ocean warming, to the atmosphere or back into space.

I could go on, as there are other phenomenon that can cause biasing, but I'll not.

Personally (although I'm sure most others would disagree), I think that the recent total solar insolation level is the prime candidate for the recent changes that we've observed, together with a less marked effect by agents introduced from anthropogenic sources.
quote:

Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?

Two main reasons. There seems to be new "open" evidence, and Son of Mulder's pet subject is/was aerosols. Why pose this question? Confused

Best regards, suricat.
S
It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.

I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.

However, if we are as insignificant as all you "sceptics" are making out, then heaven help us all! The climate has been terribly fickle in the past.

I don't doubt that aerosols, cosmic rays, TSI fluctuations (albeit small), dust storms, con trails, etc etc all play their part - but we cannot model them and use them to tell us what may happen 10 or 20 years down the line until we understand them a little better.

And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).
FM
Lucibee.

quote:

It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.

So are you telling me that you would submit your vote to any which person that volunteers to make your vote (whichever way)! I think not (otherwise, you would not be here)! You are here to "have your say" as much as the next person (like myself). I implore dialogue!

As an engineer I'll be the first to admit that the recent conjecture and theory that science "turns up" is often "hard to digest" (at the least), but so many of these - theories, conjectures - are so outside of the real and natural world that they really do need to be taken to task. The science domain is currently so full of pseudo-science that the "real science" just doesn't seem to come through.

Guess why I post.
quote:

I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.

A most important statement Luci! The point is, is our AGW signature enough to make a difference (either way)? What does comfort have to do with this?

But then again, that is a factor of what the AGW debate is about.

Personally, I don't want to pursue this line of debate further. I'm more interested in the science of it.
quote:

And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).

Another reason for my interest in this subject.

BTW. New ice is increasing in the NH (looks like dirty ice melts, but new ice [devoid of particulate contamination] doesn't)!

Best regards, suricat.
S
To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you? My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this. That is why the IPCC was formed.

I am even more swayed by the urgency of this problem since companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon have come on board.

The science domain is not full of pseudo-science. The blogosphere might well be, but that's not the peer-reviewed science domain. I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong places.

Our AGW signature is now accepted as being enough to make the difference. Comfort probably has very little to do with this if you are not intending to stick around for the next 20 years or so. If you are, however, then it might be wise to listen up!


Finally - what is this evidence about new ice in the NH? I think you might misunderstand the significance of the quantities of new ice. An increase in 1-year ice is an indication that older ice is disappearing at a faster rate. If we are only left with 1-year ice, then that means that it is not very long before the north pole will be ice-free in summer.

Is that what you are talking about?
FM
Lucibee.

quote:

To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you?

I thought that my previous posts made this self evident, but for the record. No!
quote:

My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this.

I concur, but when we see controversy to our pertinent and personal understanding, should we not post on this? You never know, we may even be able to learn by this process (myself included). Surely a relative understanding of the science offered is a prerequisite to a decision of who should be given any proxy of your vote.
quote:

That is why the IPCC was formed.

No! That is why the IPCC was formed by a political body. The WMO (an arm of the UN) evoked the existence of the IPCC at the request of the UN to quantify the level of anthropogenic "forcings" to our climate. Thus, the IPCC was set up by a policy issue of the UN to the WMO and is a political body that reports back to the WMO and the UN (bodies that only consider policy)! Why should they have any interest in science other than population and voting potential, besides the usual humanitarian effort?

It's after 2 am and I can't respond to the remainder of your post here (I'm too knackered). Speak to you later.

Best regards, suricat.
S
Lucibee.

Hi again. I think you'll find that commercial companies go with the flow. They look for good PR and profit, so if the groundswell is strong enough for all to increase their end price in unison they'll all receive greater profit. Business has always been good at diversity and innovation.

It's not just the "blogosphere", the last two reviewed papers I read were absolute faff and it all came down to one incorrect assumption.

We humans have left an AGW signature ever since we lit fires for warmth and cooking. We increased our signature when we started farming and increased it again when we started moving our produce over increasing distances. Of course we make a difference, but for now I'll have to leave it to destiny for the answer to my own eventual fate.

This isn't what I implied. Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.

Sorry for the compressed post style. BTW, did your House Martins come back this year?
quote:

No need for dust:

No comparison. It's a lot easier to model a phenomenon than it is to model a climate. I'd be more interested in why the Southern Oscillation (SO) exists than just using its index (SOI) to replicate another phenomenon.

I guess this is just because of a question I've asked myself for as long as I can remember. Why?

Best regards, suricat.
S
suricat:
quote:
Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.

This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV Wink
Ensign Muf
mufcdiver.

quote:

This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV

Oh. Another late post. Guess this is a part of my lifestyle!

Yes and no! Solid particulates are included with aerosols, but are really a different animal altogether. This may sound like a pun on words, but it isn't. A true "aerosol" is a compound that "evaporates" in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. A "particulate" aerosol is a compound that doesn't evaporate in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. Aerosols are reduced to their molecule level in the atmosphere, but solid particulates are not. Personally, I think that these aerosols should be separately categorised, but they're not. C'est la vie!

A word on absorption. Both solar insolation and OLR may, or may not, be absorbed by a single molecule of a true "aerosol" (depending on it's absorption spectrum). However, a "particulate" (a particle consisting of many molecules) represents a "surface albedo" that only reflects, or absorbs, insolation. When it absorbs, it warms the surrounding atmosphere altering the CC relationship for humidity and can generate "IR down-welling". However, when in ice, it just warms the ice more.

Either scenario for particulates also robs the ocean of warmth (global dimming).

Best regards, suricat.
S
Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.

Of course the UN is a political organisation - by its nature, politics is the means by which science (and other areas) is translated into action (policy). Until we have a mechanism whereby scientists can reach consensus and enact it on their own, we are stuck with bodies like governments and the UN, I'm afraid. Would you rather that a body was formed that had no mandate from the human population? At least most governments receive such a mandate from their people. Those that don't rarely seem to pay much attention to the UN!

Politics is a necessary part of the way in which our civilisation operates. On the whole, the UN's aim is to look after the interests of the people on this planet - which is why they are so concerned about global warming.

Businesses, on the other hand, are only interested in their bottom line - in the interest of their shareholders. They are only indirectly linked to the rest of the human population.

The martins are wheeling above my head, but none have nested here this year. Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).
FM
Lucibee.

quote:

Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.

Not interested. Nature, yes. Policy, no. Does this make me a renegade?

All I'm interested in is the way that things work. I am an engineer after all!
quote:

Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).

With all due respect! These are not "Market forces". They form part of the "might is right" scenario for any conceptualisation of the natural progression of a species. This mimics fascism more than democracy.

Nothing to do with policy, or politics. Only survival of the species, thus, its all down to the survivability of conflict for each ethnic species and their adaptability in the face of an altered circumstance (though I'm sure you'll disagree).

Best regards, suricat.
S
quote:
Not interested. Nature, yes. Policy, no. Does this make me a renegade?


No, just out of touch. If you have no interest in how science becomes policy becomes action, then I still don't understand why you are so keen for science to get it right all the time.

Re: market forces

It was a joke! The sparrows were there first and have "sharper teeth". I agree - survival of the fittest (much like the way science works).
FM
Lucibee.

quote:

No, just out of touch. If you have no interest in how science becomes policy becomes action, then I still don't understand why you are so keen for science to get it right all the time.

Fair comment!

Have you ever heard the adage "if the architect gets it wrong then the roof leaks, but if the engineer gets it wrong the roof isn't there" (because the roof has collapsed)?

Well, as an engineer, I'm quite happy to offer free feedback to any architect, or their advisory scientist, to make my life less stressed as an engineer. More than this explanation would include democratic policy and be totally OT (the electorate expect to be protected against any rogue action from a "mad scientist", the machinations of an engineer that may support their divisiveness, or the orchestration of these by an evil architect). For my part, I have morals based on the improvement of a collective conscience and well-being! I don't want the roof to collapse and that's why I insist on a safety margin over and above known (supposedly "known") parameters.

I hope this explains my expectation of "the science". I really am "au fait" with science and the policy of it, but I just don't post on it.
quote:

The sparrows were there first and have "sharper teeth".

Don't believe you! They only get one tooth and that falls out when they get out of the egg. Thus, sparrow's teeth are as rare as hen's teeth (or swallow's teeth for that matter). Big Grin

Best regards, suricat.
S
Lucibee.

quote:

OK - don't believe me - but that's what the martins were screaming: "The teeth! The teeth!"

You don't speak Swallow, do you! When Martins get stressed they fly around screaming "ip weeeeh, ip weeeeh", much like the Blackbird struts around shrieking "tuck tuck tuck tuck tuck tuck tuck". It's just a comms message to relatives of impending local danger because a predator (often human) is present. I hope this falsifies your claim that Martins speak English. Big Grin Hug

However, people also have this reflex action and only to often it just starts out with a scream, or a gasp, but - as within the animal population - the scenario plays itself out within the host through a progression of hormonal responses within the subject. Only ending with the neutralisation of the remnants of the hormones that were originally released by the "fight - flight event" that caused the hormone release and imbalance to begin with.

This brings me back to scientists, engineers and architects. Within a human society, the main architect is the government. I'm just happy that, in a democracy, a government can be removed by scientists, engineers and the general populace every few years. Perhaps a good indicator of the reason for my relief can be seen on More 4, Sep 1 @ 22:00 hrs (perhaps not). Here's some info on the upcoming transmission:
http://entertainment.timesonli...o/article6810998.ece
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=298

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat, I couldn't get into the new site for a while but I'm back now..don't ask me how?

High five SoM! We've not heard from you since page 10, I was beginning to think we'd need to send out a search party. wavey

Have you caught up since then and looked at Doug Hoffman's site (African dust)?
quote:

Anyway This looks a pretty empirical falsification of the July "high" SST's ... another nail in the AGW coffin?

I've been trying to remember where I read that this data has been corrected (it was probably referenced by a blog comment somewhere) and if memory serves me correctly, there was a resignation at around the time of the anomalous incursion (though this is politics). But, yes I've seen this and it's probably related to this comment on CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6887

However, I think it's more a nail in the coffin for trustworthy data processing than AGW. A good reason for an 'open' audit of all such data!

Best regards, suricat.

Edited to improve grammar and readability (good reason for an open audit).
S
Son of Mulder.
Hello stranger. One needs to ask oneself "Is dendrochronology a science yet, or just a study occupation?".
Any 'science' can be 'replicated' by anyone that accurately follows the scientific instructions with the data. Thus, science expects the data to be freely available together with the method etc., but if the 'science' can't be 'replicated' then it just isn't 'science'! Similarly, if you have to make payment for details to enable a 'replication', it isn't 'science', it's 'business'!
As an engineer, this is my expectation from science! It's also the reason that governments sponsor science projects and engineers have to look for sponsorship elsewhere (ever seen "The Dragon's Den"?).
Winge over. Yes, I've been following this on CA and elsewhere, but the 'blogosphere' has made up it's own mind on it. There is so much vehemence out there that I feel is unwarranted. What it needs is for dendrochronology to tighten up it's act if it wants to be recognised as a science. Change it's methodology and archive data for free access!
Science now has "egg on it's face" because it accepted a non-science subject as 'science'. Though, this is only politics and policy implementation. Did you have a science point to make for discussion?
Best regards, suricat.
S
muf.
quote:
I know suricat is loathe to having this kind of material discussed on a science board but here goes
It's down to our thread host Son of Mulder to determine thread content acceptability, not me. However, we've been off thread so many times and we don't seem to have been chastised, or edited, so what the hey! Let's go for it!
quote:
Atte Korhola: political and social playground on CA
That's exactly what it is, but not on CA, it's in the science of the climate debate! It seems that a verbal minority are bullying the majority, but hey, that's what an unrepresented democracy is all about. Anarchy!
 
I can't remember if it was Napoleon, or Charlemagne, that used the adage "The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few.", but they left out the caveat "Beware of the few, as they may become the coercion of the many.". Because climate science is complex it has entered the 'stage' as a science. However, climate science doesn't appear to adhere to the expected caveats of science per se. As an engineer looking in on the subjects of 'climate science' and 'science', 'climate science' is "something else" and 'science' is suffering because of it. Why?
 
Let's take the case of dendrology. There is a section of dendrology that goes by the name of "dendrochronology" and this discipline was brought into being simply to create a chronological sequence (by means of 'tree ring signature') that can identify the age of the subject "log" that happened to be incorporated within an archaeological structure. The objective was to accurately determine the age of the "archaeological structure"! This discipline seems to work well. However, the emergence of a new discipline want's to 'piggyback' on this chronology. "Dendroclimatology" (a word so new that I need to add this to my 'spell checker') wants to extract more than just a chronological signature of 'date' from this data!
 
I don't want to say much more on this subject other than I believe that 'dendroclimatology' needs a full "forensic" backup on the findings of 'dendrochronology' before any climate signature may be realised. I don't personally see this procedure to be in effect!
 
BTW muf, I guess that you are the same "mufcdiver" that I had dialogue with on the demised C4 site. Please verify on my wall.

 
Son of Mulder.
 
By hapstance I stumbled upon this;
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927: Reflections on the correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2
 
Is this a true "falsification", or just a "wishful" presentation?
 
Bottom of the page implies the true falsification.
 
Best regards, suricat.
S
Last edited {1}
Reference:suricat
Let's take the case of dendrology. There is a section of dendrology that goes by the name of "dendrochronology"
This is a well known flaw in the logic of 'global climatology science' that if pushed to its full conclusion should have killed the AGW where it stood!!
But then again, science is such a very loose term in the climate change debate
Ensign Muf

muf.

Guess I owe you a better explanation now that I’ve researched the graph that you linked.

The source of your graph isn’t exactly what I would call a credible source.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Yes, even a .gif image usually reveals its source page on the web, but that’s not to say that the graph isn’t accurate, only that its source may be brought to question.

You ought to realise that internal politics within the climate fraternity places a question mark on temps for this time period. A look at the CA main blog only shows this too well.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411#more-7411

There are certainly questions that need to be answered as to the vertical polarity of some important images (among other things).

You seem to place importance on anthropogenic CO2. Where I’m concerned, the ‘warming’ properties of CO2 are no longer up for debate. Without the radiative atmospheric gasses all atmospheric heat transfer would rely on convection, which means that Earth would be subjected to more advection (winds) as well. Where CO2 absorbs, it also emits in more than one direction. Thus, it moves heat without the need for the dispersion of any atmospheric mass. IOW, it aids the cooling of atmospheric mass.

Perhaps a better outlook would be to understand a bit about palaeoclimatology. Doug L. Hoffman has a blog where he is trying to improve his book sales.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change

That’s his ‘Grand View’, but nearly half way down the page you’ll find a graph describing global temp over the ages. It isn’t a finely dated graph, but it shows what we may well be expected to encounter. There’s also a CO2 graph there (notice that the graphs are all at roughly the same time scale). Doug needs to be ‘credible’ for his book sales, so feel free to browse the rest of the site.

Best regards, suricat.

S

muf.

quote:

Run both sides of the argument up against these tests and see how badly AGW [both 'pro & con'] scans out!?!?
I think that we're being led a merry dance on Global warming and which ever way it pans out 'You' will end up losing!!

I concur absolutely! The UK has been lulled into the acceptance of EU mandates irrespective of the UK electorate’s decision (e.g.. no referendum on the subject of a positive EU agenda). The carbon trading agreements of the EU are grossly detrimental to the UK.

Whereas two decades ago I proffered the UK as a platform between the USA and Europe as a way forward, I now see this as a hindrance with the UN in its quest towards a world governance. All it has achieved is to alienate worldly cultures! We need a spiritually conjoining thread of understanding to overcome this.

quote:

maybe its time to stop picking sides and start fighting oppression!!?!

I hope you don’t really expect me to pick a side in a science debate, but the ‘oppression’ side of things is definitively political.

Vivre la libertÃĐ!

Best regards, suricat.





S

Just look at this muf.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

"When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground."

Surely every individual needs to input their democratic preference as to their acceptance or inacceptance of this EU policy that becomes automatically applicable to all parties (states) within the EU?

Let’s have a UK ‘referendum’!

Please note! This policy is driven by the UN’s mandate for global government. Thus, all EU states should (in theory) vote on EU compliance.

Best regards, suricat.

S
muf.



Enough politicking. Yesterday I read the best explanation of GHE (greenhouse effect) that I’ve ever seen. It was linked to a thread in the Climate Audit forum and can be found here.



Understanding this model of Earth’s atmosphere makes it a lot easier to understand Miskolczi’s theory on the relationship between CO2 and WV (water vapour) in our atmosphere as maintaining a ‘constant optical depth’ (CO2 being heavy and WV being light)! I think Son of Mulder would be interested in this link as well, if we could find him! This relationship shows WV only as a negative feedback to CO2 warming.



Best regards, suricat.



PS. I’m testing site systems with this post, so if it goes wrong you’ll need to excuse me.
S
Reference:suricat
World government!!
I went [honestly!] searching about 18 months ago for the effects of UV on AGW and all I came up with [consistently] was 'global governance'
 
I've got it narrowed down to two groups though the first seems more cohesive and focused:
1: Some kinda leftist/democratic elite(usual suspects)
2: Some kinda right wing/probably working [loosely] with the above, elite(usual antagonists)
It reminded me of a story I read visa-vis 'Roswell' where a general was asked about an alien space ship crashing to which he laughed the question off as 'fanciful'!!
A few days later the same general (wish I could remember his name!!) came back stating that there was no truth in rumours that there had been a  UFO sighting and crash over Roswell even though by then the story was dead and no one had mentioned it!! The next headline was 'Govt. denies UFO crash' and we all know where that story went!
Going back, why would two seemingly opposing groups be working together? I don't think they are! I think they are letting AGW run even though the science is so thin and then they will battle it out in the end-game for final dominance.Ultimately I think that we're being 'played' in the interim as pawns!!
 
*may edit this*
Ensign Muf

muf.

quote:

*may edit this*

I wouldn’t blame you. If I’d made that post it would’ve consisted of the first two lines, only.

The UN is ‘culpable’ simply by virtue of its ‘mandate’ and ‘agenda’! Surely these are the two reasons that hinder the progress of the UN in many spheres.

 

Here’s another falsification of IPCC claims that Himalayan glaciers are calving towards their extinction (yep, its Doug again);

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

This doesn’t mention any UV effect, but I still maintain that UV is a potent mediator of ‘glacial slippage’ for glaciers with little debris content and is also a warming factor for glaciers with a lot of debris content. Though the current low sunspot manifestation is a negative for glacial slippage (etc.) and a positive towards UV’s effect in this area (due to low UV and low ‘glacial slippage’/’ice melt&rsquo.

Best regards, suricat.

S

muf.

God only knows why my link wasn’t made active again. I’m really getting pissed off with this site and all of its malfunctions!!!

I also have a problem with my epilogue! You’ve read this, but it isn’t what I posted! Here it is with a ‘space’ between each character to foil BB scrip, Java, etc (it really buggers the ‘line wrap’ syntax as well):

"T h i s d o e s n ’ t m e n t i o n a n y U V e f f e c t , b u t I s t i l l m a i n t a i n t h a t U V i s a p o t e n t m e d i a t o r o f ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h l i t t l e d e b r i s c o n t e n t a n d i s a l s o a w a r m i n g f a c t o r f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h a l o t o f d e b r i s c o n t e n t . T h o u g h t h e c u r r e n t l o w s u n s p o t m a n i f e s t a t i o n i s a n e g a t i v e f o r g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ( e t c . ) A n d a p o s i t i v e t o w a r d s U V ’ s e f f e c t i n t h i s a r e a ( d u e t o l o w U V a n d l o w ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ / ’ i c e m e l t ’ ) .

 

B e s t r e g a r d s , s u r i c a t .

Well, I expect that to be correct, but what the hell is "&rsquo"????

 

Best regards, suricat.

PS. This was a nightmare scenario for my ‘spell checker’ so I didn’t use the ‘spell check’. Sorry if there were any typos!
More! the site has ignored double spaces! This makes my last post even harder to read.

S
Reference:suricat
"T h i s d o e s n ’ t m e n t i o n a n y U V e f f e c t , b u t I s t i l l m a i n t a i n t h a t U V i s a p o t e n t m e d i a t o r o f ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h l i t t l e d e b r i s c o n t e n t a n d i s a l s o a w a r m i n g f a c t o r f o r g l a c i e r s w i t h a l o t o f d e b r i s c o n t e n t . T h o u g h t h e c u r r e n t l o w s u n s p o t m a n i f e s t a t i o n i s a n e g a t i v e f o r g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ( e t c . ) A n d a p o s i t i v e t o w a r d s U V ’ s e f f e c t i n t h i s a r e a ( d u e t o l o w U V a n d l o w ‘ g l a c i a l s l i p p a g e ’ / ’ i c e m e l t ’ ) .
As You know for C4, I concur, fully
How long before the science catches up?
Ensign Muf

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×